UKC

Can anyone offer their ideas as to what will actually happen if Europe breaks up and all the countries go their separate ways, and the EU and the Euro as a currency is abandoned?

(This must be a real possibility should a Brexit actually occur)

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Here is a very informative and well researched documentary.

youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ&

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


I'm getting reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally* confused now. If I tick "Yes" on the referendum form, am I voting "Yes, stay in" or "Yes, get out"?? I need to know.

*This is the longest "really" ever on UKC.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

This is the future post Brexit.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/boris-johnson-loo...

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The referendum doesn't allow for a 'Yes' vote. Perhaps you intend to put an X in both boxes?

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

A hilarious 'dislike' for my last post.

So now we have: 'Do you want to remain in, or leave, the EU?'

'Yes.'

'Do you think answering "Yes" to the above question is daft?'

'No' (or rather, 'I don't like you for suggesting that it's daft.')

In reply to The Ice Doctor:



I give it 20 years before we return to European barbarism

In reply to RomTheBear:

Make that 5,

Starting in the Balkans

In reply to RomTheBear:


Ho come on now.

You make it sound as though Europe is the most warring continent on the planet.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I'm voting Yenso
Mrs Num Num is voting Nyoes

In reply to birdie num num:


Another docu to answer all these yes no questions

youtube.com/watch?v=1hpHySiUAfg&

In reply to The Lemming:



Might want to revise your history - we Europeans loved a good war until about 60 years ago.

In reply to ianstevens:


Some of us did it again 25 years ago.

1945 to 1991 maybe the longest period of no hot war in Europe since the Romans packed it in, though some Hungarians might dispute that.

In reply to ianstevens:



Might want to check if the Lemming's tongue was firmly in his cheek there!

In reply to ianstevens:


Its times like this I wish the site would introduce a sarcasm button to go with the like button.

In reply to interdit:

Doh!

Should have read further down the topic before my smart arse reply.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I think the UK parliamentary system and EU are both in desperate need of reform, for a whole list of reasons.

Brexit, followed by the break-up of other member states, might be the best way to accomplish such reform in Europe. The price we would have to pay in the UK would be having to endure the Johnson/Gove/IDS etc 'nightmare ticket' for a few years, until such time as the European Union might regroup as a more enlightened facilitator of trading partnerships, perhaps retaining a common currency, but hopefully without the burden of daft directives and crippling regulations - and with the increased accountability of elected Euro MPs.

I don't think Europe can be reformed from within, in its current incarnation. Like an old crumbling building, it has to be destroyed and then rebuilt to a more modern spec on stronger foundations.

In reply to The Lemming:


https://www.brexitthemovie.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwyum6BRDQ-9jU4PSVxf8BEiQAu1AHq...

In reply to AllanMac:


<The price we would have to pay in the UK would be having to endure the Johnson/Gove/IDS etc 'nightmare ticket' for a few years..

Possibly, but if in those years JoGo actually do ( as is being suggested) unpick all the workers rights etc. would, the UK electorate perhaps think that voting back Labour to to government , to protect those rights would be a good idea?

In reply to Jim C:

Do you really believe that? Dramatic music, cuts between talking heads. More propaganda.

In reply to aln:


I have no idea, that is why am asking .

There are many experts on here who seem to know ,for sure, that everything will unravel if we dare try and leave .
They must also know the answer to this one.

In reply to RomTheBear:


OH dear. You cannot judge us all by your own standards Rom.

In reply to Big Ger:


That is one of the most horrible sleights I've seen on UKC, suggesting that your opponent holds the very views that he despises. Be careful that your own words don't come back to bite you.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It's Stroppy's usual form, the kind of thing that got his last guise banned.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



Rom posited, unless I'm very much mistaken, that without our EU overlords kind guiding governance the whole of Europe would descend into "barbarism'.

i.e. without the EU, Europe would descend into a primitive culture, and experience societal collapse.

So he insultes several nations, calling them barbarians, yet you criticise me for saying that he's judging people buy his own standards.

Bit of lack of perspective there.

Oh and btw, if you think "you cannot judge us all by your own standards" is one of the most horrible sleights you've seen on UKC, I think you're rather selective in whose insults you choose to see.

In reply to The Lemming:


Yes, but one of the best tools to use in sarcasm is a straight face.. Any attempt to say "I'm being sarcastic" ruins it......

In reply to AllanMac:


Seems a hefty price to pay and an awfully big risk on the off-chance that major positive reform happens.

In reply to Trevers:

The likelihood is the a break up happens anyway, primarily under the pressure on the Euro and immigration. Brussels and the euro-elite will push for accelerated integration to address these issues (particularly the Euro economic crisis) and this will stimulate the rise of the nationalist parties. In the unlikely event of the elite not pushing for integration the crisis will play to the nationalist anyway.

The question really is whether the UK is better "in" when the crisis occurs and thus gets forced to pay for it, or "out" and hope to be part of the recreated EU.

In reply to Big Ger:


Says the man hiding on the other side of the world

In reply to wbo:


Hiding? God they get even worse, how am I "hiding"?

In reply to Postmanpat:



I agree with you that the EU is looking flaky, but... there's no certainty that a break up is going to happen, but it WILL be made more likely by the UK pulling out. In which case, I don't see that the recreated EU would be so happy to welcome us back to the fold given that we had triggered or strongly contributed to the crisis in the first place.

But these are all projections, and the question on the ballot is not whether the UK is "In or out when the crisis occurs". Given by what we know, which is that the UK would still have to negotiate a trade deal involving some payment in and free movement, I know which way I'm voting and have known for a long time.

In reply to Postmanpat:

On a recent TV programme, I think it might have been Peston on Sunday Yanis Varoufakis, the ex greek finance minister felt it would be better if Britain remained in the eu as it would give some sort of stability and common sense thinking when the eu collapses.

In reply to Big Ger:


Who are these EU overlords?
There is an association of 28 states, set up by treaty, that a state may voluntarily join, with the approval of the members. That association has rules established by interstate treaty. Those states appoint officials to further the aims of the association and apply the rules.
If a state decides it does not like the rules it may leave. No overlords involved.


A fairer summation might be, without that association states would act in their immediate interest with less concern for their neighbours. This in turn in extreme cases (perhaps a sudden influx of enormous numbers of refugees into the poorest areas of Europe) may lead to conflict. That conflict may or may not have interstate violence but it would be likely to wreck the economy and hence our way of life.


To be fair he, and I, insulted, if it was an insult which I don't think it is, more a sad reflection, the whole continent not some of it.




Totally agree!

In reply to Trevers:


Given that I think the crisis will occur within a decade and probably within five years then, to me, the referendum is effectively about "in or out when the crisis occurs".
There is, of course, the albeit remote possibility that a brexit combined with pressure from reformist or exit parties in other countries leads to some genuine rethinking and reform of the project.

In reply to Big Ger:


No you just made that up.

In reply to icnoble:


I agree with his analysis of the EU's failings but not with his optimism that the UK can do much to reform it. All the evidence of the past decade, of Cameron's failed negotiations, and of the five presidents report etc are that the elite sees crisis as a catalyst for further integration and central control.

In reply to Big Ger:

Dou you -really- think he meant that, rather than, say, that he thinks widespread war would likely return to Europe in the next couple of decades, without the stabilising and moderating interdependence created by the EU?

In reply to Postmanpat:


It begs the question why woudl anybody want to accentuate/accelerate the crisis, if any at all is coming.
The eurozone is finally growing steadily after much effort and sacrifices, unemployment is decreasing. Brexit will jeopardise all of that is a snap.
Compound another brexit triggered European recession and the boost it will give to the European far right, and we'll be back at it killing each others in no time.

In reply to Postmanpat:

But given that you are not actually able to predict the future, and given that you are not likely to be significantly better in your educated guesses that the various leaders of the European project, when your suggested crisis becomes more imminent and a major reform of the structure of the EU is instigated in response, wouldn't you rather that the UK was part of that reform process?

In reply to Postmanpat:

The five presidents report is an old fashioned conception of a supranational Europe, that exists only in the wet dream of EU federalists. And it i just that, a report.

In the meantime the EU is moving in the opposite direction, our direction. Allowing more opt outs and flexibility, and compromises.

Whether it's the the eurozone crisis, or the migration crisis, they have been dealt with primarily by the governments of the member states through the EU Council , with the commission and parliament playing distinctly subordinate roles.
Far from attempting to subvert the nation states the EU has been enabling and rescuing them.

In reply to Wicamoi:

>
I don't think that it's cut and dried either way but, given that I don't believe the UK has ever been in favour of the sort of integration and centralisation that has taken place, and yet it has been unable to do much about it except obtain specific opt outs, I don't see why we should expect that inabilty to achieve real reform to change.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Duh !


That is historically wrong. We largely contributed to shape the EU. That ability will be gone if we leave.

In reply to Postmanpat:

My own small (and perhaps not very relevant) experience of EU law-making and implementation is that views and arguments are sought, heard and judged on their merits, although sometimes obvious general merits may be blocked by stubborn self-interest. Who knows how reform would be forged in a time of crisis? My guess is that the UK voice might well be at its strongest then, and the voices of stubborn self-interest more likely to be subdued by an appreciation of the wider picture. Especially given the UK's record on the big decisions - the Euro and Schengen -which look increasingly wise.

Now, you could argue, is the time for the UK finally to pull its weight in the EU and contribute positively, creatively, to a common European future - yes, with the possibility of failure - but with cynical voices like yours being heard. Isn't the likely alternative to be sitting on the sidelines as a new member of EFTA (or some non-EU version of the EEA at any rate) with all that entails (following the Regulations and Directives, free movement of peoples, significant financial contribution to the EU) perhaps very much dependent of the decisions being made in Brussels, but utterly without any sovereignty there?

In reply to The Lemming:

Me too - sometimes its really hard to pick! A lot to be said for tone of delivery in English that gets lost in the written form.

In reply to Wicamoi:

>
Well, are you arguing that we haven't tried to make or case in the past? It seems to me our views are largely at odds with the Euroestablishment consensus and so get largely sidelined. Are we not viewed as the "awkward squad"?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm simply arguing that there is a good case not to desert a ship that hasn't sunk yet. Let's have a go at fixing the leak first. To stretch the metaphor to the absurd, has the leave campaign convinced you that it has the life-boat situation in hand?

'Leave' is a campaign of wishful projections and, reminiscent of the Independence campaign of 2014, there seems to be pathetically little substance behind the simple ambition to leave the union - by way of practical solutions to deal with the inevitable major upheaval. We seem to be in an era of childish demagogues.

In reply to Wicamoi:
>
I just don't why anybody thinks our leak fixing ideas will be implemented, especially since we outside the core. It's just as big a leap of faith as thinking that all will be milk and honey post brexit.


The function of a global elite that makes promises it cannot keep and ignores the concerns of the masses.

In reply to Postmanpat:

A Brit and his Europeans mates decide to build a big ship to cope with the big bad ocean out there.
He does very well on the ship, and enriches himself considerably.
One day the ship goes through a rough wave, and inevitably some cracks and leaks appear. They are all in the process of being fixed.

But the angry Brit on board decides to take the shoddy life raft and desert the ship, blindly hoping that the current will wash him away to a land of milk and honey quickly enough. Not only he is a fool who is going to drown, but he endangers everybody else on the ship who needed his help.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Imagine how the masses will feel when they realise their anger has been exploited by a bunch of losers and liars. How wait, no, they won't, they'll just find another scapegoat.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you are being far too defeatist here - of course the UK would be listened to - just as France and Germany will be listened to. If we have sufficiently charismatic and committed representatives in the discussions our voice will be strong. If we have lack-lustre representation our voice will be weak. If we have no representatives....?

And Rom is right - it's also a question of solidarity. We don't just have individual interests to fight for within the EU, we have collective interests to pursue and, laugh as you of course will, a beacon of enlightenment to keep burning.

I am well aware that I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. But you have a natural cynical right-leaning starting point, while I have a natural left-leaning optimistic starting point. It's as well to have both prejudices acknowledging the other respectfully - the only way to escape tedious and destructive yah-boo entrenchment and, hopefully, to feel our way toward mature decisions.

In reply to RomTheBear:


because he could see from the outset the ship was the wrong design and would never last the journey, so he took a seat near the life raft and wore a life jacket under his coat the whole time. Many years later at a reunion, they chatted about those that perished, because they boarded the boat blindly or in haste, with no eye to the future, having placed all faith in the ships designers, despite most having never built a ship before.

In reply to Wicamoi:


I think it is defeatist to stick with the EU, warts and all. The EU won't listen, we've just seen how much it listens after Cameron went around all EU nations in his big negotiation, any changes were minimal to say the least. The UK got a few possible opts, but the core EU didn't change a bit and won't change. France listened too, you are joking, they have bigger worries as they are drifting the way the UK went in the 70s with their current wave of strikes and general dislike of the EU, their next national election could be very telling.

In reply to summo:


Except that's not what Brexit is doing. It's jumping ship instead of trying to make it more sturdy for the long haul. All we will able to do is hope they are kind enough to throw us a lifeline at some point.

In reply to summo:



We got massive opt out with Schengen and the euro.
I am not sure why you would want the eu core countries to change if they don't want to.

In reply to RomTheBear:

you mean like they helped Ireland, Cyprus, Greece.... ever so generous? Should all EU schools recite some EU anthem each morning, to show their gratitude to the mighty benevolent EU. I think you've been a little EU brain washed. I think it is the UK that is already throwing life lines to many European countries, in many different forms.

In reply to RomTheBear:

because CAP is a shambles, the Euro disadvantages more than half the Euro nations, it's just kept alive for the benefit Northern Europes euro nations. Because given even a modest recession without reform the Euro will be gone anyway... Better for the UK to broaden it's horizons now, rather than when it has no choice.

In reply to summo:


What have you been smoking? Nobody is claiming the EU or the Euro to be perfect but it's just survived the deepest recession in modern history and I don't see a queue of Eurozone counties lined up at the exit. If you want to be seen as having a credible position you at least need to talk sense.

In reply to The Lemming:


The point is, surely, that Europe was probably the most warring continent on the planet up until the 1950's when wise statesmen decided to do something about it. That's pretty much how the EU was born.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

I refer the honourable gentleman to the statement I made at 22-59 Friday.

In reply to summo:


It always surprises me that people quote Ireland as one of the "poor" countries of Europe. 2015 IMF GDP per head figures put Ireland 11th in the world and UK 25th, roughly 25% worse off.

Martin

In reply to rogerwebb:


The unelected commissars of the EU

In reply to RomTheBear:


Your posts are still extant, people can make their own minds up if I "made it up" or quoted you fully.

In reply to skog:


I think that's exactly what he meant. That Rom thinks the only thing that holds Europe back from "barbarism" (his word,) is the controlling influence of the EU, shows the disdain he holds the member nations of the EU in.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:



Or even if it Brexit does not occur, it is still a real , possibility that the EU will break up anyway. (

We will just be in our lifeboat, and yes the EU going down, might take our Brexit lifeboat with it, but I would rather take my chances on being in the Brexit lifeboat, ( desperately rowing to get as much distance as I can from the sinking EU ) , rather than actually being 'Onboard' the EU when does sink, in 10 , 20 years time. ( if it takes that long)

In reply to john arran:


survived the recession, many countries haven't recovered yet.

In reply to Martin Hore:


GDP per capita is just an average, it does little to show the wealth at all levels.

Beside if you read my post, I never said Ireland or the others were 'poor', I said they were treated badly by the EU, as many still are.

In reply to Big Ger:


Who are they?

Perhaps you mean the officials to whom our elected governments delegate authority, who have to follow the policies set down by those elected governments?

In reply to summo:


Your guy sounds antisocial, selfish and criminally negligent to me. I think the UK is better than that. Your man should patiently explain to the captain what he thinks the problem is. If the captain is too stubborn to listen he should explain to anyone else who will listen to him. Even if he fails to persuade anyone he should at least wear his life-jacket in public - it's honest and it might catch on.

But why do you think no-one is listening to your man? Is it because the crew of faceless eurocrats is so prejudiced against him that they will happily drown rather than acknowledge he has a point, or is it because they have listened to him but have judged him to be a swivel-eyed, hectoring lunatic who knows nothing whatsoever about boats except that he'd rather be captain of a small one than have to abide by some collective decisions on a big one?

But hey, why bother getting on with life trying to make things better when you could sit there looking comically fat by the life-boat all day, muttering about how hard done by you are and fantasising about a future when most of your shipmates have drowned and you are the one looking clever at last?

In reply to Wicamoi:

He did, last year in the big negotiation, he got offered very little in return. The desire among many for a UK exit from the EU is hardly a secret, nor has it been for a decade or more.


because he is one voice on a big boat. Because many have their own agendas, others are so tied into the Euro they can't afford for it fail, others gain more from the EU financially, at the expense of countries like the UK.


Surely that is exactly what exiting is, getting on and trying to make things better. Rather than staying in the EU and accepting fate, where ever the EU will take us. Every time the EU grows, the UK's voice and influence will weaken, our future in the EU will never get better or bigger than it currently is.

In reply to summo:

Sorry old chap - I was developing the detail in your metaphor as a cheeky insight into the psychological state of Brexiters, not as a metaphor for Cameron or actual Brexit.

I acknowledge that it is perfectly reasonable to regard Brexit as getting on with life and making things better - it's just the Brexiter in your metaphor was cutting such a sorry figure I couldn't help laughing at him.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Really?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

In reply to Big Ger:



Yes

The direction of travel is set by the council of ministers, that is the policy of the EU and hence the interests of the EU.

The commission then acts in the interests of the EU.

Rather like the UK cabinet which acts in the interests of the UK. Cabinet ministers in the UK are expected to act in the interests of the UK rather than their individual constituencies.

The European Commission exercises delegated power from the member governments. Given that the member governments make collective decisions it would be a bit odd if the commission then tried to remake those decisions.

In reply to Big Ger:

No, it's actually pretty clear you just made that up.

In reply to Big Ger:

So they are bound by their oath to the serve the interest of the EU as a whole. Why on earth is this a bad thing ?

In reply to Big Ger:


Seems perfectly reasonable to me, someone has to do it. What's your problem, that they're appointed or that the organisation isn't headless?
jk

In reply to rogerwebb:




>
I think you and Ger are talking at cross purposes. Your earlier post could be read to mean the Commissioners are expected to act in the interests of their countries of origin ("elected governments"), so Ger was pointing out that this is not the case. Actually, it seems that you meant "elected governments" as a collective, ie. the EU.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

If one considers the first world war, the second world war and the cold war as a continuum, then to perceive what normal peace time conditions looked like in Europe prior to the EU, you need to perhaps look at the 19th Century. According to A.J.P.Taylors history of that period the major powers were desperate for some overarching authority to stop the endless 5 way cold, sometimes hot, war between them all, as deliberately setup by the treaty of Vienna to avoid a repeat of the Napoleonic wars. I appreciate history doesn't repeat only echo's, but the echo I fear is war at some point. We have had an unprecedented spell of peace in this country, at some point that will change, I think the break up of the EU would bring that moment closer.

In reply to Big Ger:


If you think that's bad, I heard there was a funny little country on an archipelago off the West of the European mainland, where the democratically elected, politically appointed, hereditary, and religiously appointed representatives - who make up the government - are required to swear an oath to be loyal to the head of one particular family and their offspring!

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/oath-of-allegiance/

In reply to skog:

Is that all Snp members swearing allegiance to the sturgeon clan, where they aren't allowed to free think, or criticise the party line.

In reply to summo:

So let me follow your reasoning : every time the EU grows, it weakens our influence, therefore we should leave, and lose all influence, and give up our veto to any future EU Enlargement.

Yep, that's what I thought, utterly absurd.

We live in strange times, whether it's here or in the US with Trump. the more absurd and insane the argument, the more it works.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Sorry, I forgot in the eu individual opinion isn't allowed, I will sleep tonight and see if I agree with you tomorrow. A bit like the eu election or referendum strategy, vote until you get answer you like. We might see more of that in 2 weeks.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Fair point thanks

In reply to summo:

Gosh, that sounds awful. I condemn any party which requires such of their membership, without reserve.

In reply to skog:


Well , listen to them on question time etc.. programmed robots, spouting the party line. Not an ounce of ad libing, just rehearsed mantra.

In reply to summo:


Which party was this? sounds like them all.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Nailed it, thanks for clarifying.

In reply to Big Ger:
Have to find something else to argue about now...

In reply to rogerwebb:


Ok, what do you fancy?

In reply to Big Ger:


How about you both consider this - a common argument for leaving the EU is to limit immigration. Assuming most EU migrants are economic then cooling down the UK economy should decrease migration.

How much would we need to increase corporation tax in order to decrease economic growth enough to limit migration to a similar degree to leaving the EU, and which would be worse for the UK - increasing taxation or leaving the EU?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Cooling down the UK economy would punish British people unnecessarily.

In reply to Big Ger:

So will leaving the EU. Those migrants are an economic good. We'd miss them.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think not. Unless you think that

a) All immigrants have skills we need
b) There is an unlimited supply of jobs and work
c) The impact on the UK infrastructure is manageable

But there again, "immigration" is a nebulous term, are you talking about immigration from inside or outside the EU, or both?

What sort of numbers are you talking about? 100,000 pa? 300,000 pa? 1,000,000 pa?

What screening are you talking about? Those with skills and work offers? Those with skills? Anybody who fancies it?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


the tories or labour are hardly united, libdems don't exist in the media anymore and all the others (green,ukip....) only have 1 MP anyway, so which party in UK might it be that are programmed robots, little mini sturgeons and salmonds?

In reply to Big Ger:


Certainly eu immigrants are more skilled on average that non eu immigrants and natives, and the U.K. does best in Europe to attract the more skilled of them.


There are certainly more jobs offers than people on benefits trying to get one.


Immigrants use infrastructure as well as they build it.




It seems to me it's up to those who want to place limits on EU migration to answer those questions.

In reply to Big Ger:


Tusk says Brexit could destroy Western political civilisation. I'm not sure what he means? Is he referring to the first class seat on the EU gravy train as "western political civilisation"? Has it persuaded any fence sitters?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36515680

In reply to RomTheBear:


So we should look to attract skilled migrants.


That's an apples and oranges situation isn't it? There could be 100,000 consultant brains surgeon jobs waiting to be filled, but only 10 brain surgeons on the dole.


That makes no sense.


So you would argue for unlimited migration then.

In reply to Big Ger:

You don't have to agree with those three statements to think that migrants are an economic good. You only have to agree with the one that has been demonstrated - that migrants make a greater net contribution to public funds than not-migrants (see e.g. http://www.cream-migration.org ).

The point about a finite number of jobs misunderstands how the economy grows - I.e. as it grows (aided by those migrants) more jobs are created. Google "lump of labour fallacy" to find many rebuttals of this idea.

Finally, as to services, your statement signore the fact that services are paid for from public funds. Funding for all of these infrastructure services has been cut by the government in recent years, which they have justified by a lack of cash to pay for those services. If migrants make a bet greater contribution than others, then reducing those people will result in less money per head. Does it not then stand to reason that schools, hospitals, roads etc would be worse funded (and therefore under more pressure) rather than better?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Rubbish, there are all sorts of reasons why this may the case which would be economically negative either for the economy as a whole or for other segments of society. You simply can't reduce the issue to one criterion like this.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, and I've addressed the key ones in the two points in my comment that you haven't replied to...?

Is there something other than infrastructure, jobs or contribution to public finances? I'm all ears if so.

In reply to andyfallsoff:



Well it could obviously be a substitution effect: that migrants take better jobs so pay more taxes but other people therefore have worse jobs and pay less taxes. Or it could be (and much research suggests that it probably is) that at the lower end of the jobs market migrants drive down wages and therefore the overall tax take.

Anyway, bankers and footballers make a greater net contribution to public funds than non bankers and footballers. Lets have more bankers and footballers

In reply to Postmanpat:

But this just goes back to the lump of labour point - you think that there are 'X' number of jobs (or 'good' jobs, at least) and, if we took migrants away, we would somehow just bump those who remain up the pay ladder with no losses.

Also, if your concern is that migrants take good jobs, why do you say above that we need to attract skilled migrants? Isn't that the problem, based on your logic?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

>
Not really, it doesn't assume that there is a finite number of jobs or even of good jobs, just that migrants may be taking a disproportionate number of the latter thus accounting for the phenomenon you described. It's perfectly possible that without immigration the existing population would have done better jobs and paid more into the tax pot.
We cannot know.


Specific skills yes. I do question whether the indigenous population is really so hopeless that it cannot produce decent plumbers.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Mysteriously this seems to be a real problem. If you go to the museum in Rottweil, Germany, you can admire a 1800 year old bronze mixer tap that was installed in a farm building in what must have been the absolute arse end of the Roman empire. North of the Channel, though.....

CB

In reply to RomTheBear:


Any evidence, are you talking about the average of a population of 1/2billion, or only the immigrants who come to the UK?


Supporting data?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You are known for being financially astute. How do you think an Exit vote will affect Londons dominance as a financial centre. You joke about the tax take from bankers, but its a serious issue.some of the major financial institutions a re already planning to shift ( not all, I hasten to add) their euro dealing teams to paris or frankfurt. good riddance some people say, but deep down we know its not good for the Uk's tax take.

Interested to hear your thoughts on it, as I know you have said you are undecided

In reply to andyfallsoff:


That's just not true, a migrant can come to UK from Romania and pick veg in Norfolk. They might live in a caravan and have food provided on site for them. They will save all their remaining money and send it home. But, they are poorly paid, so they don't pay much(if any) tax and some will have their wages topped up by tax credits? yes, they pick produce which the farmer than sells to a big chain supermarket for a very low price. The farmer gets an EU subsidy for this, helping them balance their books. The UK consumer who buys the cheap produce, many of whom are out of work, are given money from the taxpayer to live on state benefits. There is simply nothing efficient or logical in this current state of affairs, unless you own a big business, making large profits.

The benefit stems from the fact cheap labour from poorer parts of the EU allow UK companies to make larger profits and sell their goods for less, but the cost is they displace UK labour. Some will argue it helps them be more competitive, but when you take in the wider costs of tax credits, CAP, unemployment benefits... I feel to see the wisdom or benefit to average joe.

In reply to neilh:


EU regs. say that Banks or financial institutions should be located within the EU to deal/trade. Many Swiss banks currently solve this by having a HQ or satellite office in the EU... London, Dublin, Frankfurt etc... They employ the bare minimum staff there, just to deal with the EU corporate legislation issues, ie. more legal staff than financial. From my grasp it doesn't have to be located there for tax purposes, only an office.

In reply to summo:

If that was the typical EU migrant, though, then the statement that has been proven to be correct (that EU migrants on average make a net positive contribution to the economy) wouldn't be true - which goes back to my statement, that the key question relates to being a net contributor rather than beneficiary.

I'm not saying that every single person who comes to this country is beneficial, any more than every single person born here is. The point is whether the net benefit is sufficient. If it is, then because we effectively make money from those people being here, we can afford to pay for the services, infrastructure etc that people keep saying is coming under pressure from immigration - or, to put it another way, we'd be less able to pay for the same services per capita if that group wasn't here. This seems to me to be particularly important given the rising cost of dealing with what would otherwise be an ageing population - a cost which can only be spread between those who are currently in work.

I also note that you / Postmanpat seem to think the immigration problem is a different one - to you, it's migrant workers on the fringes of society being paid very little (and you make repeated references to state funded benefits); to him, it's better paid workers and then a worry about whether this crowds out existing UK workers. The average EU migrant can't be both - which is it?

In reply to summo:

That last point isn't correct - If you have an office located somewhere to do business that will in nearly all cases be a permanent establishment for tax purposes, and those profits would be subject to tax in that jurisdiction.

In reply to summo:

Whilst I understand what you are saying, it is not what the big financial institutions are stating. They are saying they will have to move the people.granted it may not be everybody.One of the american banks talked about 1,000 people moving just for their own activities...that is alot.Granted there will be non- doms in there, but that is a healthy chunk of lost tax to the UK.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


That would apply if the whole company was one institution, most split into different holdings etc... Credit Suisse or UBS, both dealing internationally, but have either split HQs, or a HQ in Zurich, in UBS case shares are traded on NYSE.
Julius Bar, share trades on SIX, business globally but mainly Europe & Asia, HQ in Zurich.

In reply to neilh:


Different to what I've heard, it was either of R4s money programme, or the bottom line a swiss banker was on there, she said that many companies have their external Swiss HQ employing a few dozen people.

That doesn't mean a company won't do some restructuring at a opportune moment and blame it on Brexit. ie.. London wages are expensive, we are moving 1000 jobs to X, you can keep your job if you come with us back into EU land. Only 500 decide to go and the 500 who didn't were never replaced. 500 job losses blamed on Brexit, when the company might have fancied thinning things anyway. It's impossible to know where the truth is.

In reply to summo:

If they split into different companies, then each company would usually be tax resident where incorporated (and the idea would be that you have a different subsidiary entity in each jurisdiction where that entity has a taxable presence).

Alternatively, you have "branches" of one main organisation (also very common) in which case that branch is usually taxed on the profits it makes in the jurisdiction in which the branch is located.

The location of the exchange where the shares in a company may be traded isn't relevant to the question of where that company is subject to tax.

In reply to summo:

It isn't impossible to know where the truth is unless you assume that every time someone says something is because of Brexit they are lying. Why is it that so many people supporting Leave feel they can ignore express statements of anyone who disagrees with their point of view?

In reply to summo:
I will wait for PP's comments.

I listened to the same R4 programme. the swiss person also said that on business deals with the Eu the Swiss were always at the back of the queue and Swiss priorities were not Eu priorities. In otherwords - you are better in than out if you want a voice.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I think the truth lies in the middle, I don't ignore peoples statements, but I don't blanket believe everything anyone in the In or Out says. People generally believe what they want to hear, they read what confirms their opinion, rarely anything that challenges it.

It is impossible to the know the truth on Brexit, both sides can't predict the future (to the best of my knowledge).

In reply to neilh:

they also didn't say they wanted to join the EU, their banks seemed happy with the arrangement? She didn't say they were better in or out, only content with the arrangement?

In reply to neilh:

My hunch is that the risks to the City, although they exist, are exaggerated. So, some negative impact but not a disaster.

No other European financial centre has anything like the depth and breadth of expertise or the advantages of language that London has so it will simply not be feasible for institutions to up sticks and leave. For global businesses it will still make sense to use London as a hub.
It's true that losing passporting rights to sell services within the UK will increase costs by necessitating the establishment of local offices but the underlying expertise can still be based in London. It's quite possible that some deal can be struck on passporting rights anyway.
I also worry that by voting to stay in we will weaken the UK bargaining position in resisting attempts by weaken the City by the French and Germans so we that the City may lose out to NY, S'pore et as a global centre.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Interesting. My wife works for one of the global insurance brokers. there is alot of concern about the insurance income that flows into London and the way that insurance contracts are written providing coverage within EU rules and domicility.The view is that these type of contracts will have to go to Frankfurt or Paris.

I am with you, I think there will be some loss but not catastrophic. I still however view say a few thousand highly paid jobs moving as not a good thing for tax take.It just means the rest of us left behind will have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall.....or as is more likely there will be some more marginal cuts.

Its not an easy one.

In reply to Postmanpat:

London hasn't always had that depth of experience though, and most people accept that the reason it does now is because it is open and accessible - e.g. for EU migrants. Where we seem to differ is that you think that this position can't change as a result of Brexit. You also don't offer evidence to support your position that "it will still make sense to use London as a hub". Why would it? A large number of the businesses in London use it as a hub because it offers access to the rest of the EU. The arrangements you describe (keeping everything in London bar small token offices elsewhere) may be feasible in some cases, or they may not - but what makes you think that this will be the route these entities take, rather than simply moving elsewhere?

In response to your last point, I fail to see what bargaining position we have from outside the EU. We will be a much smaller entity than the EU as a whole, and in terms of access to their markets why would they cut a deal which gives us a better position rather than try to move that business into the mainland EU?

In reply to neilh:


I expect that there are specific businesses like you describe that will move away, but on the other hand without UK guidance the EU is likely to introduce even more obstructive regulation which might actually leave the UK as more attractive for many activities.

In reply to Postmanpat:

As an outer friend of mine said, we can become even bigger at money laundering. Not sure that this is where we want to be.......

In reply to andyfallsoff:

London has been the leading European financial centre since about 1800. As I said, it has a depth and breadth of expertise and infrastructure which would take decades for any European centre to build. Whether they are corporate financiers, IT experts, lawyers, or settlement clerks, they don't grow on trees.


Well, a lot of EU companies like the services that the City offers. It's a difficult one. The natural reaction of of the EU elite maybe to punish the UK for leaving in order to discourage the others. However, if the the EU do this as part of trying to tighten their grip and integrate further (their natural instinct) they will aggravate the already very strong antagonism to the EU across Europe (61% disapproval in France!). So may be they will see sense.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I agree it is "a difficult one". I just don't immediately share your confidence that everything will be fine - the fact that London has a successful economy is part and parcel of what it has been, and the fact that companies, investment and people have located there for a number of reasons, which include EU membership. I don't think we can assume that this status is set in stone and will never change, even if we take deliberate steps to make it harder to come here (which is on the cards, given the rhetoric about immigration). I work in professional services in the city of London and we are already seeing investment pull out because of brexit risk, and deals that are being entered into are including "brexit clauses" where they will cancel if we vote out of Europe. The idea that there will be no negative impact is already being disproved - it's just that for the majority of the population, there is a lag before a downturn is felt in the broader economy (e.g. look at what happened 2007/2008 - companies delay any job cuts, belt tightening initially, in the hope everything will rectify, so the worst of the impact is felt after the event).

As to your second point - surely if the remaining EU member states want to quell anti-EU sentiment in other member states, they would want to take action that shows that both (a) being in is beneficial, because high paying industries will operate from within the EU; and (b) leaving is a bad idea and will damage a leaving country's economy?

In reply to summo:

To say "it is impossible to know the truth because it is in the future" is ludicrous. We may not be able to say with 100% certainty, but we can forecast, based on what we understand about the effects of different options in terms of trade agreements etc - something that has been done, which is why we do have economic forecasts setting out a range of different economic scenarios (which are overwhelmingly negative).

I assume you also never look at the weather forecast on the same grounds - "we can't know, it's in the future"?

To ignore all the economic consensus on Brexit seems to me akin to ignoring weather forecasts that say there will be a storm, and heading off into the hills anyway with just a jumper on. But whenever anyone points this out, someone just says "scaremongering" as if that makes the criticism invalid.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Perhaps the average EU migrant is either one or the other, or neither?

Clever as the idea of Schrodinger's Migrant is, it's completely illogical as EU migrants are individuals, not amalgams.

A bit like Schrodinger's Asylum Seeker, who isn't really a vulnerable 12 year old orphan Professor of Neurosurgery...

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Stock market plunging today, strange.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


mathematical models that get better every day, versus economic models that even in the past 10 years have consistently failed to predict events.

I bet you would be lucky to beat a coin toss in predicting if the FTSE would be up or down at close on a daily basis. I know, I've tried when trading. There are of course more complex old school equations like black scholes, which are simple compared to modern algorithmic trading, but if it was that easy to predict economics, recessions and national debt would be things of the past.


It is scaremongering, if we stay in the EU, it could drag us down with it, every economist will also tell you it isn't fiscally sound. Many economist said we should join the Euro, nearly all said joining EMF would be great.

In reply to summo:
You ignore the political will behind the EU, which is based fundamentally on a completely different war time experience to ourselves. The EU in its various guises has done a fantastic job of creating a decent civilised place to live in place of devastation and starvation. I think it was De Gaulle who said " if you let in GB it will descend into a common market". Prescient or what?

I am very much pro Europe but am tempted to vote out to let them create something special without our embarrassing meddling.

In reply to ian caton:


you mean the steel & coal trading market of 60 or 70 years, it has little to do with common currency, legislation and political control of 2016.


you'll have to convince the other non-euro nations to go too, but then the Netherlands is likely to want to leave long before the Nordics, the French population aren't exactly in love with the EU anymore either.

In reply to summo:

No they did not all say we should join the euro, that is why we stayed out. After our experience with the erm, there were a lot of mixed views. The prominent remain campaigner - Gordon brown - was anti euro.

In reply to summo:
The models don't have to be incredibly precise though, they just have to be able to discern what trends are caused by the actions that a Brexit would result in. This only needs to take into account some relatively simple assumptions - that leaving would damage trade (which seems indisputable, given we would lose all of our trading agreements, at least in the short term) and that less trade is inefficient. It's considerably simpler than having to factor in all of the variables that would affect e.g. the stock market, in your example. The point is the position relative to where we would have been otherwise. There are ample academic works which do demonstrate that more trade increases efficiency (and vice versa), so this shouldn't be contentious. To quote the FT: "[the Treasury's] long-term analysis should be compared with a doctor£s ability to say that if you smoke 20 cigarettes a day, you will very probably die sooner than if you don£t"

What I find particularly odd is that you don't ascribe any weight to numerous studies which almost unequivocally say it would be a bad idea. Yet you do say that the EU "could drag us down with it", even though there is even less (near enough no evidence) this would / will happen. Also, how does being a member "drag us down"? This seems to be a central plank of the Leave argument, but how we are to be "dragged down" is never articulated. If you're talking about a general recession in the EU, we would be exposed whether in or out, because like it or not we trade with the rest of the EU (and presumably you think we will continue to do so at the same level, if you think there won't be a huge economic impact to Brexit).

As Neilh says, as for your "but economists supported the Euro" - no, many didn't: the Treasury economists who wrote the Treasury report saying we shouldn't leave the EU now also strongly argued not to join the Euro, which is one of the reasons why we didn't join in 2003.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

100% spot on.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


And that quote is a bloody good reason not to believe a word that the FT says. Comparing long-term predictions of that kind with tried and tested scientific predictions based on huge numbers of independent tests and test subjects is ridiculous. That leaving would damage trade is a remain claim. It's only indisputable if you believe the remain camp, and if you bake it into your models it's obvious what the results of running the models will be - making the results meaningless.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Sorry, why is it just a remain claim? Even the Leave camp is now accepting that leaving will cause an economic shock - the latest is just that "it would be worth it".

The assumption that leaving will damage trade is based on an understanding that, once we leave, we will cease to have the benefit of all of the trading agreements we currently have. How exactly do you think we can avoid this issue? At the very least, we will have reduced access to the single market - unless we accept free movement of people, which seems to go against all of the leave campaigning.

Also, it isn't *just* the FT that thinks that would be the effect. It's also every other economic body of substance (IMF, OECD, Treasury, plus numerous others). Why do they all think the same thing? Maybe it's because that all the evidence points to that being the case...

In reply to andyfallsoff:


they can't be, as it's presumption. As we have no idea what trade deal would be negotiated, if we joined EEA/EFTA, then nothing would change within the Eu trade wise. All the remainers scaremongering wouldn't come true.


to say the Eu and Euro is vulnerable at present would be an understatement, China is struggling, the USA might have Trump there is global under certainty. Southern Europe is still a dog's dinner. The more wedded we are to Europe, the harder it will be escape it's influence when the Euro goes. It is financially prudent (imho), to limit risk now, by building more ties beyond the EU. Like any investment, diversity is security, as it limits risk. The wider range of countries the UK exports to, the safer and more secure it's future will be. Even if that means a few percent knocked off the pound & markets etc.. for a year or two. Short terms loses, for long term gains and security.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

The leave camp has not accepted that, some individuals have and have said that a *short term* risky period/downturn is well worth the long term gain. The claim is that long term overall trade will increase. Given that trade with the EU is stagnant and trade with the outside world is rising, and that the EU restricts trade options with the outside world in return for easier trade within the EU, that seems a pretty strong claim.


You make new ones. Perhaps assuming some short term harm is reasonable, due to uncertainty. Assuming being in the EU is a benefit to trade and that being outside is of no benefit is accepting the remain case.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

The UK will still trade, so trade won't stop, it may change, but not stop.


half of the above are funded by the EU itself, or member nations keen on maintaining the status quo for their own gain. Most of their staff skip from one institution to the next high paid institution. Look at IMF lagarade's career if you want an example. Or see who funds the OECD... there is very very little unbias information out there and it's a huge problem for the public, as they start to let the nut jobs influence their decision.

In reply to andyfallsoff:



The problem I have is that our prime minister simultaneously fought an election with a manifesto that offered both the EU referendum ( with the possibility of voting out,) and also promising a triple lock on pensions .
All of a sudden he has concluded that the two are mutually exclusive.

Cameron has said that he’d renege on this “triple lock” promise if voters defy him over Brexit. So much for his cast-iron pledge.

In reply to summo:


Do you honestly believe this stuff, or is it just an easy way to handwave away the inconvenient fact that almost everyone who actually knows what they're talking about disagrees with your vague assertion that everything's going to be totally fine because trade?

In reply to Ramblin dave:


well if don't believe then look yourself at how the OECD works and who pays for it, or the IMF etc.. or the careers of the staff on it. Rather than just believe either the In or Out, do your own research and make your own decision too. Don't be a sheep for either side of the fence.

In reply to summo:


This argument is entirely circular... although it doesn't even say that trade might not slow down / decrease, which is the potential issue. I don't think that anyone is saying the UK will never again trade with any other countries.


I have done my own research, which is why I disagree with what you're saying. As well as the IMF and the OECD, it's also the Bank of England, which has a remit to advise on the economy and which is independent of the EU; independent economists (e.g. Simon Wren Lewis, Oxford uni); the economists who advise banks and other investment bodies... I could go on. Are all of these people biased towards the EU so making up conclusions? Really?

In reply to summo:

I just love this view about trade. We are hardly a manufacturing powerhouse like Germany in terms of global manufacturing trade. The services sector is already at full belt. where is this so called surge in trade going to come from?

In reply to summo:
And presumably the FTSE and the pound only fall on the back of strong polls of Leave because all the investors who sell like it's going out of fashion are funded by the EU as well?

I mean, none of this proves anything does it? You're pretty sure that everything's going to be fine, and that seems like a strong enough argument for me.

In reply to summo:

You're not still lying about the eu funding the OECD are you? Tony showed you're wrong in this exchange

Your claim - Other groups like the OECD are funded by the EU. It does not matter what side you take, there are no genuine facts on which to base the future, it's unknown.

Tony's correction - The OECD is funded by individual member states. The EU does not make a separate contribution. You can read the size of all the member contributions here:
http://www.oecd.org/about/budget/member-countries-budget-contributions.htm

In reply to andyfallsoff:

>
To an extent, yes. They are just ordinary people like you or me, not brilliant free thinkers. They are part of a global elite consensus that has benefitted from the status quo and, like religious theorists in the 17th C have a vested interest in defending the consensus. They've bern massively wrong on thatcherism in the 1980s, the ERM, the euro, and failed to see 2008 coming. Not idiots but not reliable either.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

In reply to Postmanpat:

So just to be clear - we can never trust an economist, is that what you're saying? Or can we just never trust an economist who disagrees with Brexit?

I find it amazing that you can be so confident that there won't be an impact. What makes you think you're more reliable than all of those economists? Presumably you did see 2008 coming, and presumably made a packet shorting the market...?

In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm not sure who you're quoting with the second point above (drop in sterling offsets tariffs), but that is not good economic analysis - I assume it is someone who was being facetious? A fall in sterling makes all imports more expensive, which is BAD for the economy...

In reply to andyfallsoff:

No, I'm saying that they have inbuilt prejudices or assumptions which need to be recognised. Apart from any intellectual prejudices they are employed by organisations that embody the existing global status quo. They are not paid to undermine it.



Contrary to the received wisdom many people saw something coming including some economists.

In reply to summo:

I was obviously talking about those coming to the UK. The evidence is available everywhere, I thought it was pretty much a basic statistic for anyone interested in migration, but I shouldn't be surprised really.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467
http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1415298954465/Immigration_WEB.svg
http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/characteristics-and-outc...


Job vacancies : 745,000 last March
Job Claimant count : 740,400 last March

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/job-vacancies
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/claimant-count-change


I am perfectly aware that this is utterly pointless as you will ignore any facts presented to you, but anyway....

In reply to Postmanpat:


Why is an Oxford economist paid not to undermine the system? He isn't, he's an academic. Would banks or financial institutions which employ economists want them to make up their results to find in favour of one side if that wasn't correct?

Also, those "prejudices and assumptions" are the result of knowledge and experience. Are you saying those with no prior knowledge of economics are better able to opine on the economy? Because that is the implication of your comments.


Erm, just above you said we can't trust economists because they didn't see it coming.

I really don't understand how you can genuinely believe with such certainty that all these economists are somehow wrong. Can you not even acknowledge that it is possible they aren't?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


We export to the EU. The problem with tariffs is that they raise the prices of our exports to the EU. A falling currency offsets this.
Yes, there are issues with input costs but labour and other sterling based costs will fall for international manufacturers.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


He's jst one guy. Yes, big institutions tend to prefer economists who adhere to a basic framework of assumptions, within s brosd consensus understanding, unless they are entertaining enough that the puntrs will pay to hear thrm.


>
Of vourse i csn. Do you think that over s beer the economists might also acknowledge they mght be wrong or even yjat yheir published views don't cover their actusl voncerns?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you're underestimating those issues with input costs. Effectively, everything we import will become more expensive. From a quick goole, that appears to be about £48bn per year. If our currency drops by 10%, that costs the UK £4.8bn (everything we buy becomes more expensive). We are a net importer (i.e. we export less than we import, by several billion a year), so drops in sterling value will, on balance, hurt more than help us. To add to that, we would then have to pay tariffs on exports, so we remove some of the benefit from the reduction in sterling we would have otherwise.

As an example of whether people tend to think low cost imports are a benefit, the UK's view that keeping steel imports cheap was a boon to the economy is why the UK govt opposed tariffs on Chinese steel to the EU.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

We are a net importer (i.e. we export less than we import, by several billion a year), so drops in sterling value will, on balance, hurt more than help us. To add to that, we would then have to pay tariffs on exports, so we remove some of the benefit from the reduction in sterling we would have otherwise.


Currencies go up and down a bit, leads and lags, accounting policies, hedging policies etc. We've seen much bigger moves in the past and life goes on. The point is that 3-4% tariffs are not a killer and can in export terms easily be offset by the currency.
Sterling has been moving in a 10% band v the dollar for several years snd nobody bats an eyelid.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Sharp and sudden fall in sterling will do a lot mores harm than good, that's high school level textbook economics.

Meanwhile, historically depreciation of the sterling post 2007 has not helped our current account deficit at all, in fact, it's never been worse in peacetime.
Plus Brexit is likely to hurt our main export partners, again, very bad for exports.

Unfortunately it won't be the worst problem after Brexit, by far (I'm assuming a no single market exit).

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Of course the other point is that given brexit is regarded as a big negative for the EU that the euro actually falls.

In reply to thomasadixon:


The treasury analysis is not a long term prediction. It's a gap analysis.

In reply to Jim C:




TBF it doesn't really matter what Cameron's pledge was if he loses this vote, does it?

jcm

In reply to RomTheBear:



if employment was so clear cut, why does the UK have unemployment at all. Or perhaps not all job offers are quite full time paid work and not all people are willing to work?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


and exactly how many of those countries funding the OECD want the UK as a net contributor of the EU to leave? They have natural bias, it would be crazy if they didn't.

Each side has bias and people must vote according to what they think or believe the UK should look like in the future, it is a vote for the UK's political future. No side is wrong, only history in 20 or 50 years will decide that.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

he also said the EU had lots of faults that needed to change and was currently 45/55 in favour of staying, but that's only because he is risk averse and can't foresee the future.

In reply to summo:

Pretending to be that ignorant is not a valid debating tactic.
Basic economics : full employment is not 0%, there are always people between job and some mismatch of skills, at 5.4% we are very much into what is considered full employment territory.

In reply to summo:

Yes yes they are all biased, the oecd, the IMF, our own treasury, the ifs, the BoE, LSE, and the markets.

Or maybe, just maybe, the economic case for Brexit is shot to pieces.

In reply to RomTheBear:


or maybe where the UK would be in 5 or 10 years time is completely unknown, in or out. Look at the past 10 years. Recessions etc... predicting the next 10 years and it's impact on any country is near impossible. Financial markets are naturally risk averse, they'll always vote to maintain the status quo.

I know you hate free thinking that does match the EU model, but I just think the UK if free and with a positive attitude & hard work can do better than it is. It's my opinion and as much as the EU dislikes it, it is how I will vote. The EU would prefer to tell to me what is good for me, but my respect for the likes of Juncker is less than zero, they are in it for themselves.

In reply to RomTheBear:

you are joking aren't you? Are you telling me that everyone who could work in the UK is working? Are you even in the UK, have you ever been here, driven around a few choice regions?

EDIT - I could spend today driving around a few towns in my old homeland of NE England, in a few city centres I could pick out enough under 30 males, just loitering and tabbing to fill a football stadium by lunch time. Not skilled, but more than capable of a days labour.

In reply to summo:

No, but that is not what unemployement means.
What you are talking about here seem to be the employment rate. There again, its's at an all time record high.


Yes, I spend most my time between Leeds, Manchester, London and Edinburgh.

In reply to summo:


I have nothing against free thinking. It's the "no thinking" I have a problem with.
Read you own post and the language you use. "They at in it for themselves" "it is my opinion and it is how I will vote", "my respect for the like of juncker is zero"

Seems to me you don't rally have a carefully considered economic case, but you do have a lot of anger.

What worries me really is what happens when Brexit makes things a lot worse. Those who voted for it are unlikely to blame themselves, instead, they'll probably find another scapegoat to harass, most likely the European immigrants already here.

In reply to RomTheBear:





Cor three hits* on Rom Bingo in one post, I'm on a winner.



*
1) accusing others of being stupid.
2) "you are angry"
3) Thinly veiled accusations of "racism'.

In reply to RomTheBear:


anger? facts. Let's take Juncker, he was previously a president of country that had a population of roughly the size of Bristol, apart from being Eu to core, that is his sole qualification for president for 1/2billion people. Whilst president of Luxembourg he was directly involved in the negotiation of many tax deals for those large corporations wishing to pay little or zero tax, by being deliberately located in his country. In doing so he knew he would be depriving other countries like the UK of tax revenue, but because he was solely out for himself and Luxembourg, the greater good of the EU and it's member states was not important. Nothing makes me think he is doing anything now, that is of benefit to others, only himself, his friends and Luxembourg. There is no anger, I just won't vote to be part of a regime that has a rotten and corrupt apple as it's head.

In reply to summo:


Where does he say that? I read his blog regularly: https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

It is full of comments about brexit. Nowhere have i seen the comment you claim (or words to that effect). Here are some quotes I did find:

"This referendum is about trust. Do you trust 9 out of 10 economists who say that Brexit will be bad for the economy, or do you trust the politicians who say they will cut immigration if you Vote Leave, but have failed to significantly reduce immigration from outside the EU over the last six years?"

"the arguments are not rocket science. Countries find it easier to trade with others that are close by. If you make that trade more difficult by leaving the single market, some of that trade will go elsewhere, but not all of it for sure. The end result will be less trade. It is common sense, which happens to be backed up by lots of empirical evidence. There is also strong evidence that less trade leads to lower productivity growth, which means incomes grow more slowly. What is a key reason why China been growing so rapidly since the 1980s? Because it opened up to trade."

"do you really want to be ruled by people who prefer make believe stories to evidence, and who are so desperate for votes they tell you to ignore an entire academic discipline."

In reply to RomTheBear:


Rate and total numbers yeah, I understand statistics, it seems you don't. See Below.


We've been here before and you ignored it. 'record high' number of people in employment, is not the same as a record percentage of the working population in employment. If the UK population keepings growing, you can have a record number of workers and a record number of unemployed at the same time. Populations are growing there will always be a new record for something volume related, but what matters are proportions and percentages.


Are you blind?(apologies if you really are) I could drive round the NE, say darlington at noon today and collect at least 100 people, probably many times that, under 25 years old, able bodied etc.. more than capable of working. I am still staggered that anyone thinks the UK has reached max employment capacity and all those employable are working.

In reply to Big Ger:

I'm not accusing him of being stupid, he's just pretending to be for the sake of his argument. I don't actually believe he doesn't know what unemployment means.

In reply to summo:
Junker? This guy?




http://www.greens-efa.eu/president-jean-claude-juncker-is-making-a-farce-of...

In reply to andyfallsoff:


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/24/martin-lewis-eu-referendum-exper...

In reply to RomTheBear:


and I thought that you may understand the total number of something, isn't the same as a proportion, percentage or ratio of a total sum.

In reply to summo:


No, you just pretend to not understand.


We have record RATE of employment. That is proportional the population. Please stop trying to act stupid.


Again, someone not working because they do not want to work is not unemployed. You are unemployed only if you are actively looking.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm still claiming it! It's just another one of your petty insults, stands good on my card.

In reply to summo:

Given that I've not talked about any total number of anything, it seems you're simply trying to divert attention.

I've said employment RATE. As in "ratio" do you at least understand that ?

In reply to summo:


That's not Simon Wren-Lewis. That's Martin Lewis, he writes a consumer website. He isn't a leading academic economist.

In reply to Big Ger:


I think you are the least well placed on this forum to talk about insulting and disrespecting other posters.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm sorry but you don't grasp statistics. The UK has a growing population so even if unemployment remain at 10% of that sum, there would always be more people in employment.

those workable................... actually working................... jobless
1000............................................... 900 (90%)...................... 100 (10%)
2000 .............................................1800 (90%) ......................200 (10%)
4000.............................................. 3000 (75%) .....................1000 (25%)

look at year 3, record numbers of people in employment, wow great bring out the band, but oh wait, also unemployment has risen to 25% of the working population, cancel the party.

Number of people in employment and the unemployment rate aren't the same thing. One is total sum, the other a percentage.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


sorry I thought that was the lewis folk were referring to, either way I know which one more people would listen too and one of those in independent.

In reply to summo:


Few points:

A. I've also read Martin Lewis's comments on the referendum - he agrees that if you are concerned about the economy you should vote to stay. He does say that you might choose to vote leave if you want to reduce immigration.

B. "I know who more people would listen to" - isn't this exactly the issue? You think it's more important to listen to ML, who isn't an expert but has probably has a wider audience because he has a successful website, rather than someone who has made an entire career out of trying to understand the economy. How on earth can that be right?

C. Nice job throwing in an "independent" jibe at the economist. Given that you didn't know who he is, how can you pretend to know he isn't independent? Or that ML is, for that matter? Seems to me that in your mind, any sympathy for vote leave means independent - anyone who votes remain automatically isn't, in your eyes.

In reply to summo:







Thanks, I think everybody here know what s percentage is. nobody argues with that. And that is why I was talking about the employment rate, ie, a ratio.

I'll quote myself again : "What you are talking about here seem to be the employment rate. There again, its's at an all time record high."

You're the only here who started talking about total number. And yes the employment rate (i.e. a percentage) is at an all time high (74.2%)


I was simply making the point that you seem to confuse the employment rate with the unemployment rate.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Tariffs. Are you talking import or export tariffs?As an exporter I am often faced with 20% plus tariffs on countrys I would like to export to. The only exceptions are developed countrys -like USA, Europe, Japan and Australasia. All the other countrys - including China- impose significant tariffs- as despite all the public rhetoric they are generally protectionist.granted in China there are some fiddles you can do,but the public line on tariffs is still high.

Most exporters in the Uk sell to developed markets.In those markets tariffs are usually in the range of 0- 5%.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Quote me.

In reply to neilh:



Exactly: eu import tariffs on non agricultural goods are in the 0-5% range. Not insuperable.

In reply to Postmanpat:

If as the Outers claim they want exporters to offset the diminished EU market then they are going to have to tackle the import barriers placed by protectionist countrys on stuff that we want to sell to them. " Pigs might fly" springs to mind.

Within the EU market, and UK selling into the EU I agree that 0-5% is not worth worrying about.Although having said that a 5% increase is still 5% if you are subject to a 5% tariff, especially in a competitive market.

In reply to neilh:


But for brexit to be a negative you have to think that the deals would be worse than the existing ones.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Its not looking good for remainers: https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/

In reply to Postmanpat:
Not quite with you.The Brexiters are basically saying oh we will not worry about Europe, our trade there is diminishing- its a shrinking market, so we will sell elsewhere.

If there is a 5% tariff imposed on EU sales/imports- even temporarily( which is likely whilst an agreement is resolved)- because an agreemnt is not in place- then it is still a worse one than we have a the moment.I do not think any business wants a 5 % extra cost either importing or exporting.

Anyway other things to do. Leave it with you.

I should have added. For my business its not the EU that is the issue. Its the trade/tariff deals with other countries that matter to me.And starting with a blank piece of paper its going to take time. The EU/ Canada deal has just taken something like 9 years and still has not come into force.And we will now have to start the same process with Canada -if we heaven forbid come out.there will be a stack of countries to get through- where does one start. Its one hell of a negotiating nightmare.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I haven't heard any trade deal negotiator, or anybody with any sort of proper experience in international trade, saying that we would somehow get better deals alone than as part of a massive single market.

Plus it would take years if not decades anyway.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Drops in the value of sterling also represent a shift in the consensus amongst people who make a living from correctly predicting the future performance of national economies regarding the future performance of your economy. The pound falling when Leave polls strongly represents yet another group of experts expressing a collective opinion that Brexit is likely to be bad for our economy - that our companies will become less competitive when trading with the EU, that our exports will take a hit, tax revenue will fall and unemployment will rise.

But I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering to say this. It doesn't matter how many experts say this, people like you are just going to come up with reason after reason to ignore them in favour of a vague appeal to common sense that everything's going to be fine.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

The advantage of having a separate currency is that it can adjust to cope with other factors. In basic terms, if sterling falls 10% against the Euro but UK exports to the EU incure 5% tariffs, UK exports become 5% cheaper to EU purchasers. Exports might therefore pick up and the current account deficit fall. (there will, of course be offsetting factors in terms of rising input costs). The UK current account improved for several years after the collapse of sterling at the ERM exit.
You will note tht virtually every country in the world has been trying to devalue its currency in the past five years.

In reply to neilh:



There are likely to be short term disruptions, although it is probably in everyones' interests to keep the status quo whilst things are negotiated. My point is that 0-5% tariffs to the EU, if they happen, are not the end of the world, and that there is no obvious reason to suppose that the rest of the world is going to take the opportunity to stiff the UK.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Alternatively, where it concerns m EU clients: I buy raw materials from several Countries within Europe and manufacture in the UK then export to EU clients; so if the £ falls 10% and I have to pay an import duty of 5% and then export duty of 5% on finished product, then I've not got a hope in hell of beating my EU based competition.

As far as my UK clients are concerned, prices are just going to go up and they will either wear that or go to the competition, which may (ironically) come from the EU.

Added to which, a fall in the £ and any major impact on the economy as a result of Brexit will bring about an increase in interest rates which will hit business borrowing rates and no doubt the cost of employment taxes will rise at some point (probably).

Tripple Whammy!

In reply to Postmanpat:

And I notice that the current account deficit has massively increased since sterling fell in 2008.
A fall in sterling could in theory help exports, but it it hasn't materialised in the recent past, plus we'll be screwing over our biggest export partners.

What exporter needs is strong, stable uk economy, and a recovering and growing eurozone they can export to.That's what we have now, and Brexit will almost certainly jeopardise that.

In reply to Valaisan:




But, depending on the specific products you trade the impact will actually be much lower. The average EU import tarifff on goods from wealthier countries is 1.6%. And in terms of import tariffs, we can choose to change them as we wish, within WTO rules. Your terms of trade, let alone your volume of trade, could actually improve. (unlikely I acknowledge)

Falling currencies lead to interest hike when they are causing inflation. Chance would be a fine thing these days so I shouldn't worry too much about that.

In reply to Postmanpat:


1.6% (if its not more) will not improve my cost base. Nor will a £ that loses value against the Euro. Whether the impact is what I predict or lower it is still a negative impact. Good effort though, to present a negative as a positive so that I should feel better about the opportunity to pay more for my raw materials.

One of my subcontractors, in Wales, has just told me that if we leave the EU then they believe that the UK Govt' will not replace EU Regional Grant funding and as such not only will his region suffer from the lack of EU regional development and enterprise grants in the future but companies like their's will have to lay off factory workers if the raw materials costs from Europe rise by more than 5% and anything under that, whilst manageable from an operational point of view, will nonetheless make the company unprofitable. The FD of that company is an economist that used to teach at Cardiff University.


A falling currency that then stabilises at a medium-term low against the currencies of our main import nations means that the price of consumables in this global market which we live in will become more expensive to our main product manufacturers, importers, packers, distributors and retailers and so food on the supermarket shelves will go up as will the price of energy, amongst other things. It happened, for different reasons, after the 2008 financial crash.

We will all suffer but it is yet again the lowest paid and most vulnerable of our society will pay the most dearly for the nostalgic idiocy of the Brexit campaign should we leave the EU.

In reply to Valaisan:



I obviously can't speak for your specific business nor your subcontractor but what I can say is that you are making a series of worst case scenarios eg. that regional funding will be abandoned, and ignoring the positives of potentially higher margins on and or higher volumes of exports.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No, we are considering probable scenarios. The worst case ones are, well, much worse.

As a hypothesis, I am, I have to admit, utterly at a loss as to how you suggest I can increase my margins when faced with higher raw materials costs and an import as well as export tax. Perhaps, as a theory, you can explain to me how that works?

As a second part to that theory, perhaps at the same time you can explain how I can obtain higher export volumes if I am less competitive as a result of higher costs?

Obviously my sarcasm will not be completely lost on you, so perhaps suffice to say; are you having a laugh Postman?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

All this speculation will come to naught!

In reply to Valaisan:


Well, let's take company X, which imports all its raw materials from the EU and sells all it's products in the EU but manufactures in the UK, and make a notional assumption that currently Euto denominated raw materials accounts for 75% of sales and let's postulate a 25% fall in streling v euro.

At £1= 1.25 Euro

Sales 125 Euro= £100
Raw materials 75 Euro= £60
Other eg. Labour 25 Euro=£20 (UK costs)
Profit £20


At £1=1 Euro

Sales 125 Euro=£125
Raw mats 75 Euro=£75
Other=£20(UK costs)
Profit: £30

Assuming 1.6% tariffs on imports and exports give a profit of £26.8

Given that the company's profit margin has risen by around 25% it has the option of reducing prices and so stimulating demand.

In reply to Postmanpat:

This ignores two points:

1. Most exports operate by charging prices in the currency of the exporter, not the currency of the recipient. So the exporter doesn't benefit from an immediate increase in income - rather, the benefit from a decreasing currency is traditionally accepted as increased demand as those goods seem cheaper to the rest of the world. The converse would mean a disparity of prices for the exporter in each of its export markets, and no exporter would accept this because they could lose all of their profits when prices fall in their export markets. You implicitly accept this above - in your examples the imports (raw materials) are shown as 75 Euro in each case.

2. On a country-wide level, the UK is a net importer (a conservative estimate would be to the tune of £30bn+ per year). So when you aggregate all of the companies / people who are importing / exporting, then even if some were able to charge the same amounts in the export markets' local currencies, so their income increased as you detail above (notwithstanding the point I make at 1 above, that this isn't typically how trade operates) then the people who lose out because their imports become more expensive outnumber those who benefit. This is then a net loss to the country.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Kiss your pensions goodbye folks:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/14/ftse-100-slides-towards-6000...

In reply to Oldsign:


or top that pension up while it's low. If shares prices were always high, how would your fund make any money before you cash it in? Fund Managers only make the good money by trading the highs and lows, a total unmanaged fund, relying purely on inflation and dividends to increase in value won't yield a particularly good return.

In reply to Oldsign:

In 2008 it was under 4000, in 1985 1000, it recovered.

Good time to buy shares.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Ok, in these simplistic conditions that works fine, but; should tariffs be higher, say 5% (as they once were), then the gain in a low £ against the Euro in an import/export scenario is negated and of course for our UK sales there are other challenges that I don't want to get into in open forum.

The problem with your presentation (and indeed my previous argument, I must admit) is that it is too simple. Apart from the work (cost) involved in the changes (gearing up for and weekly management of tariff accounts & payments), if there is a slow down of the economy or recession for a while, to plug the hole in the national deficit, taxes may rise which will have a sizeable impact on labour costs. Indeed, the Chancellor suggested as much yesterday but yes I realise it was a threat to gain votes too.

The figures only need to swing to the bad slightly, say an increase in labour costs, increase in (interest rates) borrowing costs, slightly higher import/export tariffs and we will face challenges on multiple levels. Client confidence and performance is also a big factor. In 2008 I lost a few meaty contracts simply because a couple of clients cut the applicable budgets. This was a direct result of a recession as many listed companies took an axe to their outgoings in anticipation of reducing customer revenues.

The UK economy has been growing out of the recession quicker than any other EU nation and I remain unconvinced that can and will continue, even to sustained the level we are now, if we exit the EU.

Anyway Pat, thanks for the effort but the simplified maths on two figures does not persuade me, however: if it works out as simply and positively as you say I'll send you a case of your preferred tipple, but perhaps if it doesn't you can cover my loss of profit?

In reply to summo:


That isn't true. The ideal for growth of long term investments like pensions is steady consistent capital growth, plus compounding of dividends / income flows. Why do you think most pension funds aren't in high risk frequently traded assets? Volatility creates losers as well as winners, and it takes a lot of ego to think you'll always be on the right side of the line.

I am unsurprised that you feel able to correctly call bottom of the market, though, given your certainty about all things economic in your posts so far. Presumably you're out buying like crazy right now to profit, as per your own advice?

In reply to Valaisan:


Well, we discussing specifically the impact on corporates of a falling currency and reintroduction of tariffs so that is what I addressed, in very simplified form, to demonstrate the workings that mean it is not necessarily a problem.

There is no reason to think EU common external tariffs will rise but of course there would be some admin costs associated with the reintroduction of customs. All the other variables, labour costs, taxes, end demand, are variables whether were are in or out. I'd probably accept that there will be some negatives to the economy, at least short term, from a brexit but not necessarily long term. I think the biggest issue is the abject failure of the EU in its current form to overcome the structural barriers to stimulating economic growth.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


>
They have a choice and can raise the price in their domestic currency in order to increase margins if they so wish. Either way, an exporters position is improved.


Your point 1 above says that a falling currency stimulates export demand, which is obviously true, and also makes imports less attractive thus reducing the current account deficit. This is good is it not?

It's just simplistic to argue that a fall in sterling is necessarily a big negative. It much more complicated than that.
Anyway, it's perfectly possible that after a knee jerk fall in sterling it is actually the Euro that rolls over.

The point is simply

In reply to Postmanpat:


Although as I stated in my message in response to you, those calculations don't work (they assume we take upside of currency risk but not downside).


Which begs the questions - how much of a negative impact do you think is a price worth paying, and what is the gain that we get in return?


I think this is the more interesting point - why are there structural barriers to stimulating economic growth? I can see the arguments re. the Greece situation, but these seem to me to be arguments to stay out of the single currency - which is a debate we aren't having. Since joining, the UK has gone from being the sick man of Europe in the early 1970s to the 5th largest economy in Europe, and although we will never be able to determine how much of that is as a result of EU membership, doesn't that at least prove that being an EU member hasn't been a structural barrier to growth?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Everything is pure speculation, nobody actually knows what will happen, IN or OUT. If it really mattered either way I really don't think there would be a referendum, and if the advantages/disadvantages of either argument were foregone conclusions and inevitable and cataclysmic then the choice would be obvious.

And it isn't, we have opinion A versus opinion B, nothing more or less.

In reply to cragtaff:

It's probably worth pointing out that at least for the UK in the mid-term, it is pretty obvious to anyone who seriously studies the issues what's going to happen. Pretty much every serious economic or financial institution thinks it's going to be a bad thing for the UK economy. Against that you have a vague assertion that everyone from the Treasury to the World Bank to investors in the FTSE and the pound are somehow EU shills and we should listen to a bloke in the pub saying "yeah, but what I reckon, right..."

It's essentially the climate change denialist argument, except that terrifying numbers of people are taking it seriously.

In reply to Postmanpat:
May I point out (again) that the sharp fall in sterling after 2008 has not resulted in a reduction of our trade deficit. In fact it has pretty much never been higher in peace time.
This has to do with what your export are and how elastic are the prices, and how well our export partners economies are doing.

We rely on foreigners investing in the UK to finance our trade deficit and they do so in large part because we are the perfect hub to access the single market.

The point is, for our export to do well, and our economy at large to do well, the first thing is to make sure our main trading partners are doing well and have confidence, as much unfettered free trade as possible, and retain our status as a business friendly hub to the single market.

You used to be a fairly reasonable poster PP, but it seems to me you've been hoodwinked.

Replacing EU protectionism by UK protectionism is not going to help anyone - it just makes the world a more protectionist place, that is very bad for such a trading country as ours.

What we should do is remain, and keep contributing to the ongoing process of removing protectionist barriers between the EU and the rest of the world, something we've been fairly successful at, instead of jeopardising it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't think they do have an absolute freedom to choose, no - not without setting up a presence in that country and preventing people ordering through other countries where the currency means prices are lower (which would be difficult practically and commercially). If you were buying goods in any sizeable amount from an exporter overseas and you found out that the price in their own jurisdiction had decreased by any sizeable amount due to currency rates, you're telling me that you wouldn't insist on paying in the cheaper currency of the exporter?


Not necessarily, no. If the UK makes widgets but they are more expensive or lower quality than elsewhere, but (because of barriers to trade) people order the worse / more expensive ones from the UK, that is inefficient in economic terms - goods made with those parts become relatively worse value (because of a decrease in quality, increase in price or both). The world has tried a protectionist approach where countries tried to keep trade to within their borders before, in the 1930s, and it led to the most severe depression in modern history.


Agree there are some upsides - I've acknowledged that above. The point is whether they are a net benefit or not. Saying there are "some" upsides doesn't mean that the debate is evenly balanced (or, as you seem to be implying, a net positive for us).


But what about the rest of the world currencies? Our imports come from all over (and the leave camp keep saying the rest of the world is as much or more important). The point of a fall in sterling is that it is a fall relative to others - there is no such thing as a fall in currency if everyone else falls (as currency rates are only ever relative).

In reply to cragtaff:


No - we have 90%+ of experts with opinion A. We have <10% of people with any knowledge of the subject saying option B.

Put it another way - when you are ill, do you go to the doctor or the homeopath / raiki masseur / witch doctor? Some people will inevitably support the latter but they are in the minority and they are going against the available evidence.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

But they don't just buy a share in the FTSE100 and sit on it for 40 years until you retire, depending on the type of fund you choose and risk, there are varying levels of management, trading and riskiness. In early days many funds have more risk, then closer to retirement funds should progressively move towards zero risk, away from shares toward government bonds etc.. so a dip in the market right now, should in well managed fund have limited impact on someone retiring in the near future.

Ego, I would agree, or knowledge and self control. I think trading shows a need to understand your own traits as much as anything. Are you prone to hang to a bad share too long, overly optimistic it may improve, or a little greedy hanging on for that extra prone when you've already had the lions share of growth. Exit and leave a little margin for someone else was a good line I've always tried to follow.


I never suggested I could precisely call the bottom or top, but I don't need to, when I trade I'd be happy to be within 10% of either. Invest now, I've barely traded in the past 3 years too much volatility and unknowns. Plus I've been doing other things and I don't invest blind just hoping, I like to do my research. Right now if Brexit happens, then this is no where near the bottom, this is just market fluctuation, it would do the same if the US or China report drops in growth etc..

Besides, I prefer to not have a pension purely invested in the market, which then pays out an annuity etc.. (ignoring recent changes in this), I want my investments to be passed on to my family, not to die with me.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


not so many years ago it was the doctors who would cut you to let the bad blood out and homeopaths who would give you medicine made of plant extracts. Who is to say all the current experts are right on the future economy?

Going against available evidence? What evidence do you possess of the future?

In reply to summo:

Very out of date thinking on retirment funds. Alot now move to higher risks becuase of better rate of returns.........

In reply to neilh:


in the early and middle stages of course. That is exactly what I said at 1040. The other poster was implying they bought share X than sat on it, purely relying on inflationary growth and dividends.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Actually a fall in sterling does not stimulate demand for British goods. You are assuming in the first place that there is demand for more British goods out there........again its is an argument that Exiters ignore.

You must be well aware that over the past few years sterling has devalued and it has really only had a marginal impact on what we sell overseas.

In reply to summo:

No. They stay in high risk funds closer to retirement.The conservative approach you suggested is being shot to pieces as people need more money to live longer.But we are getting off topic here.

In reply to neilh:


Another good reason I will continue to avoid them then, one problem in the market close to your retirement day and you're stuffed, you have to wait years longer for the market to pick up. Madness when it's entirely preventable. Perhaps rather than invest in high risk pensions as last ditch attempt for growth, perhaps it's better to encourage more early investment in the first place. Besides, I'm on a progressive retirement plan, already in phase 1 at 45, will wind down a little more between 50 & 55, can't wait until 65/67/70 to start enjoying free time, you never know what's around the corner and might not reach it.

In reply to neilh:


All other things being equal it does, as any market barrow boy can confirm. Currently, course, all other things are not equal. Europe is in such a state that the stimulus is not enough to actually increase demand, but one argue that it has sustained demand which might otherwise have fallen. Potential margin benefits instead.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That assumes that we make things the world wants......and the fundamental is that we make high tec things that we already sell overseas at very good prices and it is unlikely that we can sell much more( there is only so much demand for these things).

We no longer make plain widgets /plain vanilla to sell overseas.( your proposition woukld be fine if we did)

You could of course completley restructure the Uk econonomy to make widgets to sell overseas,but we do not do that..

What happens when sterling devalues with companys like mine is you keep the prices the same as you sell in $ and you make more money. You do not reduce your prices to sell more as in reality you would not sell anymore.Its just stupid to cut your prices.

Its something the UK govt has been struggling to grasp over the past few years, as they could not figure out why exports had not increased in value/volume.

In reply to neilh:
Exactly - re my point regarding price elasticity.
That is even more true when what you make also depends on imports, foreign investment and foreign workers.

The only way I can see Brexit being OKish is to become a duty free economy and very lax with immigration, probably what the likes of Boris want. That won't help with exports as they will still face tarrifs but should help growth in the long term.
However this will put UK workers in direct competition with the rest of the world. Brace for impact because it won't be pretty, especially with the huge productivity gap we have.

In reply to summo:


Leaving aside the arguments about trading strategy for different types of fund (where a low risk fund such as a pension fund should definitely have a share of low risk assets which may well include blue chip shares where capital growth and dividends are retained), doesn't this somewhat undermine your entire argument in two ways - (1) you say above that current market volatility was a good thing (yet you won't invest yourself - so presumably not *that* good a thing), and (2) you're also freely admitting that this is nothing to the crash that will happen if Brexit occurs. Doesn't that tell you that this is a bad thing?

Your argument (shrugging off the loss in asset value by saying "a good time to invest") is basically saying that a recession is a good thing because it means profit making opportunities. Well, to some people who are capital rich that may be true, but for the most people (including, but not limited to all the people who will have investments which comprise those assets that have then depreciated in value so that a few people can buy them cheaply) it is overwhelmingly bad. You'd have to be a particularly cold hearted capitalist to will on a recession on the grounds that it gives an opportunity to buy cheap assets, rather than to aim for a rising tide that lifts all boats.

In reply to summo:


That was quite a long time ago. Are you genuinely trying to imply that nigh on *all* economists have a level of understanding equal to the middle ages? Ironic, given that you then go on to talk about trading strategies etc. (which are based on... economic models).


There is plenty of evidence of the effect of known things on economies - people spend their entire lives doing this. Also, this feigning complete uncertainty is clearly not what you actually believe, or why would you ever invest in anything - something you are not shy about saying you've done?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The trouble with evidence is that it is often wrong. Evidence suggested that we join the ERM, look how that turned out. Evidence suggested that we adopt the EU, it now seems to be universally accepted that would have been a a disaster also.

Al

In reply to RomTheBear:



That is basically the economic model proposed by Minford, who is more or less the only economist who forecasts any benefit to Brexit - he accepted that it would lead to the eradication of all UK manufacturing, however, and academics from LSE have rebutted his calculations to show that it his figures are overstated (so it wouldn't in fact lead to the slight benefit he forecasts, but would just be economically the "least worst" option).

The LSE paper is here, if you're interested:

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit06.pdf?ftcamp=crm/email//nbe/Marti...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Now that we can agree on and add specifically innovation as a particular area of failure compared to other major economic regions of the World. We need a new form of EU bloc for sure but I'd like to see reforming what we have given another last chance before breaking it up and starting again.

In reply to GridNorth:


Guessing you mean the Euro here - if so, that's a common misconception. The same treasury economists who wrote the current report into leaving the EU also analysed the Euro and advised the govt of the time not to join, which is one of the reasons they didn't. There also wasn't anything near the unanimity of opinion amongst economists on the effects of that as there is now around the effects of leaving.

Put another way - if economists can never be trusted (as you're implying), why do you put your faith in those who are now telling you things will be fine? Arguing that it will be OK is just as much reliant on analysis as the opposite, except with less theory to back it up.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Well I'm trying not to put too much trust in any of them because there are so many conflicting views, they tend to cancel each other out. Similarly with immigration. If the so called experts can't agree what chance have I got. I'm scared though that it's going to be a last minute decision on my part based on what I perceive to be a less democratic system than the UK Parliamentary system. Right or wrong no one has yet persuaded me that it isn't. i.e. it's going to be gut instinct at the time.

I normally do not get involved in political discussion on a forum but this issue is too important to just bury my head in the sand so although tending towards out I am still open to persuasion.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


There's massive consensus among almost all serious economic and financial institutions that leaving the EU would be a bad thing for the UK economy. Given that our economic state is still pretty fragile, and that public services are already cut to the bone, that translates into massive consensus among almost all serious economic and financial institutions that leaving the EU is going to result in more poverty and more cuts to vital public services. You _might_ think that that's a price worth paying for whatever you think the benefits of leaving are, but you absolutely cannot stick your head in the sand and pretend that nobody really knows and there's probably nothing to worry about.

In reply to GridNorth:
By the way, I don't want to sound like I'm only pro-EU out of economic fear. I could also talk about the cultural benefits that I've experienced from being in the EU - the broadening of my experience from knowing British people who've been able to work or study abroad and other EU nationals who've come over here to do the same. Or the economic benefits of being in an industry that's growing explosively off the back of being easily able to recruit the best and brightest from around Europe to complement our home grown talent. Or the political benefits of being able to work together to push forward environmental protection and individual rights as a collective rather than as a bunch of countries trying to cut corners to get one up on their neighbours economically. Or of having the global scale that's needed to be able to - or at least to have the potential to be able to - deal with global problems and regulate global industries.

The economic argument isn't the only one, but even on it's own it'd be compelling IMO.

In reply to GridNorth:


I can understand that. From where I stand it appears the economic argument falls squarely one way (simply because there is an overwhelming consensus amongst 90%+ of economists that this would be a bad thing - a level of agreement that isn't often seen). However, I think everyone can agree that there is too much noise which makes it harder to see the true picture.

To my mind, a vote to leave should be a decision made on the basis that some other benefits of being out of the EU outweighs the economic damage. Personally, I don't believe there is any other benefit to leaving (as I'm not swayed by the immigration or sovereignty arguments), but I do appreciate on that that others can have different views - I just don't agree with the denial of evidence on the economy.


I'm exactly the same - wouldn't normally discuss politics on a forum but I completely agree with the importance, even though my mind has been made up for some time! Which is why I'm so eagerly trying to persuade people of the merits of the remain case. If myself and all the other posters on this thread can offer enough to think about that you can see the arguments as clearly as possible when you make your vote, then I'd say it has been worthwhile.

In reply to GridNorth:



I think on these forums the point has been made that the EU commission exercises authority delegated from the governments of the member states.

The issue you have, as I understand it, is that there is no way for us as voters to remove that commission or its executive officers.

The commission can be removed in two ways, a vote of no confidence in the European Parliament (in the same way as a vote of no confidence in the UK parliament removes a government) or at the will of the Council of Ministers who may also remove individual commissioners.

If those commissioners were directed elected by the population of the EU rather than appointed by the (democratically elected) governments then the commissioners would have a direct democratic mandate that would challenge that of those governments. The commissioners authority would derive directly from the electorate and we would then be looking at something like a European state.

The fact that the commission only has delegated authority protects the sovereignty of the member states.

When you look at where authority really lies within the EU it is with the member states through the Council of Ministers comprised of elected politicians.

I, as you may have noticed, am very much pro EU, I am even more pro democracy, I don't find the two to be incompatible.

I do think changes could be made. Whilst I prefer authority to remain with the Council of Ministers I do think that the way we (and I mean the UK) appoint our commissioners could be overhauled. There is no reason why they could not be selected by Parliament rather than the executive. Having flirted with the idea of direct elections for commissioners I have come to the conclusion that unless and until we do want some kind of EU state its best not too.

In reply to andyfallsoff, Ramblin dave and GridNorth:

Thanks for the last few reasonable posts and discussion. Makes a nice change on this subject.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I will try to summarise one of my issues and it comes about because experts are using language to deflect debate and most of that I have witnessed has been from the remain camp. It involves the now notorious £350 million sent to Europe claim. I still do not know if it is accurate or not because the remain camp countered it by saying "It doesn't cost (The emphasise here is on the cost word) £350 million a week" That does not answer the original premise. Both statements could be true. And that is just one.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Sorry one other point,
It is often remarked that the EU parliament has no role in initiating legislation and that that is undemocratic because all legislation is initiated by the unelected commission (remember acting on the authority of the elected governments).
The reason for that is that the EU is set up to ensure that all authority remains with the member states.
In the same way that an elected commission would undercut the sovereignty of the member states an elected EU parliament that initiated legislation would do the same thing. Hence its role is to question and scrutinise and if it wishes reject but never initiate.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Still not persuaded. In fact what you have described is part of the problem, it's not simple and it's not understood, at least not by the vast majority of the population of the EU which in itself makes it less democratic and accountable.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

I think it could probably be better and more transparent, but on the other hand it seems to have chugged along reasonably effectively for a long time while doing relatively few things to seriously piss people off, and hence it goes in there in my "could be improved" box (as do various things about the UK system, come to that) rather than my "we must get out of this immediately whatever the cost" box.

In reply to GridNorth:
The UK's deal is that our calculations are based on a headline figure (c.£18bn a year / £350m ish a week). We then have a negotiated "rebate", which I think was agreed by Thatcher. Although the calculation of the rebate is relatively complex, I think it's typically about 1/3 of the total payments. The rebate isn't quite what it sounds as we never actually send that money to the EU - we only pay the net amount (so we can do what we want with the rebate, it remains in the UK for us to do with as we please).

As well as the rebate, there are distributions of EU funds which the UK will receive, so (ignoring any economic arguments about trade benefits etc. altogether) the net cost to the UK is less than the headline £350m / week contributions. Unlike the rebate though, the UK has to use these in certain ways - e.g. payments under the common agricultural policy, or redevelopment funds to poorer parts of the UK.

The disagreement arises because Leave keep saying that we would gain all of that £350m /week if we left. But given we don't pay that much in the first place, lots of people dispute this. I understand that the rebate does have to be renegotiated every 7 years, though - although I think it's agreed by mutual consent, so if the EU just said we weren't getting it anymore we would be entitled not to accept that outcome.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

If I honestly thought there was any chance of significant reform I would have no hesitation in voting to stay in. That perhaps is my most significant reason for tending towards out. Even the most ardent remainers agree that it needs reform.

Al

I can see that someone has disliked my explanation of the £350m figure / rebate situation - if there is anything inaccurate in that description, please do say what?

In reply to GridNorth:

I am with you there, successive governments have completely failed to explain it.
Perhaps because then they would be less able to blame 'europe'.

In reply to GridNorth:

Ironically, a really good opportunity to agitate for reform would have been David Cameron's "get a better deal" negotiations.

As it is, I think reform would probably be a good thing, but as it stands the problems with it seem rather abstract, particularly given that - as per Roger's explanation above - there's a lot more democratic oversight of the system than a lot of Leave campaigners would have you believe. I can't see a realistic scenario where the potential problems of a not-quite-transparent-enough EU Commission outweigh the very concrete economic, social and cultural advantages of being in.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

There are a lot of wordy explanations being put forward but this supports my argument that the system is undemocratic, sorry less democratic. I'm a big believer in the KISS principle and the UK Parliamentary system does just that.

Party A wants to do xyz - put a cross in this box

Party B wants to do 123 - put a cross in this box

Repeat every 5 years. Even though Cameron is appointed he would be out.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:





If you think the British institutions are simpler than the EU institutions, then you have some reading to do.

Anyway it's all a bit pointless, the EU institutions are not the ones of a supranational state, they are built to allow a bunch of democratic sovereign countries to work with each other.
That's imo much a much more transparent and civilised to do things than under the table deals.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I meant the voting system not the institutions. Was that not clear or were you just trying to score a point?

In reply to GridNorth:

An explanation of the UK parliamentary system would be equally wordy, especially when you get to explaining devolution.

A simple EU explanation.

You elect a government, it with other governments appoint a commission. The commission proposes stuff, you elect a parliament that keeps the commission in check.

Repeat every five years

In reply to rogerwebb:

Well that's agreeing that it's not as straightforward but a step in the right direction. Where do I find out where the commissioners, appointed by the respective Governments intend to do over those coming years i.e. their manifesto?

In reply to GridNorth:

What is complicated with the EU voting system in the uk ?
Even if you think it is, it is entirely up to the UK to decide how its MEP are elected, as long as it is a form of proportional representation.

In reply to RomTheBear:
I don't know, ask someone who doesn't understand it which I suspect is the majority of the population. I'm playing devils advocate but IMO it is less straight forward, it's once removed from the electorate and if I was to be cynical intentionally so. The part I don't know is where to find the EU manifesto.

In reply to GridNorth:

The commissioners manifesto is that given to them by the council of ministers, so although they initiate legislation it is to follow the direction of the Council. So if the council decide that say they wanted closer integration then the commission would legislate for that, likewise if the council felt that fisheries policy needed amending again they would have to legislate for that.

The direction of travel of the EU is decided by the Council of Ministers so what you are interested in here is the intention of the UK government.

The Council is inevitably a matter of compromise and whereas in the past you could veto anything now the veto is limited (although it does include whether or not Turkey gets in) but countries may still negotiate opt outs from legislation. For instance that is how we are not in the Schengen area.

I suppose really you need to know what the red lines of any potential UK government are over EU policy before voting in the UK elections. Its also worth noting that the EU parliament has a very real blocking power on legislation and can simply reject stuff it doesn't like.

In reply to GridNorth:

Again, I mostly agree with you, but how much other stuff are we willing to sacrifice purely to avoid a "less straightforward" administration?

If the lack of transparency was obviously leading to stuff that I thought was Bad and Wrong then I'd see the argument for voting Out, but at the moment it seems to be muddling along alright and mostly ending up with decisions that represent some sort of consensus of the member states. It might not be as good as it could be, but it does seem to be basically working.

In reply to GridNorth:

The MEP candidate in your constituency probably sent them out to your mailbox at election time, or available on their website. It's not rocket science, really.

It certainly is simpler and more transparent than how peers in the House of Lords are nominated.

In reply to RomTheBear:

It may not be rocket science but it feels slightly convoluted and remote from the electorate compared to a manifesto and a box to tick.