What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
The big downward move in Sterling will have played a role.
Only if they believe it will be sustained into the future period over which their investments pay back. Do you think they bet on currencies?
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
Perhaps it's an attenuated version of 3. The UK may not be a brilliant place to do business but it's still better than the alternatives?
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
The big downward move in Sterling will have played a role.
Would companies invest 1/4 of a billion on the basis of something like that? How permanent can such a shift be and how can companies weigh that against the costs of an unknown future trading relationship?
Genuine question BTW. I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm just a touch puzzled.
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
1. It takes serious barriers for companies with existing investment in a country to move it elsewhere simply because the regulatory and fiscal environment changes. We saw that with Toyota. They are very unhappy with Brexit, but they only have two European manufacturing plants and can't shift production around. It's easier for them to add another £240 million of investment (particularly with a UK government sweetener) than move the whole operation wholesale to the continent along with the local suppliers.
2. The more vulnerable investment is new plant or merger situations. I believe capital investment is down significantly in the UK. Maybe RCS or someone else has the figures? That's a worry if so.
3. Brexit is happening in a world economic upcycle, coming out of the Credit Crunch. It may not be noticeable that the boat is taking in water if it's being carried by the rising tide. It will be when the tide turns.
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
The big downward move in Sterling will have played a role.
Would companies invest 1/4 of a billion on the basis of something like that? How permanent can such a shift be and how can companies weigh that against the costs of an unknown future trading relationship?
Genuine question BTW. I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm just a touch puzzled.
You can't hedge currencies for the time period involved. So I think your skepticism is justified.
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
I suspect a combination of 2 and 4. Query how we will know and there'll be a rush to claim 3 as an indication that we're special.
3. Brexit is happening in an economic upcycle. It may not be noticeable that the boat is taking in water if it's being carried by the rising tide. It will be when the tide turns.
So much for that immediate and sustained downturn we were promised...
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
Rough guess, a mixture of 2, 3 and 5.
2 3 & 4 in my view. Don't believe a company would make a bet on 5 given that Little Miss Cynical has suggested you can't rely on the UK government's private assurances
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
The big downward move in Sterling will have played a role.
Would companies invest 1/4 of a billion on the basis of something like that? How permanent can such a shift be and how can companies weigh that against the costs of an unknown future trading relationship?
Genuine question BTW. I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm just a touch puzzled.
well you know - a billion dollars here...a billion dollars there...
I think the drop in sterling supports a set of far more lenient (ie adverse) set of assumptions for the project NPV. So what might have been a no-go decision at 1.50 is a go at 1.20-25, suitably hedged.
Plus there might be the feeling that yes, the govt is in the mood to entice via one method or another.
Plus of course for certain industries (no idea about cars), the UK remains *the* place to be/manufacture.
3. Brexit is happening in an economic upcycle. It may not be noticeable that the boat is taking in water if it's being carried by the rising tide. It will be when the tide turns.
So much for that immediate and sustained downturn we were promised...
I corrected it below. It's a world economic upcycle. The negative effects of Brexit would show as growth that was less than it would otherwise be.
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
The big downward move in Sterling will have played a role.
Also the real threat to free trade is seen as Donald Trump rather than Brexit.
No-one seriously doubts that free trade between the UK and the rest of Europe will continue - the debate is a political one around the terms on which this happens.
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
The big downward move in Sterling will have played a role.
Would companies invest 1/4 of a billion on the basis of something like that? How permanent can such a shift be and how can companies weigh that against the costs of an unknown future trading relationship?
Genuine question BTW. I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm just a touch puzzled.
You can't hedge currencies for the time period involved. So I think your skepticism is justified.
You can hedge out to some degree and at low interest rates the discount rate is less critical.
Is Labour yet sufficiently unpopular that Andy Burnham is in any danger in Greater Manchester. We've discussed in the past how Corbynism maybe isn't the turn-off in Manchester that it is elsewhere, but Manchester <> Greater Manchester. To my mind, if Jane Brophy (LD) can get into the second round against Andy Burnham, she could win, as more Conservative votes will transfer to her than to him. But the reverse is not necessarily true - i.e. if Sean Anstee gets into the final two against Andy Burnham then Jane Brophy's votes don't necessarily transfer to him. UKIP further complicates matters; Central Manchester isn't particularly strong UKIP territory, but outside the M60 they're a non-negligible presence, and make vote transfers in a two-round system complicated.
No, Labour's vote in Greater Manchester is a lot more solid than average. If their vote is down by, say, 6 points nationally it's probably only down by 3 points in GM.
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
The big downward move in Sterling will have played a role.
Would companies invest 1/4 of a billion on the basis of something like that? How permanent can such a shift be and how can companies weigh that against the costs of an unknown future trading relationship?
Genuine question BTW. I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm just a touch puzzled.
You can't hedge currencies for the time period involved. So I think your skepticism is justified.
You can hedge out to some degree and at low interest rates the discount rate is less critical.
Tell me how you do so over a period of 10 to 20 years.
Since the publication of the ICM poll I wonder whether it is possible to gauge how low the Labour Party could be driven in a GE. It has always seemed likely to me that when JCs back catalogue of interviews on Press tv of Iran and Venezuela state media are exposed to view and he is cross examined in detail by Andrew Neil and others on policy we could be looking at the low 20s. What do others think is a realistic floor given the subsets of VI figures today?
What is surprising to me is this: over the last few months there have been various announcements by companies of investment (in some cases sizeable investment) in the UK. Now I cannot believe that these companies have not looked at the possibility of relocation elsewhere in Europe to take advantage of the Single Market and/or have not been wooed by the governments of other countries.
They knew when Article 50 would be triggered and the timing. They have heard what the PM has said about being out of the Single Market. They've heard what the EU Commission and various European leaders have said about no cherry picking / about the UK being a "third country" / about WTO and customs duties and the rest of it.
They may have been given some private assurances by the UK government but how much reliance can they place on these?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
The big downward move in Sterling will have played a role.
Would companies invest 1/4 of a billion on the basis of something like that? How permanent can such a shift be and how can companies weigh that against the costs of an unknown future trading relationship?
Genuine question BTW. I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm just a touch puzzled.
You can't hedge currencies for the time period involved. So I think your skepticism is justified.
You can hedge out to some degree and at low interest rates the discount rate is less critical.
Tell me how you do so over a period of 10 to 20 years.
No you can't you are right but early years are most important in what might then become a rising interest rate environment.
Edit: and then you can roll the hedge. You have just been given a huge FX boost from sterling.
Shaquille O'Neal Thinks Earth Is Flat Because It Doesn't Go Up And Down When He Drives (he also probably thinks Hannibal was a superior military commander to Julius Caesar)
In kind of funny but also oh-God-why news, former NBA basketball player and scientist-in-training Shaquille O’Neal has claimed Earth is flat. How does he know this? Because it seems flat when he drives from coast to coast. We really hope he was joking.
Shaq made the comments on a show called The Big Podcast (please don't read the comments there), which he co-hosts, back in February that has just been released. Below is a genuine, verbatim quote of what he said:
“I drive from coast to coast, and this shit is flat to me. I’m just saying. I drive from Florida to California all the time, and it’s flat to me. I do not go up and down at a 360-degree angle, and all that stuff about gravity, have you looked outside Atlanta lately and seen all these buildings? You mean to tell me that China is under us? China is under us? It’s not. The world is flat.”
When one of his co-hosts noted we had satellite imagery of Earth pointing out that Earth was, indeed, round, he responded: “Oh satellite imagery? That could be [a] drone or made up.”
And to just to cement his views, he added: “I’m just saying that when I drive from Florida to New York – flat. New York to Seattle – flat. Seattle to LA – flat.”
So what shape does Shaq think Earth is? Why, the future Nobel Prize winner proudly declared “it’s a square”.
Assuming Scotland votes for independence (and at this stage I think it less than 50%, but I said the same about Brexit, so what do I know?) and Northern Ireland is frozen forever as the Transdniester of North West Europe, what do people think the residual country will be called? Candidates:
United Kingdom would be a joke. Foreigners and others would say the two words slowly and laugh. Britain with or without the embarrassing adjective of "Great" is inaccurate in its geography as it refers to the whole island. England and Wales is a bit like Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. There's a reason why serious countries don't have a conjunction. Plain old England is perhaps the reality but the Welsh might be miffed. Blighty has its attractions and can mean whatever you want it to mean, but outsiders wouldn't get the reference. My preferred option, South Britain has a neat parallelism with the imperial designations of West Britain (Ireland) and North Britain (Scotland). The faint overtones of East Germany and North Korea (nuclear armed rogue state, bearing a grudge) can be dismissed.
The Holy Roman Empire was notably neither holy, Roman nor an empire. So the UK will do fine.
Edit: and "Great" in GB means physically bigger than Ireland, or than Brittany, depending whom you believe.
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
1. It takes serious barriers for companies with existing investment in a country to move it elsewhere simply because the regulatory and fiscal environment changes. We saw that with Toyota. They are very unhappy with Brexit, but they only have two European manufacturing plants and can't shift production around. It's easier for them to add another £240 million of investment (particularly with a UK government sweetener) than move the whole operation wholesale to the continent along with the local suppliers.
2. The more vulnerable investment is new plant or merger situations. I believe capital investment is down significantly in the UK. Maybe RCS or someone else has the figures? That's a worry if so.
3. Brexit is happening in a world economic upcycle, coming out of the Credit Crunch. It may not be noticeable that the boat is taking in water if it's being carried by the rising tide. It will be when the tide turns.
Thank you. From everything we've been told, a Hard Brexit would seem to me to be a "serious barrier". But maybe that's wrong.
It is curious. If the damaging effects of not being in the Single Market are not as great as they have been painted, then perhaps the upsides are not so great either - or, rather, other factors may be an equal draw and outweigh all or some of the disadvantages.
I worry that there is perhaps too much of 1 going on. And not nearly enough planning for a disorderly Brexit.
1. It takes serious barriers for companies with existing investment in a country to move it elsewhere simply because the regulatory and fiscal environment changes. We saw that with Toyota. They are very unhappy with Brexit, but they only have two European manufacturing plants and can't shift production around. It's easier for them to add another £240 million of investment (particularly with a UK government sweetener) than move the whole operation wholesale to the continent along with the local suppliers.
2. The more vulnerable investment is new plant or merger situations. I believe capital investment is down significantly in the UK. Maybe RCS or someone else has the figures? That's a worry if so.
3. Brexit is happening in a world economic upcycle, coming out of the Credit Crunch. It may not be noticeable that the boat is taking in water if it's being carried by the rising tide. It will be when the tide turns.
Thank you. From everything we've been told, a Hard Brexit would seem to me to be a "serious barrier". But maybe that's wrong.
It is curious. If the damaging effects of not being in the Single Market are not as great as they have been painted, then perhaps the upsides are not so great either - or, rather, other factors may be an equal draw and outweigh all or some of the disadvantages.
I worry that there is perhaps too much of 1 going on. And not nearly enough planning for a disorderly Brexit.
If you go back to what Toyota said when they committed to continue operations in the UK, if there are any tariffs and costs imposed as a result of Brexit, they will take those out of workers's wage packets and what they pay suppliers, so their own costs stay the same. It is easy to see that if a Toyota or similar were looking to set up a new plant in Europe, they wouldn't choose the UK.
Jeez, been earning my next tax bill all day and no doubt the conversation moved on long ago but 19 points?? By my rough calculation that is a 7.5% swing to the Tories from the last election. Do the maths backbenchers, do the maths. This bed blocker is going to force you to get a real job in the cold hard world. Just unthinkable.
Jeez, been earning my next tax bill all day and no doubt the conversation moved on long ago but 19 points?? By my rough calculation that is a 7.5% swing to the Tories from the last election. Do the maths backbenchers, do the maths. This bed blocker is going to force you to get a real job in the cold hard world. Just unthinkable.
19 points in opposition and I'd be taking the foetal position and rocking back and forth.
Jeez, been earning my next tax bill all day and no doubt the conversation moved on long ago but 19 points?? By my rough calculation that is a 7.5% swing to the Tories from the last election. Do the maths backbenchers, do the maths. This bed blocker is going to force you to get a real job in the cold hard world. Just unthinkable.
If you can cover your tax bill by one day's earnings then either you're very good or you're not very good at all.
Since the publication of the ICM poll I wonder whether it is possible to gauge how low the Labour Party could be driven in a GE. It has always seemed likely to me that when JCs back catalogue of interviews on Press tv of Iran and Venezuela state media are exposed to view and he is cross examined in detail by Andrew Neil and others on policy we could be looking at the low 20s. What do others think is a realistic floor given the subsets of VI figures today?
Since the publication of the ICM poll I wonder whether it is possible to gauge how low the Labour Party could be driven in a GE. It has always seemed likely to me that when JCs back catalogue of interviews on Press tv of Iran and Venezuela state media are exposed to view and he is cross examined in detail by Andrew Neil and others on policy we could be looking at the low 20s. What do others think is a realistic floor given the subsets of VI figures today?
But despite all of this there seems to be no Gadarene rush for the doors to the exit from the UK. So what the hell is going on?
Is it:
1. Everyone is being impossibly naïve about what can be agreed in 2 years and what it will mean?
2. Everyone believes (or has been told) that the UK's opening position is a gambit only and that the likely outcome is something broadly similar to what we have now?
3. The UK is such a good place to do business that companies will stay regardless of hard Brexit and WTO rules and customs checks? Would be nice but seems a tad unlikely.
4. There have been private soundings with EU governments which have reassured these companies.
5. Companies hope that by staying in the UK they will effectively force the UK government to do a deal which favours them because the alternative is likely to be so horrendous. A high risk strategy.
And if not any of the above, what might be the reason or reasons?
1. It takes serious barriers for companies with existing investment in a country to move it elsewhere simply because the regulatory and fiscal environment changes. We saw that with Toyota. They are very unhappy with Brexit, but they only have two European manufacturing plants and can't shift production around. It's easier for them to add another £240 million of investment (particularly with a UK government sweetener) than move the whole operation wholesale to the continent along with the local suppliers.
2. The more vulnerable investment is new plant or merger situations. I believe capital investment is down significantly in the UK. Maybe RCS or someone else has the figures? That's a worry if so.
3. Brexit is happening in a world economic upcycle, coming out of the Credit Crunch. It may not be noticeable that the boat is taking in water if it's being carried by the rising tide. It will be when the tide turns.
Thank you. From everything we've been told, a Hard Brexit would seem to me to be a "serious barrier". But maybe that's wrong.
It is curious. If the damaging effects of not being in the Single Market are not as great as they have been painted, then perhaps the upsides are not so great either - or, rather, other factors may be an equal draw and outweigh all or some of the disadvantages.
I worry that there is perhaps too much of 1 going on. And not nearly enough planning for a disorderly Brexit.
I think you're right to be worried - Taking asset management as an example - of those responding to PWC:
"Just under a third of respondents said their companies were undecided about how to respond to Brexit".
Is Labour yet sufficiently unpopular that Andy Burnham is in any danger in Greater Manchester. We've discussed in the past how Corbynism maybe isn't the turn-off in Manchester that it is elsewhere, but Manchester <> Greater Manchester. To my mind, if Jane Brophy (LD) can get into the second round against Andy Burnham, she could win, as more Conservative votes will transfer to her than to him. But the reverse is not necessarily true - i.e. if Sean Anstee gets into the final two against Andy Burnham then Jane Brophy's votes don't necessarily transfer to him. UKIP further complicates matters; Central Manchester isn't particularly strong UKIP territory, but outside the M60 they're a non-negligible presence, and make vote transfers in a two-round system complicated.
No, Labour's vote in Greater Manchester is a lot more solid than average. If their vote is down by, say, 6 points nationally it's probably only down by 3 points in GM.
Betting value looks to me to be with Con at 10s or slightly above atm. Likely to be an active market once the campaign is in full swing, with a few 'fffft this looks close' moments, so guess there'd at very least be some hedging potential.
Since the publication of the ICM poll I wonder whether it is possible to gauge how low the Labour Party could be driven in a GE. It has always seemed likely to me that when JCs back catalogue of interviews on Press tv of Iran and Venezuela state media are exposed to view and he is cross examined in detail by Andrew Neil and others on policy we could be looking at the low 20s. What do others think is a realistic floor given the subsets of VI figures today?
My charting analysis says 19%
Both Labour and Tories have a copper bottom at about 160 seats that they cannot lose unless hell freezes over.
Since the publication of the ICM poll I wonder whether it is possible to gauge how low the Labour Party could be driven in a GE. It has always seemed likely to me that when JCs back catalogue of interviews on Press tv of Iran and Venezuela state media are exposed to view and he is cross examined in detail by Andrew Neil and others on policy we could be looking at the low 20s. What do others think is a realistic floor given the subsets of VI figures today?
My charting analysis says 19%
Both Labour and Tories have a copper bottom at about 160 seats that they cannot lose unless hell freezes over.
Of course, if Lib Dems had any policies or leaders or started to tell the truth, then perhaps they will win some seats. But, what they can't see is they are fighting the Tories, when it is the Labour areas that are ripe for picking.
Mr. Dixie, I agree. The Lib Dems should be trying to supplant Labour. Corbyn might not survive after (or to) the next election. This could be a singular opportunity for strategic advantage for the yellows.
Since the publication of the ICM poll I wonder whether it is possible to gauge how low the Labour Party could be driven in a GE. It has always seemed likely to me that when JCs back catalogue of interviews on Press tv of Iran and Venezuela state media are exposed to view and he is cross examined in detail by Andrew Neil and others on policy we could be looking at the low 20s. What do others think is a realistic floor given the subsets of VI figures today?
Perhaps it's an attenuated version of 3. The UK may not be a brilliant place to do business but it's still better than the alternatives?
This reminds me of the discussions as to whether the UK is a large or middling economy. The question is "in comparison to what?" If you're the 6th largest economy out of 204 or whatever the number is, then you are a large economy.
If you are one of the top 10 places to do business, then it is not an attenuated version of 3, it is 3.
It ranks the UK as #21 best country to invest in. It is the top large economy, with only small European countries ahead of it - Denmark, Poland, Norway, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary and Portugal. But, the parameters for scoring do not included, as far as I can see, legal protections for property, investments and IP. And the parameters do not emphasize value as an international HQ location, such as access to transport, communications and finance. If you add those in, I think the UK moves ahead of all of the European and most of the Asian countries above it:
Shaquille O'Neal Thinks Earth Is Flat Because It Doesn't Go Up And Down When He Drives (he also probably thinks Hannibal was a superior military commander to Julius Caesar)
In kind of funny but also oh-God-why news, former NBA basketball player and scientist-in-training Shaquille O’Neal has claimed Earth is flat. How does he know this? Because it seems flat when he drives from coast to coast. We really hope he was joking.
Shaq made the comments on a show called The Big Podcast (please don't read the comments there), which he co-hosts, back in February that has just been released. Below is a genuine, verbatim quote of what he said:
“I drive from coast to coast, and this shit is flat to me. I’m just saying. I drive from Florida to California all the time, and it’s flat to me. I do not go up and down at a 360-degree angle, and all that stuff about gravity, have you looked outside Atlanta lately and seen all these buildings? You mean to tell me that China is under us? China is under us? It’s not. The world is flat.”
When one of his co-hosts noted we had satellite imagery of Earth pointing out that Earth was, indeed, round, he responded: “Oh satellite imagery? That could be [a] drone or made up.”
And to just to cement his views, he added: “I’m just saying that when I drive from Florida to New York – flat. New York to Seattle – flat. Seattle to LA – flat.”
So what shape does Shaq think Earth is? Why, the future Nobel Prize winner proudly declared “it’s a square”.
Shaq is first and foremost an entertainer these days. I doubt one should take anything he says on TV at face value. Part of his schtick is to play dumb.
Since the publication of the ICM poll I wonder whether it is possible to gauge how low the Labour Party could be driven in a GE. It has always seemed likely to me that when JCs back catalogue of interviews on Press tv of Iran and Venezuela state media are exposed to view and he is cross examined in detail by Andrew Neil and others on policy we could be looking at the low 20s. What do others think is a realistic floor given the subsets of VI figures today?
My charting analysis says 19%
Both Labour and Tories have a copper bottom at about 160 seats that they cannot lose unless hell freezes over.
Of course, if Lib Dems had any policies or leaders or started to tell the truth, then perhaps they will win some seats. But, what they can't see is they are fighting the Tories, when it is the Labour areas that are ripe for picking.
If the Labour floor is 19%, 16% of that is down to people who will vote for the party - any party - who will keep the Tories out. If the Lib Dems can persuade people that that is them, there is a big chunk of votes for the taking. But in most traditional Labour seats in the north and in South Wales, that is a very difficult argument to make. Nothing to do with policies - just the historic Lib Dem weakness in those areas.
Is Labour yet sufficiently unpopular that Andy Burnham is in any danger in Greater Manchester. We've discussed in the past how Corbynism maybe isn't the turn-off in Manchester that it is elsewhere, but Manchester <> Greater Manchester. To my mind, if Jane Brophy (LD) can get into the second round against Andy Burnham, she could win, as more Conservative votes will transfer to her than to him. But the reverse is not necessarily true - i.e. if Sean Anstee gets into the final two against Andy Burnham then Jane Brophy's votes don't necessarily transfer to him. UKIP further complicates matters; Central Manchester isn't particularly strong UKIP territory, but outside the M60 they're a non-negligible presence, and make vote transfers in a two-round system complicated.
Rough numbers for GtMan at GE2015 give:
CON 30 LAB 41 LD 9 UKIP 16 OTH 4
So, falls to Tories with 5.5% swing, and today's polls indicate UNS of around 6% from Labour since GE2015.
I think there are some straws in favour of Labour: swing resilient Labour heartlands, local government election, Burnham name recognition: to keep Labour the favourite, but you wouldn't like to guarantee it, especially with the Kipper inclined transfers in the almost certain Lab/Con second round.
CCHQ seem to focusing their guns on West Midlands and Scotland as the low hanging fruit. Nothing going in Manchester, unless the mood swings.
Since the publication of the ICM poll I wonder whether it is possible to gauge how low the Labour Party could be driven in a GE. It has always seemed likely to me that when JCs back catalogue of interviews on Press tv of Iran and Venezuela state media are exposed to view and he is cross examined in detail by Andrew Neil and others on policy we could be looking at the low 20s. What do others think is a realistic floor given the subsets of VI figures today?
My charting analysis says 19%
Both Labour and Tories have a copper bottom at about 160 seats that they cannot lose unless hell freezes over.
Comments
Genuine question BTW. I'm not seeking to make a point. I'm just a touch puzzled.
2. The more vulnerable investment is new plant or merger situations. I believe capital investment is down significantly in the UK. Maybe RCS or someone else has the figures? That's a worry if so.
3. Brexit is happening in a world economic upcycle, coming out of the Credit Crunch. It may not be noticeable that the boat is taking in water if it's being carried by the rising tide. It will be when the tide turns.
Mr. T, maybe. There was serious conjecture Greece would be thrown out.
I agree Germany won't leave. They benefit immensely as a major exporter with an artificially weak currency.
I think the drop in sterling supports a set of far more lenient (ie adverse) set of assumptions for the project NPV. So what might have been a no-go decision at 1.50 is a go at 1.20-25, suitably hedged.
Plus there might be the feeling that yes, the govt is in the mood to entice via one method or another.
Plus of course for certain industries (no idea about cars), the UK remains *the* place to be/manufacture.
No-one seriously doubts that free trade between the UK and the rest of Europe will continue - the debate is a political one around the terms on which this happens.
Edit: and then you can roll the hedge. You have just been given a huge FX boost from sterling.
In kind of funny but also oh-God-why news, former NBA basketball player and scientist-in-training Shaquille O’Neal has claimed Earth is flat. How does he know this? Because it seems flat when he drives from coast to coast. We really hope he was joking.
Shaq made the comments on a show called The Big Podcast (please don't read the comments there), which he co-hosts, back in February that has just been released. Below is a genuine, verbatim quote of what he said:
“I drive from coast to coast, and this shit is flat to me. I’m just saying. I drive from Florida to California all the time, and it’s flat to me. I do not go up and down at a 360-degree angle, and all that stuff about gravity, have you looked outside Atlanta lately and seen all these buildings? You mean to tell me that China is under us? China is under us? It’s not. The world is flat.”
When one of his co-hosts noted we had satellite imagery of Earth pointing out that Earth was, indeed, round, he responded: “Oh satellite imagery? That could be [a] drone or made up.”
And to just to cement his views, he added: “I’m just saying that when I drive from Florida to New York – flat. New York to Seattle – flat. Seattle to LA – flat.”
So what shape does Shaq think Earth is? Why, the future Nobel Prize winner proudly declared “it’s a square”.
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/shaquille-oneal-thinks-earth-is-flat-because-it-doesnt-go-up-and-down-when-he-drives/
Thank you. From everything we've been told, a Hard Brexit would seem to me to be a "serious barrier". But maybe that's wrong.
It is curious. If the damaging effects of not being in the Single Market are not as great as they have been painted, then perhaps the upsides are not so great either - or, rather, other factors may be an equal draw and outweigh all or some of the disadvantages.
I worry that there is perhaps too much of 1 going on. And not nearly enough planning for a disorderly Brexit.
"Just under a third of respondents said their companies were undecided about how to respond to Brexit".
https://www.ft.com/content/ba97728a-b00e-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1
My sense is that there'll be a number of other firms whose heads remain so buried in the sand no-one will have even responded.
If you are one of the top 10 places to do business, then it is not an attenuated version of 3, it is 3.
USNews ranks the UK as #3 in Best Countries, based on scoring on 65 parameters:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list
It ranks the UK as #21 best country to invest in. It is the top large economy, with only small European countries ahead of it - Denmark, Poland, Norway, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary and Portugal. But, the parameters for scoring do not included, as far as I can see, legal protections for property, investments and IP. And the parameters do not emphasize value as an international HQ location, such as access to transport, communications and finance. If you add those in, I think the UK moves ahead of all of the European and most of the Asian countries above it:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/invest-in-full-list
In short, it is undeniable that the UK is a great place to do business from, especially if you are a multinational.
NEW THREAD