As I said earlier, the person who came up with this forecast is probably chortling into his coffee watching people argue about it. There's no way that it is anything other than a "throw a bunch of numbers together that people (including George) won't understand or bother to look at".
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
If the Remain side had put 10% of the effort into prepraing positive reasons to stay in instead of inventing tales to scare small children they'd be in a much better position.
You see Richard we can all do this , it adds nothing to cumulative wisdom of PB and simply results in bad humoured posting, what do you say we give it a rest for bit ?
I was just making an observation about the politics. I don't think that relentless messenger-trashing is a good way for the Leave side to address doubts amongst potentially persuadable but as yet not fully persuaded voters.
But trashing by Remain is just fine. Really you are getting beyond parody.
@JohnO - I'm sorry if what I write on here makes you angry. However, I will continue to write and say what I think.
If you think someone oversteps the line, including me which occasionally does happen, I'd suggest gently and respectfully pointing this out might have more effect than venting at them.
If we can't maintain this sort of dialogue then that will disappoint me but I will just cease to engage with you.
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
There is some truth in that. However the fact of the referendum is the prime mover of the uncertainty. I'm not a fan!!
I have found your two long posts interesting.
Thank you.
I was somewhat reluctant to post it. It is simply one small company and some LEAVE Refuseniks will rubbish it and it's fair to point out as @Charles has that other companies will have different experiences.
Notwithstanding that I believe at times our discussions benefit when we note the realities of political decisions as they intrude into the real lives of real people in the here and now.
You see Richard we can all do this , it adds nothing to cumulative wisdom of PB and simply results in bad humoured posting, what do you say we give it a rest for bit ?
"This ludicrous election to replace Lord Avebury should be boycotted
This farcical election has seven candidates standing for one place – and an electorate of just three voters. Even the most notorious “pocket borough” of Old Sarum had a comparatively large 11 voters."
You see Richard we can all do this , it adds nothing to cumulative wisdom of PB and simply results in bad humoured posting, what do you say we give it a rest for bit ?
This.
?
I was associating myself emphatically with his comment. I might have said "QFT" in the same place
JackW. We have a UK Govt talking up all the terrible things that will happen to business activity if we leave. Therefore some foreign EU companies take notice of our Govt. Sadly inevitable. Whatever happened to the concept of not talking down UK plc?
There is some truth in that. However the fact of the referendum is the prime mover of the uncertainty. I'm not a fan!!
I have found your two long posts interesting.
Thank you.
I was somewhat reluctant to post it. It is simply one small company and some LEAVE Refuseniks will rubbish it and it's fair to point out as @Charles has that other companies will have different experiences.
Notwithstanding that I believe at times our discussions benefit when we note the realities of political decisions as they intrude into the real lives of real people in the here and now.
I think it tends to be overlooked that uncertainty to some is opportunity for others. We had 10 years of "certainty" under Brown and Blair and it didn't really do this nation any good economically, we ended up with a bloated state and record levels of corporate and private debt. Some uncertainty isn't necessarily bad.
On the sovereignty issue yes, I don't trust the Labour Party. I don't trust them with my tax dollars, or with the economy. And I don't trust them to understand the nuances of bad vs ok EU initiatives.
If we are out of the EU and in EEA then Lab I suspect will be keen to sign in every EU law into EEA law (and we will of course be the elephant in the EEA). So my hedge against this is to stay in, so we get some influence over the regs before we sign them up.
(I really, really don't think that being out-out is a good idea.)
Sorry Topping but this reveals a shocking lack of understanding of how the EEA works.
No matter how big the UK is they cannot change what laws are applied under the EFTA agreement that controls non EU membership of the EEA. Not only do all decisions by the EFTA Council have to be unanimous (none of that stupid QMV stuff) but the terms of the EEA Agreement are defined by treaty. A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement. So basically it is the Single Market rules.
A Labour run UK could unilaterally adopt some EU social policy if it wanted to but it would not be binding on any future Government in the way current EU rules are. It would be like any other Westminster derived law and could be changed or repealed by future UK Governments without in any way affecting UK membership of EFTA and the EEA.
Great so you advocate joining an organisation wherein the UK govt is unable to achieve its aim if it conflicts with the other members' interests.
That's why I want to vote leave. To shatter this club.
As pointed out the other day. Light the blue touchpaper and run away.
Don't care about the fallout, just want to see the BANG!
Oh Scott you've pointed out so many things it gets difficult to remember them all.
How about a few well reasoned punchy messages about what we will gain by staying in longer ?
Really ? I haven't seen any of his posts for the last day or so, can't think why. I am absolute no worse off information wise, and my blood pressure is greatly improved.
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
If the Remain side had put 10% of the effort into prepraing positive reasons to stay in instead of inventing tales to scare small children they'd be in a much better position.
You see Richard we can all do this , it adds nothing to cumulative wisdom of PB and simply results in bad humoured posting, what do you say we give it a rest for bit ?
I was just making an observation about the politics. I don't think that relentless messenger-trashing is a good way for the Leave side to address doubts amongst potentially persuadable but as yet not fully persuaded voters. (And, conversely, I do think that 'scare' stories are a good way for the Remain side to persuade such voters to stay with the status quo).
Very touching of you to be so concerned, but actally it's the only sensible tactic, and it appears to be working judging from how exercised everyone from Osborne down seems to be about it.
Had a quick dip into the Treasury document. Treasury spin - example the cost of EU budget to UK is "little over" 1p in the £ of Govt revenues. Understates this and the next few years by circa 50% on the net figure and headline number halved from 2p (run rate rounded) down to 1p rounded. Facts = It uses a net figure of just £7.1bn derived from past 5 year average and not the current run rate of over £10bn. Probably closer to 2p when conventional rounding up used and the current run rate used. IMHO AFAIK.
I was somewhat reluctant to post it. It is simply one small company and some LEAVE Refuseniks will rubbish it and it's fair to point out as @Charles has that other companies will have different experiences.
Notwithstanding that I believe at times our discussions benefit when we note the realities of political decisions as they intrude into the real lives of real people in the here and now.
More generally, I think it is true that we are now moving from the concept of Brexit being an interesting but somewhat abstract option, towards voters beginning to think about the practical and economic consequences. I'd expect that to cause a shift towards the Remain side.
JackW's 'friends' should consider writing to Jeremy Corbyn for a PMQ's shout out.
"JackW's friends" are more concerned with the future of the company than the dribblings of Jezza.
They should get in with him now, because based on the current performance of Cameron and Co, Corbyn's in with a shout in 2020. It doesn't take too many disgruntled Tories sitting on their hands when it comes to voting, for a Conservative loss to become a reality.
Anyone complacent enough to pooh pooh the idea, is a fool.
Pooh pooh.
This is a fool(proof) post.
Jezza has as much chance of becoming PM as OGH has of growing a full head of hair over lunchtime today or for that matter any day leading to the 2020 election.
On the sovereignty issue yes, I don't trust the Labour Party. I don't trust them with my tax dollars, or with the economy. And I don't trust them to understand the nuances of bad vs ok EU initiatives.
If we are out of the EU and in EEA then Lab I suspect will be keen to sign in every EU law into EEA law (and we will of course be the elephant in the EEA). So my hedge against this is to stay in, so we get some influence over the regs before we sign them up.
(I really, really don't think that being out-out is a good idea.)
Sorry Topping but this reveals a shocking lack of understanding of how the EEA works.
No matter how big the UK is they cannot change what laws are applied under the EFTA agreement that controls non EU membership of the EEA. Not only do all decisions by the EFTA Council have to be unanimous (none of that stupid QMV stuff) but the terms of the EEA Agreement are defined by treaty. A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement. So basically it is the Single Market rules.
A Labour run UK could unilaterally adopt some EU social policy if it wanted to but it would not be binding on any future Government in the way current EU rules are. It would be like any other Westminster derived law and could be changed or repealed by future UK Governments without in any way affecting UK membership of EFTA and the EEA.
Great so you advocate joining an organisation wherein the UK govt is unable to achieve its aim if it conflicts with the other members' interests.
Deja vu all over again.
I think you are wilfully trying to misunderstand him.
The whole point is it's very hard for anyone to change anything, it's a free trade area designed to resist the idiotic boondoggles of various governments and stay with the basics.
Simon and Jill - well that must have gone well - I particularly liked the idea of calling a late Friday meeting with some people travelling long distances. What is the consensus - has Simon and Jill just killed their company?
Jezza has as much chance of becoming PM as OGH has of growing a full head of hair over lunchtime today or for that matter any day leading to the 2020 election.
It ain't happening.
Still complacent, if he gets replaced, or falls under a bus, or even dies of old age (we can't all live to 124) the Tories on current showing are toast.
On the sovereignty issue yes, I don't trust the Labour Party. I don't trust them with my tax dollars, or with the economy. And I don't trust them to understand the nuances of bad vs ok EU initiatives.
If we are out of the EU and in EEA then Lab I suspect will be keen to sign in every EU law into EEA law (and we will of course be the elephant in the EEA). So my hedge against this is to stay in, so we get some influence over the regs before we sign them up.
(I really, really don't think that being out-out is a good idea.)
Sorry Topping but this reveals a shocking lack of understanding of how the EEA works.
No matter how big the UK is they cannot change what laws are applied under the EFTA agreement that controls non EU membership of the EEA. Not only do all decisions by the EFTA Council have to be unanimous (none of that stupid QMV stuff) but the terms of the EEA Agreement are defined by treaty. A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement. So basically it is the Single Market rules.
A Labour run UK could unilaterally adopt some EU social policy if it wanted to but it would not be binding on any future Government in the way current EU rules are. It would be like any other Westminster derived law and could be changed or repealed by future UK Governments without in any way affecting UK membership of EFTA and the EEA.
Great so you advocate joining an organisation wherein the UK govt is unable to achieve its aim if it conflicts with the other members' interests.
Deja vu all over again.
Nope. Read what I wrote rather than what you want to see. There is nothing to stop the UK Government unilaterally adopting whatever legislation it likes from the EU. But that is not binding on the other EFTA members nor is it binding on any future UK Government. It is called democratic accountability and I am surprised you are so opposed to it.
The EFTA/EEA agreement is a trade agreement. It is what most people wanted when we originally joined the EEC. It is not a political union like the EU. As such - and considering it is massively cheaper and gives us back our seats on many international bodies - it is a far better option than continued EU membership.
Please do everyone a favour and try to learn something about the subject before opining on it again.
@JohnO - I'm sorry if what I write on here makes you angry. However, I will continue to write and say what I think.
If you think someone oversteps the line, including me which occasionally does happen, I'd suggest gently and respectfully pointing this out might have more effect than venting at them.
If we can't maintain this sort of dialogue then that will disappoint me but I will just cease to engage with you.
@TOPPING - does it not worry you that the EU could (and probably will) end up as one huge superstate formed of 27 "states" who all use the Euro and us on the side? This is the natural destination of the EU, to integrate into a single country. The failed EU constitution was supposed to lay the groundwork for it but got rejected and now the EU is just going to go at a slower pace so as not to arouse suspicion from sceptical countries like France and the UK. That's what worries me. If the EU completely abandoned the idea of "ever closer union" I wouldn't mind staying in, but it never will, the drive to become a single country is central to the EU, the "opt-out" that Dave got is going to mean nothing when all the other 27 nations have merged into a single superstate.
Isn't it better to extricate ourselves from this inevitability by Leaving when the cost of doing so is still relatively low? There is also a huge cost (not just fiscal) of staying in, it is something that a lot of people on the Remain side want to ignore, but given that the EU is heading down the superstate road, a road we wouldn't travel, isn't the cost to our sovereignty, culture and economy going to be much higher if we stay in the EU? Even if our opt-out to ever closer union is, against all odds, respected by the other nations, we have no way of forcing the others not to integrate and not to adhere to ever closer union. That surely will put us into a weaker and weaker position as the 440m residents of the single country vastly outnumber the 70m residents of the other one in the EU? How would a European Parliament looks with EU-wide parties dominating the seats, or having a single EU government run from Brussels with national Parliaments relegated to federal or state level functions? Would our Conservative party be worth anything in this, given that we have opted out of the ever closer union?
This one foot in and one foot out of the door approach is fraught with danger and I have said before that we are either better off out or better of in. I would put the option of going all in, adopting the Euro and becoming a full member of the EU as a better idea than the "status-quo" because the status-quo is a doomed position in the long term and by the time we realise we will face the choice of joining the superstate at an extremely high cost or leaving the EU at an even higher one.
Anyway, I'm beginning to ramble, just some food for thought...
Sorry Topping but this reveals a shocking lack of understanding of how the EEA works.
No matter how big the UK is they cannot change what laws are applied under the EFTA agreement that controls non EU membership of the EEA. Not only do all decisions by the EFTA Council have to be unanimous (none of that stupid QMV stuff) but the terms of the EEA Agreement are defined by treaty. A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement. So basically it is the Single Market rules.
A Labour run UK could unilaterally adopt some EU social policy if it wanted to but it would not be binding on any future Government in the way current EU rules are. It would be like any other Westminster derived law and could be changed or repealed by future UK Governments without in any way affecting UK membership of EFTA and the EEA.
Great so you advocate joining an organisation wherein the UK govt is unable to achieve its aim if it conflicts with the other members' interests.
Deja vu all over again.
Nope. Read what I wrote rather than what you want to see. There is nothing to stop the UK Government unilaterally adopting whatever legislation it likes from the EU. But that is not binding on the other EFTA members nor is it binding on any future UK Government. It is called democratic accountability and I am surprised you are so opposed to it.
The EFTA/EEA agreement is a trade agreement. It is what most people wanted when we originally joined the EEC. It is not a political union like the EU. As such - and considering it is massively cheaper and gives us back our seats on many international bodies - it is a far better option than continued EU membership.
Please do everyone a favour and try to learn something about the subject before opining on it again.
Huh? You said "A Labour run UK could not unilaterally force the rest of EFTA to apply any laws which are not already allowed by the EEA agreement." Or a Tory one for that matter.
The EU passes laws which are then incorporated or not into the EEA agreement. You are saying that for those laws to be incorporated into the EEA agreement an absolute majority is required. So if they support our national interest and Liechtenstein doesn't approve, they don't get included in the EEA agreement, but we could adopt them anyway?
Given the evidence that we are 'shackled by Europe' seems thin on the ground, the view that we will suddenly discover entrepreneurial and innovative zeal having left the EU seems charmingly optimistic. Especially if one of our major entrepreneurial and innovative sectors - financial services runs the risk of being shut out of the EU.....
Yawn.
A huge part of financial services - insurance, for instance - finds the EU a massive hindrance and not a significant business opportunity. Robert Hiscox, for instance, told me the other day that his business has been much more success in the US - despite the complexities and state-by-state regulation - than in the EU where they have been dragging their feet over the single market.
And that is not even taking into account the fact that the EU tried to close down his Latin American business because it didn't conform to what the Spanish wanted.
A large part of the financial services industry would also be very unhappy if passporting were to end. The curtailment of free movement of capital to and from the EU, combined with an end to passporting, as part of a Brexit negotiation looks like an obvious and pretty pain-free EU quid pro quo for restrictions to the free movement of people.
Free movement of capital is protected by Treaty.
If, as I suspect, we end up in the EEA then passporting is protected. If not then it's a hassle and a cost, but not a disaster.
Yes, if you exclude the forecasts you don't like, you get a different answer.
I haven't been excluding - only the ones I don't have access to.
I've been looking at Rathbones, Sarasin, Investec plus some stuff from hedge funds and my own investment managers. Sellside research likes trading and volatility. "It will all be more or less fine" doesn't create any trading opportunities. Buyside is putting money to back their bets.
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
Have you reviewed the research I linked you to? Or Casino's link to the plan?
If the Leave side had spent 10% of the effort they put into trashing the messengers into preparing a coherent Brexit plan, they'd be in a much better position.
How many BrExit plans do you want people to post before you read one ?
Charles sent you a 200 pager.
There is a long one on VLTC's website
And I know this will come as a shock, but not one on this forum is "Leave" so we are unlikely to be coming up with a plan!
What exactly is the problem here? The 6% of GDP lost divided amongst number of UK households. At worst it's being a bit naughty with inflation.
Because companies and other entities also contribute to GDP.
Of course, you can make the theoretical argument that companies are only a representation of individuals, but no one family is going to see their income cut by £4,300 (or even rise by £4,300 less in the next 14 years)
Predictably the Treasury forecast has been rubbished by the Leavers.
I think the problem Leave have is that there is a regular flow of negatives for the consequences of Leave - Treasury forecast today, IMF, Obama, Catholic Church, BOE, G20, and on it goes.
Individually none of these matter and there are grounds to attack the credibility of any of them. However it is a constant drip it all in the same direction. There is practically nothing serious coming in the opposite direction so the diehard Leavers by and large just make fatuous jokes and hurl abuse at anyone that voices a criticism of Brexit.
That's fine for the diehards but all this is aimed at DKs and the waverers.
This is precisely why I and others advocated taking an EEA/EFTA approach to leaving the EU - getting out first, then looking at the longer term solution via the proper liberalisation of global trade governance.
You might not get all you want in the first few years, but the handcuffs come off immediately politically so that you can then go out into the world with your own voice and start to shape the position you actually want to achieve.
I wouldn't be distraught at the EFTA/EEA route to be honest but there is no guarantee that that is what we are going to get. I've seen half a dozen possible outcomes emanating from Leavers. I am not prepared to vote Leave without a cast iron idea of what comes next.
The dilemma for EFTA/EEA backers like yourself is surely that it then becomes clear that there will be no change to the immigration situation which certainly seems to be a key motivator for a number of Leave voters.
"This ludicrous election to replace Lord Avebury should be boycotted
This farcical election has seven candidates standing for one place – and an electorate of just three voters. Even the most notorious “pocket borough” of Old Sarum had a comparatively large 11 voters."
I too hope it is boycotted, not because I mind particularly - it's an absurd fudge of a situation, btu that' s Britain for you - but because it would be hilarious if out of three voters eligible, at least one spoils the ballot or refuses to cast.
Predictably the Treasury forecast has been rubbished by the Leavers.
I think the problem Leave have is that there is a regular flow of negatives for the consequences of Leave - Treasury forecast today, IMF, Obama, Catholic Church, BOE, G20, and on it goes.
Individually none of these matter and there are grounds to attack the credibility of any of them. However it is a constant drip it all in the same direction. There is practically nothing serious coming in the opposite direction so the diehard Leavers by and large just make fatuous jokes and hurl abuse at anyone that voices a criticism of Brexit.
That's fine for the diehards but all this is aimed at DKs and the waverers.
This is precisely why I and others advocated taking an EEA/EFTA approach to leaving the EU - getting out first, then looking at the longer term solution via the proper liberalisation of global trade governance.
You might not get all you want in the first few years, but the handcuffs come off immediately politically so that you can then go out into the world with your own voice and start to shape the position you actually want to achieve.
I wouldn't be distraught at the EFTA/EEA route to be honest but there is no guarantee that that is what we are going to get. I've seen half a dozen possible outcomes emanating from Leavers. I am not prepared to vote Leave without a cast iron idea of what comes next.
The dilemma for EFTA/EEA backers like yourself is surely that it then becomes clear that there will be no change to the immigration situation which certainly seems to be a key motivator for a number of Leave voters.
We can be pretty sure, due to the way the government has approached discussion of it. Firstly they outright lied - Cameron in Iceland last year, prompting Vote Leave to also trash it (over immigration/Single market rules). They played into the government's hands.
Beyond that though, there has been a reluctance to address it on an economic level. Despite that, we are told that Dr Richard North's Flexcit book is being used as a discussion primer for the Civil Service, because they are scared of FOI and therefore won't create their own document.
We also have had some positive noises from both Norway and Iceland on the EFTA side, as it will expand EFTA to 4th largest world trade block behind US/China/EU, and give them significant leverage.
Simon and Jill - well that must have gone well - I particularly liked the idea of calling a late Friday meeting with some people travelling long distances. What is the consensus - has Simon and Jill just killed their company?
I think he'll put the family Mess Webley to his forehead and take the honourable way out, but she'll end up in a dosshouse giving blowjobs for smack.
I take it Osborne has now formally given up on ever being PM, insulting half your party tends to lose you votes.
He's got nothing to lose - hence this morning's political suicide bombing.
Hancock was a poor shield last time, everything he said was ripped to shreds. But Russ is equally appalling. How these two got to be ministers is an indictment of the political system in the UK.
Comments
If you think someone oversteps the line, including me which occasionally does happen, I'd suggest gently and respectfully pointing this out might have more effect than venting at them.
If we can't maintain this sort of dialogue then that will disappoint me but I will just cease to engage with you.
Don't care about the fallout, just want to see the BANG!
I was somewhat reluctant to post it. It is simply one small company and some LEAVE Refuseniks will rubbish it and it's fair to point out as @Charles has that other companies will have different experiences.
Notwithstanding that I believe at times our discussions benefit when we note the realities of political decisions as they intrude into the real lives of real people in the here and now.
"This ludicrous election to replace Lord Avebury should be boycotted
This farcical election has seven candidates standing for one place – and an electorate of just three voters. Even the most notorious “pocket borough” of Old Sarum had a comparatively large 11 voters."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/18/election-lord-avebury-house-of-lords-reform
How about a few well reasoned punchy messages about what we will gain by staying in longer ?
Deja vu all over again.
new thread
Understates this and the next few years by circa 50% on the net figure and headline number halved from 2p (run rate rounded) down to 1p rounded.
Facts = It uses a net figure of just £7.1bn derived from past 5 year average and not the current run rate of over £10bn. Probably closer to 2p when conventional rounding up used and the current run rate used. IMHO AFAIK.
It's 'sovereignty' vs 'jobs and money'.
This is a fool(proof) post.
Jezza has as much chance of becoming PM as OGH has of growing a full head of hair over lunchtime today or for that matter any day leading to the 2020 election.
It ain't happening.
The whole point is it's very hard for anyone to change anything, it's a free trade area designed to resist the idiotic boondoggles of various governments and stay with the basics.
Was Matthew Handcock AWOL? He's normally Osborne's human shield.
The EFTA/EEA agreement is a trade agreement. It is what most people wanted when we originally joined the EEC. It is not a political union like the EU. As such - and considering it is massively cheaper and gives us back our seats on many international bodies - it is a far better option than continued EU membership.
Please do everyone a favour and try to learn something about the subject before opining on it again.
Isn't it better to extricate ourselves from this inevitability by Leaving when the cost of doing so is still relatively low? There is also a huge cost (not just fiscal) of staying in, it is something that a lot of people on the Remain side want to ignore, but given that the EU is heading down the superstate road, a road we wouldn't travel, isn't the cost to our sovereignty, culture and economy going to be much higher if we stay in the EU? Even if our opt-out to ever closer union is, against all odds, respected by the other nations, we have no way of forcing the others not to integrate and not to adhere to ever closer union. That surely will put us into a weaker and weaker position as the 440m residents of the single country vastly outnumber the 70m residents of the other one in the EU? How would a European Parliament looks with EU-wide parties dominating the seats, or having a single EU government run from Brussels with national Parliaments relegated to federal or state level functions? Would our Conservative party be worth anything in this, given that we have opted out of the ever closer union?
This one foot in and one foot out of the door approach is fraught with danger and I have said before that we are either better off out or better of in. I would put the option of going all in, adopting the Euro and becoming a full member of the EU as a better idea than the "status-quo" because the status-quo is a doomed position in the long term and by the time we realise we will face the choice of joining the superstate at an extremely high cost or leaving the EU at an even higher one.
Anyway, I'm beginning to ramble, just some food for thought...
The EU passes laws which are then incorporated or not into the EEA agreement. You are saying that for those laws to be incorporated into the EEA agreement an absolute majority is required. So if they support our national interest and Liechtenstein doesn't approve, they don't get included in the EEA agreement, but we could adopt them anyway?
No wonder you are so angry.
I will repost this over to the new thread also.
If, as I suspect, we end up in the EEA then passporting is protected. If not then it's a hassle and a cost, but not a disaster.
I've been looking at Rathbones, Sarasin, Investec plus some stuff from hedge funds and my own investment managers. Sellside research likes trading and volatility. "It will all be more or less fine" doesn't create any trading opportunities. Buyside is putting money to back their bets.
Or do you ignore the stuff you don't like?
Of course, you can make the theoretical argument that companies are only a representation of individuals, but no one family is going to see their income cut by £4,300 (or even rise by £4,300 less in the next 14 years)
The dilemma for EFTA/EEA backers like yourself is surely that it then becomes clear that there will be no change to the immigration situation which certainly seems to be a key motivator for a number of Leave voters.
Beyond that though, there has been a reluctance to address it on an economic level. Despite that, we are told that Dr Richard North's Flexcit book is being used as a discussion primer for the Civil Service, because they are scared of FOI and therefore won't create their own document.
We also have had some positive noises from both Norway and Iceland on the EFTA side, as it will expand EFTA to 4th largest world trade block behind US/China/EU, and give them significant leverage.