UKC

I've given up listening to government spin. If this government thinks they have much bargaining power in Europe they are deluded. It will be a messy divorce. " there are opportunities outside Europe"they say, these existed before Brexit. The UK Imports 50% of produce. Most people are going to suffer financially, for the stupidity of their shortsightedness in this vote.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


Minor change, but totally agree.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The UK has suffered for decades from an overvalued currency, which has hindered exports and thus discouraged investment, and has suffered from trade barriers with non EU countries as a result of its membership of the EU. The recent fall in sterling more than offset the tariffs likely to be imposed by the EU post brexit. The UK also suffers from incipient deflation and high debt levels, problems which will reduced by inflation.

The UK economy's biggest problem is probably its current account deficit from which its fiscal deficit partly stems . Long term the fall in sterling ts the best thing that can happen to end this.

The (relentlessly negative) spin is from the remoaners.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I predict the Remainers will keep on moaning, just like the SNP, who also lost their vote...get a grip.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Being concerned about the government recklessly turning the country into a caricature of the "little-England" with no mandate is not moaning. Neither is being concerned about being made 20% poorer in three months quite needlessly due to an unnecessary lurch towards a hard-brexit for which there is, again, no mandate. Neither is being horrified to see people (including colleagues and family) who have committed to working and living in the UK on the basis of it being an open, welcoming country being abused and hounded for being foreign as a result of government and brexiters' rhetoric

In reply to Jim 1003:

Where's your grip on reality?

Forced into a vote we didn't even want (was there a realistic alternative to voting?) and then the situation we're in is still developing to our disadvantage. What the hell is to like? The BoE has said it'll keep interest rates low despite the inflation we expect from the low pound. Pretty disastrous for a lot of us. Stupid people like you who tell us to get a grip doesn't help

In reply to Postmanpat:

Why don't you get off your soap box and stop re-moaning then you hypocrite

In reply to MG:

>
The EU is insisting hard brexit. The UK appears not to have a choice.

We are not "20% poorer". That is just a silly media headline. We will be poorer by the amount that inflation goes up.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Retired or nearly retired?

Wally

In reply to wercat:


What does that mean?

In reply to Postmanpat:


UK had a choice. And chosen. Why on Earth EU would want to make it easy and pleasant for Brits? It must feel like ditching a girlfriend who done nothing wrong. Of course she will be pissed and will puncture wheels of your car or throw your things out of the window.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Bollocks, its May, Johnson and the rest doing it. There are any number of possibilities, starting with EEA membership or similar.


Again utter cobblers. A pound is now worth 20% less that previously - that is passed in very large part directly on to most people's discretionary spending.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I voted remain and I retain the right to continue to argue that we are making a very stupid mistake. I also continue to argue that the referendum was a miscarriage of democracy.

this whole idea that we should 'get over it' is utterly bizarre.

In reply to pasbury:


Hence I didn't use the phrase. I questioned the analysis in the OP.

In reply to MG:

>
Bollocks. If the EU says they won't compromise then the UK must make plans accordingly.


So you expecting 20% inflation next year? Of course not. What matters is what it can purchase for a person based in the UK.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You know that is rubbish! It is the UK government banging on about counting foreigners, and immigration and all the rest of it, not the EU. If the UK said to the EU we want an EEA-like agreement, there would be no problem. Likewise with any number of other options. Instead the government is going for the hardest, most damaging exit possible, to appease the Farage/Fox loony wing of the brexit campaign. Switzerland has just proved it is quite possible to have a compromise with the EU.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Maybe because everything has suddenly got more expensive thanks to a majority of morons.

In reply to Postmanpat:
How can the EU compromise? 'Here, join our club, it's great - if you don't like the rules that we created to enable it to function just make up your own and we'll go along with them, oh and by the way if you think the subscription is too high just pay what you feel is appropriate.'

Hollande, Merkel and all the rest aren't playing hardball because they don't like us; they're playing hardball because a wrong move could unravel the entire project, and unleash any amount of political and economic turmoil. Personally I think they were cack-handed before the vote, a promise of significant reform would have been highly welcome and appropriate , but no doubt oily Dave was assuring them that everything was in hand and that Brexit wasn't going to happen - and he should have known, he was PM after all.

Countries do sometimes make mighty cock-ups, and bad things happen that take years to correct. I think this is one of those occasions, you don't; let's see who's correct in 2, 3 or 4 years time.

In reply to wercat:



You lost...get a grip, stop moaning...

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't recall anyone being sold this dog's dinner on the basis of currency devaluation triggered by uncertainty over our medium to long term economic outlook. Unsurprisingly that was barely mentioned by the leave campaign. The few times I recall anyone discussing it it was almost exclusively to flat out deny this very thing would happen.


Tell me with a straight face this nasty, xenophobic and insular approach to Brexit that we're seeing evolve is what you wanted for your vote.

As for inflation being a good thing... for you and me that very much depends whether wage inflation keeps pace with price inflation. A lot of people haven't seen a pay rise in the better part of a decade, what chance they have one coming now?
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


Umm, hang on a second. They said as much before hand. Why are you surprised that they are sticking to that line? Its not because you believed the bollocks you were fed by Boris et al. saying we could have any relationship we wanted is it? That they need us more? Surely not... A bunch of the strongest economies in the world not being that fussed by brokering a deal with the UK who have basically rejected what they thought were common ideals and goals? Why on earth would they go easy on us when it would then mean every UKIPesque party across Europe would then be looking to cause a shitstorm?

In reply to Jim 1003:

For gods sake mate, it's not a sodding football match or whatever - we won you lost, and that's the end of it.

In reply to Jim 1003:

The only reason there was a referendum at all was because you lot have been moaning for 40 years.

In reply to jkarran:

Well I can recollect Mr Farage saying we would be poorer but in control.

Strangely I also recall the remain campaign never really pulled him up over this and gettign straight answers.I always thought this was down to the fact the remain campign were focusing on Boris etc.

Personally I could never understand why anybody would vote to be poorer.

In reply to Removed User:

But obviously if the vote had gone 51 - 49 in favour of remain and the government had said that "we have a clear mandate and the only democratically acceptable response is to join Schengen and start actively pushing for closer European integration" then they'd have shrugged and said "yeah, fair enough, can't complain at that."

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't see that happening because the Bank of England is required to control inflation. As an exporter I've been around long enough to know what happens when sterling falls - you get a nice 3 to 6 month period where you make some good money and then interest rates get put up, the pound goes back up and the party is over. Then the high interest rates depress the UK economy so the government needs money and it starts to tax you harder.

The UK economy is managed to protect people who own overpriced houses. Has been for as long as I can remember and I don't see it changing because the people who make the decisions i.e. MPs, civil servants and bankers have most of their own money in property in London.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

According to polls before the vote, the majority of brexit voters were happy for the national economy to suffer in the short to medium term, as long as it didn't affect their own household finances. So I'm sure they're all completely fine with what is happening.

In reply to beardy mike:


Where did i say i was surprised?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
May I just point out this is not a moan. It is an observation. Everything will become even more expensive t:han it already would have done in the long run. Its not about winning or losing the vote.

Who on this forum has gained anything (financially) since this vote?

And the NHS will get £350M a day extra. Yeah right. The whole leave campaign was nothing but a pack of lies.

Incidentally Farage is UKIP, without him they are nothing.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Its kind of indicated right here. That you are expecting them to compromise. Maybe I'm mis reading that as surprise.

In reply to MG:


Agreed. Another "possibility" is a vote in parliament to ratify (or hopefully reject) Brexit (Jesus, I hate that word!). IMHO, far better than the utter nonsense that May et al are spouting about having some sort of medieval royal prerogative to reject such an vote in parliament. At least such a vote could have the potential to reverse the damage done by the referendum (which should not have taken place anyway!). I wish the legal challenge the best of luck (although I am not overly optimistic).

M

In reply to:

I'm trying to work out how this effects the national debt and borrowing but am getting in a muddle, anyone care to explain in simple terms? Presumably foreign entities buy debt priced in pounds using money they've converted from their own currency. We repay in pounds which are now worth less in the lending country's own currency so they take a hit. For future borrowing (unless there are large currency fluctuations again) it makes no difference. Is that about right?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Already blaming someone else ? Wow that didn't take long.
It's the UK insisting for Hard Brexit; by showing no willingness to compromise on either freedom of movement and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

In reply to beardy mike:

>
Where did i say that?

In reply to Tyler:


The cost of borrowing depends on the return investor will expect in exchange of holding UK debt.
At the moment the UK borrowing costs are shooting up because investors see the UK as s riskier investment, and also expect inflation to go up.
Overall the cost of borrowing remains low at the moment by historical standard, that may not last, but there are many external factors at play.

In reply to stevieb:


According to other polls a majority would prefer to stay in the single market even if that means continued free movement.
Basically we don't know what people want, mostly because what they want is contradictory or mutually exclusive, or impossible, and they've been lied to by people telling them they could have it all.

In reply to David Gainor:


Fortunately, it is a simple as that, there's been a referendum, not a football match, you lost, and we are out. However much you moan won't make any difference.
Listening to all the moaning is a pain in the arse...

In reply to Postmanpat:

You say the UK has no choice and that it's the EU who are insisting. That indicates that you were expecting them to soften their stance. Not sure how someone reading that comment could take it another way?

In reply to Jim 1003:

It's not about who won the football game anymore, there shouldn't be any backtracking of the Referendum decision - unless there is popular demand for it of course - it's about what they do with it.

In reply to Jim 1003:

So listening to an alternate point of view is a pain in the arse is it? I thought that is what Democracy is about. And besides, you seem to be saying that the referendum gave a mandate for a particular "thing" to happen. All it did was say we want to leave, not we want to leave the EEA, or stay in the EEA, or chuck out all the Poles, or any of that stuff. Your version of Brexit is different t the next mans version. So saying "right, we're leaving, so we're going to make sure its the most extreme version of leaving we can manage" is the only way to do it is utter crap. I suspect if you took a poll purely within the 52% you'd have a lot of differing stances too. So just saying we won, is not actually good enough. The government has a duty to talk about how to proceed with the democratically elected representitives of the country in Parliament, not to whitewall everything and dictate what happens.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Won what? What does brexit actually mean? Because at the moment no one seems to have a clue. Hard brexit, soft brexit, fifty f*cking shades of brexit......all the charlatans like Johnson and Farage, whose tune you just danced to, have now gone completely silent on what's actually going to happen next. Until there is a definite proposal of the terms of the uk leaving the EU, don't expect me to just blindly say "ok, that's fine by me". Not when it's already looking so bleak.

In reply to beardy mike:

To understand why May has taken the approach of not consulting parliament at every turn, this makes good reading as an even-handed explanation and dissection:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-37648525

In reply to Jim 1003:


So you think there's nothing more to discuss? In that case why wasn't Article 50 triggered right away? Why has Philkip Hammond apparently fallen out with others on the Brexit committee?

It's worse than that, it's treason. Or it should be according to some.

In reply to BnB:

There's a good quote in there, from David Davis himself - "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

In reply to Postmanpat:


Maybe you're right - making imports more expensive, increasing inflation and interest rates will make a substantial number of people poorer and this may improve the balance of payments. Though there's no evidence of this from previous sterling devaluations - https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8361

The huge trouble with Brexit is not trade barriers, but non-trade barriers. The much vaunted trade deals (and WTO rules) only cover goods. We don't make much any more and 80% of our GDP is in services. A big example of this is the city passporting agreements, which could have a big negative affect on the economy. People are fond of saying so what, f*ck-off bankers, but they pay an awful lot of tax. The impact of these post-Brexit isn't clear, but it's unlikely to be good - I work in Canada for a (German owned UK company) and doing work in the US as a service company under NAFTA is possible, but it's a huge pain in the arse, and enough of one not to bother.

Almost all sensible economic bodies think leaving the single market will be a big negative for the UK (Economists for Brexit aren't sensible, they completely ignored services from their projections). There's a slim possibility that they are all wrong, but it seems doubtful.

It's probably pretty obvious that I voted remain, but I had a good crawl round the internet reading both sides of the economic arguments. If you're ideologically wedded to Brexit (like David Davis, say), then fair enough, but please stop telling people to stop being negative and about the potential huge and real negative impacts on the economy. I haven't heard anything sensible about these, other than the stop moaning mantra. It's not really a constructive way to start healing a clearly divided country and move forward in some sensible way.

In reply to BnB:

Yep - interesting. I understand from her point of view, mainly in terms of her ability to stay PM, votes are bad news. That's not a good enough reason though... the reality is that if there was a general election tomorrow, I think she'd have a hard time. Say what you like about Corbyn, I suspect he has a broader fan base than the media like to portray (I know shocking isn't it that the media could be biased ) Whether it'd be enough I don't know. But I suspect we'd see UkIP strengthening as they've had some success so the closet UKIPers would be encouraged. And given that a vote would most likely divide the Tories there's a good chance that the whole stack of cards would fall before an election. If May fails then its most likely going to be Boris next... now theres a thought...

In reply to George Ormerod:

"We don't make much any more and 80% of our GDP is in services."

"Services make up 70pc of the EU economy yet account for just 22pc of internal EU trade. All attempts to open services up to cross-border commerce have been defeated, to the detriment of Britain.The sorry saga of the Services Directive in 2006 tells all you need to know about how the EU works. "The French and Germans gutted it," said Professor Alan Riley from the Institute for Statecraft. The 'country of origin rule' that would have allowed firms to operate anywhere in the EU under their own domestic law was dropped, casualty of the "Polish plumber" scare. The directive did not cover health care, transport, legal services, professions, tax experts, and the like. Germany protected its guilds."
from and more here..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/12/if-europe-insists-on-a-hard-...

"..A big example of this is the city passporting agreements, which could have a big negative affect on the economy. People are fond of saying so what, f*ck-off bankers, but they pay an awful lot of tax."

I posted these two links elsewhere today but relevant to your point. you are right to be concerned but nothing is black and white ..

https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-advises-extension-fund...
https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/issues/21-july-2016/esma-passporting-bluep...

In reply to RomTheBear:


have they gone up yet?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

similar problem for Tate & lyle, due to the EU's country of origin rulings. - http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tate-lyle-boss-we-may-push-for-brex... this is from before the vote, but he is now happy the UK is exiting.

In reply to summo:


Yes.
http://markets.ft.com/data/bonds

In reply to beardy mike:

Well considering the latest polls show May has a dominant position - so to speak--- I am not sure your views really stack up.... something like a 17 % lead. Even for errors etc, that is a pretty clear %.

In reply to RomTheBear:

just like the fuel prices - I saw £1.29 per litre yesterday in Yorkshire. More to come I think.

In reply to Jim 1003:

>You lost...get a grip, stop moaning...

>Fortunately, it is a simple as that, there's been a referendum, not a football match, you lost, and we are out. However much you moan won't make any difference.
>Listening to all the moaning is a pain in the arse.

Your knuckles must be like leather.

I can only think of one person who has given me any kind of valued reasoning that makes this reality anything like a good idea and that's Rees-Mogg. He seems like one of the only true politicians around at the moment. Principled and sure of his beliefs, yet courteous and respectful to people who don't share them. Though some of his gerrymandering has been questionable.

I can't wait for the result across the water come 8th November. Do you think Trump and his hoards are gonna accept defeat? Remoaners will seem like sweet grannies, complaining their tea has gone a bit tepid. Still, could be worse, he might win and tolerance will be dead for sure.

In reply to RomTheBear:

a change in yield of 0.3% over the past month is hardly ground breaking, but yes I'll agree it is a very slight increase in risk.

Edit; the US one is more alarming.

In reply to neilh:

Although we all know where relying on polls gets you

In reply to Hugh J:

the potential with either result is quite scary, depending on how leaders and the media whip people up into a frenzy.

In reply to Jim 1003:

It is patriotic duty to contest the madness of Brexit before it is actually implemented.

As I understand it, Brexiteers voted for 'taking back control of immigration' yet what we are heading towards is exemptions for The City (passports), and doctors (until such time as we have persuaded hundreds more people to study medicine whilst getting in to massive debt, to work in a high pressure job that involves long hours).

Meanwhile London and Dublin are struggling to see how to manage the border in NI - according to The Conversation, they've entertained the idea of Ireland actually running our immigration controls through NI - so hardly taking back control. And the SNP are jostling for a further referendum.

As for Europe, it looks like we will be paying through the nose to get access to the single market and subsidising large employers like Nissan for any administrative overheads.

In energy we are paying the French via the Chinese to build a nuclear powerstation that will cost double the current kw/h should it ever get built - and with the costs increasing due to a weakened sterling, who knows...

Whilst on the front line, our next-gen nuclear submarines are using American engines and missile systems, French steel and sonar technology, and further technologies from Italy. All servicing and repairs of these parts will NOT be done in the UK. This shit is only going to get MORE expensive outside of the EU and guess who picks up the tab?


Brexit has opened a can of whoop-ass on ourselves, but let's pretend that the Bremoaners are responsible for talking the UK down. Make Britain Great again......meh....

Hopefully Summo, Big Ger and Neilh will sort it out all.

In reply to summo:


Great. Because what Britain really needs it is cheaper sugar! The hell with everything else we import. I'm absolutely stoked I'll be paying more for just about everything so long as the boss of T&L is happy, he'll now have more money now with which to lobby parliament to cut the taxes they're about to impose on his industry.
jk

In reply to Shani:

As I keep reminding you I voted remain : ) But some of the rubbish and doom mongering coming from those who voted with me just winds me up and is just as unbalanced.If I was in Mays shoes, I would also play my card close to my chest/ Its just plain common sense from a negotiating perspective.

Besides I did not want to go into a European superstate which is now what Junckers is proposing.I suspect most who voted remian did not want this.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The incredible amount of deflection going on is proof that the government is completely clueless and knows it.

Hence we have people spouting utter shite such as:

That's his job.

In reply to Jim 1003:


We need something to hold on to. What have you got?

In reply to Hugh J:




You cannot be serious.
Don't be taken in by is oily tones and donnish manners.
He is a Trump apologist. Backtracking now he sees it puts him beyond the pale. Rees Mogg is an utter scoundrel.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Rees Mogg - Minister for the 18th Century.

In reply to beardy mike:

>
They could just just take it as it was written, as a simple description of what is happening.
As it happens I was open minded on their likely reaction beforehand and remain open minded and therefore am neither surprised nor congratulatory about my prescience.

In reply to summo:

That equates to +25%. It's pretty big. As I said is still below historical level, so not a huge concern just now.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, that's not what's happening is it. The UK has a choice; we can remain in the EU, or we can decide to leave and rejoin the EEA, or we can leave and leave the single market. The EU haven't actually stated any official position have they. There's be statements of all sorts by individuals which are part of the political banter that's going on. Anyway, sorry if I've misinterpreted what you said. I sincerely hop that the government are openminded but it's not the impression they give.

In reply to MG:

>
So far the government has done little more than propose a consultation on a number of policies aimed at bringing some sort of order to the number of immigrants and to enfore the laws already in place. The proposals are much less demanding that those of the EU to non EU nationals or countries as diverse as Canada, Australia, the US to potential immigrants. It doesn't make people xenophobes to think immigration should be controlled not does it make a government xenophobic if it acts on the democratic will. It should be perfectly possible to reach a compromise with the EU which allows the UK to be in charge of it's borders but also to be able to trade easily with the EU.

The EU won't let the Swiss do this nor will they let the UK.

In reply to jkarran:

>
It was pretty obvious to anyone who took any notice of these things. Every analyst in the City and media was forecasting it.

>
See my reply to MG. This sort of accusation is just misinformed hysteria.

>
It's obviously a bad thing for consumers, unless they have debt, which many obviously do. It's then a balance between the increased cost of living and the inflating away of their debt.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The EU has an extremely strong bargaining position and is prepared to use it rationally in its own interests. Again, this shouldn't surprise anyone.

However, saying "Hard Brexit or free movement of people" isn't the same as saying "Hard Brexit or nothing". We're the ones who are making that call.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You mean "experts" I thought we knew better than listen to them.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You mean "Project Fear"? I thought people kept telling me I should ignore that. They weren't being misleading were they?

In reply to Pete Pozman:



I did say I agreed with him on Brexit or all of his politics, but at least he seems to do it in the right way (except for the gerrymandering), that is courteously and intelligently. I suspect his (former) support for Trump is more than likely because of his repulsion to Clinton.

On Jeremy Corbyn (you can read the thoughts of Liz Kendall like a book!):
youtube.com/watch?v=FvecYC3K9A8&
On Hillsborough (around 1:15):
youtube.com/watch?v=BWM5gQIlI8k&
Pre-Brexit arguments (seems well argued, though I don't agree):
youtube.com/watch?v=Mk6Ymy758l4&

In reply to Postmanpat:


>
See my reply to MG. This sort of accusation is just misinformed hysteria.

What sort of bubble do you live in? It's not hysteria. It's happening now. Personally I know two people who have already left a a result of the post Brexit atmosphere and many more who are considering their future. Hadley Freeman describes the feelings well

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/15/brexit-britain-where-...

In reply to Postmanpat:


You yourself were arguing that we should ignore these predictions because they were wrong - e.g. here:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=643511&v=1#x8322728

Many of the rest of us were saying that it was pretty obvious, yes.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Which ones?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Can you show me the quote ?

I'm certainly sceptical about economists' predictions having spent my whole working career monitoring them on a daily basis, but that sterling would fall if we left was one of the less controversial ones and certainly was widely enough predicted that nobody should have been taken by surprise.

In reply to MG:



You mean by spreading misinformed hysteria!!

In reply to Shani:


But maybe not with this "glass half empty" style of rant


Why wouldn't we have a transitional arrangement? It makes obvious sense. ANd looking further into the future, medicine as a discipline is oversubscribed by an overwhelming proportion. These figures are a couple of years old but paint the picture: "University of Bristol had 4,000 applicants for its three medicine and surgery courses this year but just 232 places – enough for just one in 17. The University of Birmingham had 2,500 applicants but could accept only 334 undergraduates." The problem is quotas but the solution is obvious. There is no shortage of willing and able candidates, especially now that the BMA is finally realising that 3 A*s in STEM subjects doesn't always guarantee the best bedside manner.


Eire is not in Schengen. And no one is struggling. It's a problem that needs a solution. So we'll iron one out for goodness sakes.


If we do pay for access to the market it won't be appreciably different to the fees paid previously. What's the big deal? It's peanuts next to GDP. I'm happy for us to pay it as I'd like us to stay in the single market and if the wider deal satisfies people's fears on migration, so much the better. Meanwhile you really can't read anything into Nissan's meeting with the PM other than that Mr Ghosn has better insight into the negotations than you or me and he looked pretty happy with what he saw.


What's this go to do with Brexit and had you considered the advantages of the transaction being GBP-demoninated with prices set at the 2012 level for 35 years?


Well, we already pick up the tab don't we? The subs don't come free as a perk of EU membership. And do you imagine our subs simply shuttle from one international service bay to another all the time? Not very stealthy wouldn't you say? Or perhaps we have the wit to perform some of the maintenance ourselves, you know like in secret?



But at least they are seeing past the problem. The problem with all this Bremoaning isn't that people shouldn't raise the issues, it's the complete refusal to engage with the reasons why people voted as they did, to explore what opportunities might arise from it, and to display the pragmatism that sees both sides adopting negotiating stances in order to arrive at a middle ground. Surely you've noticed that, right across the world of business, exceptionally experienced and well-informed decision makers are exhibiting anything but panic, except where, in the case of the City or Nissan, it suits their agenda to stir up fear as a form of lobbying. The consensus is that a deal will be done.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I'm guessing you mean that UKIP is Farage. And yes, I agree that without him they are nothing, which is as damning an indictment I can think of.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You think she is making up how she and others feel?

Being deeply upset by having people turn up on your doorstep and tell you "now you must go home", as happened to a connection is not hysteria. Maybe in wealthy, leafy Surrey or wherever you live, it feels different, but that is the reality for many. Telling people they are hysterical probably just intensifies the feeling.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

What I really don't get is why May has gone so religious over Brexit. She voted remain, the margin of victory was slim. She's a gun for hire, and would have been just as strident if the vote had gone the other way. Current opinion polls indicate a second referendum might go the other way, and that people are far more concerned about access to the single market than immigration. Yet no heresy is allowed.

No overtures are made to the 48%, one nation Toryism is dead.

Why? I can see no reason for it and only trouble ahead whatever happens.

In reply to MG:


I think she is spreading fear and hysteria on the basis of very little underlying reasoning.

The UK is leaving the EU and as part of this, like virtually every country in the world, including the EU, it will reintroduce rules on the numbers and types of migrants (from the EU, in the UK's case). Also like every country in the world, but probably much less than most countries in the world (and the EU) the UK has some nasty xenophobic elements.

This doesn't make even a cursory mention of Nazi Germany in articles such as hers anything more than hysterical idiocy.

In reply to Postmanpat:
You clearly simply don't meet people who feel threatened by the current rhetoric and atmosphere. It's not imagined, and its rather patronising to suggest you know better than others how society regards them.

In reply to MG:


It's no more patronising than suggesting that you know better than others how society regards them!

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't!

Some more hysterical little petals here

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/17/3-million-citizens-uk...

In reply to ian caton:




Well fairly obviously because she voted remain!! She has to prove to the party and the country that she will execute the democratic mandate.

And as for one nation Toryism being dead. Sheesh, with the exception of immigration virtually every other element of her conference speech represented a shift toward the left and one nation Toryism.

In reply to MG:
>
And the EU could put an end to all their fears in a second.

There is an interegnum. There is uncertainty. It creates anxiety. This is entirely different to a lot of shite about Nazis.

Although I'm pretty certain that existing EU citizens resident in the UK will be granted full residency rights, I don't rule out the possibility that the new limits on immigration will be overly restrictive and I expect them to be fraught with bureacratic incompetence leading to gross iniquities. But that is another topic.

In reply to Postmanpat:
To be clear, by others, I mean those feeling threatened, not me.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Eh! The whole point is the EU no longer can!


So you now agree it's not hysteria! Good

In reply to MG:
>
They can say they will allow UK citizens to remain the EU. Job done.


Uncertainty about visa status is not the same as fear of xenophobes and racists, which is what you appeared to imply.

In reply to Postmanpat:


We are talking about EU (and other) citizens here, not the other way around.


Sorry but it is the same thing. The visa thing is being dominated by xenophobic rhetoric; it's not a calm rational debate e.g. "interim" medics.

In reply to MG:

>
It's been made pretty clear that the UK wants to grant residency to EU ctizens but needs confirmation that this will be reciprocated. Ergo....

>
For example? You claimed this before and came up with one comment by Liam Fox. Hardly "dominated"

In reply to Postmanpat:
And add in today's example: a call by a Tory councillor for those advocating EU membership to be labeled treasonous . May has yet to condemn this but waffles about people using different terms.

In reply to MG:


That's it?!!! That's not xenophobic. It's just cretinous.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Quibbling over semantics won't make people feel any more secure. It is an example of the poisonous rhetoric that's current.

In reply to MG:

That's not "semantics" . The issues are different.

This councillor is not referring to immigration. He is presumably referring to his democratic principles in which case it is no more "poisonous" than the stuff coming out the remainers demanding this that and all the other in the name of their democratic principles before brexit happens. That is not poisonous. It's just excessive and angry.

In reply to Postmanpat:

WTF! Which remain supporting politician has called for treason charges against those who disagree with them politically? Poisonous is a gentle word for it, it's more like Stalinist!

In reply to MG:

Yes, he's an idiot. But this isn't anti foreigner stuff. It's just hyperbolic illiberal nonsense. Anyway, he's been suspended from the local party.

In reply to Postmanpat:
>. Anyway, he's been suspended from the local party.

But the PMs spolesman can't be bothered to condemn him when directly asked. Which is the problem : atmosphere.

In reply to MG:



Yup, spokesman screwed up.

In reply to Shani:

the question is really can the UK exit and get established globally, before the EU/Euro collapses. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eurozone-euro-collapse-hous...

In reply to Hugh J:

Who's he talking to?
You are being fooled by his oily tones and donnish manner. I used to think "This is a reasonable Tory..." Now I believe he is the worst kind of Tory. Like Bojo, he treats politics as a debating competition. He sounds reasonable but he lacks principle.

In reply to pasbury:

I agree. As I said in another thread.

I guess my view is this.

A majority of the passengers have voted to steer the ship into an iceberg.

* Some of them because they were a bit short sighted and couldn't see the iceberg.
* Some were told the iceberg was not there by the first mate, who didn't want to steer the ship into an iceberg either but wanted to depose the captain and this was a handy excuse.
* Some chose not to look out the portholes in that particular direction.
* Some felt the important thing was to have the passengers in charge of the ship's course regardless of the consequences, rather than to chart a good (iceberg-free) course.

Unfortunately, I am also on the bl**dy ship, and will drown in exactly the same way as all those who voted in an iceberg direction, whether they knew it was there or not. I am not going to shut up about the bl**dy iceberg.

In reply to John_Hat:
I like the way you put this. But there's something missing....

*Some think the ship is unsinkable
*The ship may, in fact, be unsinkable; after all, it's been afloat for many years without sinking but no ship has hit an iceberg quite like this before

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Agreed and nicely put.

In reply to neilh:



You want to cost Brexit , but don't want to to see any value in it.

In reply to Jim C:

Please can you outline what you see as the value?

In reply to Postmanpat:


It wasn't a shift to the left it was a shift from liberal to authoritarian. She managed to throw away the good bits of Thatcherism and keep only the bad bits.

In reply to John_Hat:

Weren't most of them saying 'Shut up about the bloody iceberg turn up the music and bring me another drink'?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

What the majority voted for doesn't exist and can't exist.

In reply to aln:

... and what this G&T really needs is some ice...

In reply to Jim Fraser:


the same could be said for the EU and Euro long term (in it's current format and without meaningful reform).

In reply to Lurking Dave:


I think Juncker prefers brandy whilst captaining his Iceberg.

In reply to summo:

Gallows humour this morning summo?

Those who laugh last, etc……… But I don't see anything to laugh at if we, the EU or both sink without a trace.

In reply to John_Hat:

The bit you have left out is that the people who are dissatisfied with the mass decision are being ridiculed by some on this thread who really should know and behave better as "Moaners".

I can take any amount of discussion on the subject but behavior like that is crass and childish and bullying. You know who you are ...

In reply to Postmanpat:


How does being in the EU lead to an over valued currency?

Have not Ford, GM, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Tata, BMW etc invested in the UK? Why did they bother?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

they must have been mistakes?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sure, when they abolish the Human Rights Act, divert much-needed education funding to grammar schools and whatever other treats they have in store for us we can quote her speech and the government will slap its palm to its face and say "But of course, this isn't what we're meant to be doing at all!" May's recent rhetoric and her voting record look like they don't belong to the same person. I know which of them affects my life more.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

We run a current account deficit, where the stock of foreign-owned assets in the UK has exceeded the stock of our assets in other countries by an increasing margin. To buy UK assets, foreigners need to buy pounds (strengthening) and if we wish to buy foreign assets we need to sell pounds (weakening)

So your Ford, Nissan, Toyota etc....is part of the reason the pound has been over valued for so long. The IMF , DB and SEB have all said prior to Brexit that the pound was 10-15% overvalued and stiffling our economic growth.

Leaving the EU has caused foreigners to sell the pound, weakening it and making us more competitive. It also gives the BoE wiggle room in the future to potentially raise interest rates (which tends to strengthen the pound) and battle any inflation .

In reply to Jim C:


I haven't seen any cogent expression of what this 'value' is, either before or after the referendum.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Is that the case? From what to what? Do you have a link? IIRC you said this was your line of business

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Deliberate (?) misunderstanding of the motivation behind this and deliberate ignoring of the bulk of the speech.

I am finding the overblown reaction of some of the remain camp quite an eye opener as to how apparently sensible people can "lose their marbles".

In reply to Postmanpat:



Don't mistake mistrust for ignorance.

In reply to Postmanpat:


On the other hand, at least they have some marbles to lose

In reply to Postmanpat:



Odd you should say that, I am finding the reverse. How apparently sensible people can defend the most unpleasant and obnoxious politics because their tribe is buying into it and how they voted.

In reply to ukb shark:


Have you heard of a program called "the news" ?
Or just check the uk gilts yield on google...

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Because decades of union dominance, followed by the death of apprentices... Resulted in UK car industry producing poor quality vehicles in an inefficient manner?

In reply to David Gainor:

Yes - with fifty shades of brexit, it is quite ironic that the hopeless gaggle of cretinous brexit politicians couldn't agree on the colour of shite!

In reply to David Gainor:
Indeed that eejit Boris Johnson is palpably unable to even suggest a colour for excrement! The colour of his brain may match!

In reply to Postmanpat:

'I am finding the overblown reaction of some of the remain camp quite an eye opener as to how apparently sensible people can "lose their marbles"'

The fact is, the vast majority of people quite understandably have no interest in economics. Lyndon Johnson once said, 'Making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg. It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else'.

In reply to summo:
Poor management not unionism, Germany managed to have a strong unionised labour force and I don't see VW or BMW struggling, the Austin allegro was a crap car poorly designed and you can't blame the unions because people preferred a VW golf, Britain has a history of poor workplace relationship between workers and management and the problems were on both sides. The victors get to write history and we forget that when looking back at the 70s and take it as a given that everything was the unions fault and that that the thrusting powerhouse that was British management was just held back by them, obviously now we have really good management like mike Ashly etc now those pesky unions have been done away with

In reply to jethro kiernan:

never said it was purely the unions, it will have been the managers of many companies in all industries that thought it better to take on YTS kids at £27 a week, then renew them every 2 years, instead of offering longer term apprenticeships. Then the government (all colours) who pushed Uni degrees in any field over hard skills. The failings were on all sides and it didn't just impact the car industry. If BL is too busy fighting itself, it's perfect timing for competitors to take the market share.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Well that wasnt helpful. I know a reasonable amount about equities but little about gilts.

For anyone else in the same boat with a passing interest! a quick google suggests that 10 year gilts are a common benchmark and there is a chart here:

http://uk.investing.com/rates-bonds/uk-10-year-bond-yield-streaming-chart

As I understand it the lower the yield is the equivalent of the lower the interest that government pays on newly issued debt (that can then be traded on the bond market) and the lower the interest the less the market perceives the risk of the issuer ie the UK Government.

From the chart I can see a recent uptick from record a yearly low so back at the level of just a few weeks ago.

So when you say they are "shooting up" they are still well below the levels of a few months ago and it is not yet clear whether this a correction (dead cat bounce or whatever) or an upward trend. I also glimpsed an article saying that the German and US gilt yields have also ticked up recently (but not as much) http://www.reuters.com/article/britain-markets-idUSL4N1CN3PU

In reply to Postmanpat:

Dear Partick Post,




Read the THREAD. The insulting on this thread and labelling of those who disagree as "moaners" began early and was the first insult on the thread. It set the tone.

I's school playground bully tactics to insult or upset someone and then pick on them for reacting

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I think your comments on the 70s and the unions are not based on memory of living through that time. Faults on both sides but having lived through the whole of the 70s in my teens and as a young adult I recall Britain being called "The sick man of Europe" and references to British unionized workers as "The British Disease", with justification.

In reply to summo:

on a point of order, as a person who was unemployed in the early 80s at the height of unsympathetic Thatcherism I think YTS was introduced then and not earlier.

In reply to ukb shark:






Yes


Which is exactly what I said in my post.

In reply to wercat:



As this thread opens with a grumble and a calling out of Leave voters for their "stupid shortsightedness" are you sure your analysis is entirely even-handed?

In reply to RomTheBear:



Hard to tell. Either I cant find the post where you said it was "shooting up" or you've altered or deleted it. You didnt say much contextually in the post which is why I asked for further information and you effectively told me to sod off

In reply to jethro kiernan:


To throw you a counter sound bite: That's because the German unions were and still are bought into the success of the company whereas British unions were all "what can I get out of the company".

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Postman's assertion was that the over valued pound reduced investment, yours is that too much investment has over valued the pound.

If PP is right then presumably we'll see a load of foreign investors coming to our shores due to the weak pound, if you're right then we'll just see the pound tank without any increase in investment - have I got that right(ish)?

In reply to wercat:

I have worked as a rigger in British shipyards and Dutch and German shipyards I have also worked in management and I agree that there were faults on both sides and some unions weeny helping their members.
This however resulted in the eviceration of vast swaths of British industry for ideological reasons, the rest of Europe saw skilled industrial labour as an integral
part of the broadening middle classes (Dutch black trades I worked with in shipyards saw themselves as middle class in as much as they paid much attention to such distinctions) the rest of Europe gave a lot of support to industry whilst paying lip service to neoliberalism when it suited them.
The crazy thing is now we have a bunch of brexiteers saying we are going to be an exporting nation again (what??)Whilst gutting the financial services that we have used to boost our financial standing in the world.
A can see us turning into a country of gun runners and financial spivs remember we thought prince Andrew should be a trade envoy for us 😕

In reply to wercat:

I still cycle over a footbridge bridge built and erected under the YTS (or was it the YOP)
One of those.
The letters were on the steelwork in weld metal , but it has been covered over now with a new surface , but it was early 80s I believe.

In reply to jethro kiernan:
If you 'worked' in a British shipyard in the 1970's or 1980's you were the exception.
Most of us spent more of the working day skiving or in the pub than shipbuilding. Can't understand where it al went wrong!

In reply to Jim C:
Early eighties, my dad worked as a supervisor on YTS building the castle Helen birdwatching tower

In reply to ukb shark:

Are you joking ?
Look at the last paragraph of my post :

"Overall the cost of borrowing remains low at the moment by historical standard, that may not last, but there are many external factors at play."

If that's not giving context I'm not sure what is.
I also had given a link to summo as well... this is the biggest mostly increase this 1992 so yes cost of borrowing is shooting up, but as I said, still low by historical standard.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

You asked why being in the EU overvalued our currency and mentioned a few foreign companies with large operations here.

My post was trying to explain how the pound can be effected by our current account deficit which those companies have played a small role in, and not directly by EU membership (although that does effect sentiment as we are seeing right now)

So in simple terms, a strong pound makes foreign imports attractive and UK exports unattractive, a weak pound make foreign goods less attractive and UK exports more attractive. This relationship impacts on our current account deficit

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/5265-overvalued-british-po...

I think this link will be useful as well

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2882/currency/problems-of-overvalued-exch...

In reply to RomTheBear:


Seems like you've deleted the post I responded to and quoting different posts to justify yourself.

Anyway we agree that the UK is not having difficulty borrowing at the moment or paying over the odds to do so.

The globally low yield of gilts has seemed like a bubble due to burst for years now but presumably the imbalance between Far East savers and Western spenders has made and sustained these levels. Presumably if the Chinese economy collapses gilt yields will shoot up for all developed countries?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Does it really matter in the end ? At the end of the day what matters is to have a successful economy.
The UK did quite well, by being a good and safe place to invest, full access to the single market, a growing population etc etc.., foreign investor piled up money in uk assets, making us richer.

Now we are moving to situation where foreigners are not so sure anymore that the UK is a safe, stable, and profitable place to invest, and are moving their money out of it.
The reality of currency depreciation is that we're basically making everybody poorer, so that we're cheaper, and hopefully that makes us more competitive.

A permanent fall in the value of the pound due to an increased risk brings no gain, it's just the value of the pound reflecting uk assets being worth less, as opposed to a temporary market correction.

There is also a lot of evidence that the fall in the pound is unlikely to reduce our current account deficit at all, just because of the way modern economies are. The cost of what we produce largely depends on imported skills, material, parts services, and critically, our ability to bargain away our access to the single market.

In reply to ukb shark:


??? I've not deleted anything whatsoever.
You've just no read my post properly.


Yes. But it may not continue.


Theoretically, the opposite would happen.

How come?

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think it does. A weakening currency is a very useful lever in gaining competitiveness. Yes there are downsides, but in a sluggish economy, a strong currency is a real handbrake on growth. If you look at the bigger picture then it has been a bit of a gift. The BoE has been trying to weaken the currency via incredibly low interest rates and QE. Neither have been very effective. Now we have a weaker currency .

In regards to "foreign investor piled up money in uk assets, making us richer." If "us" is the 1% and London home owners then yes, they have become much richer. A large majority of the UK have very little, if any assets and have not managed to ride that wave. A more competitive economy might help raise some wages across the board and get us out of this stagnant phase.

Regarding whether modern economies are affected by this sort of thing. Look at the eurozone and the different economies reactions to the strength of the euro. Currency strength/weakness does make a big difference.

I would like to point out that I am not saying that Brexit is a nirvana that will see the UK rise like a pheonix from the flames because of course I don't know. I am arguing that the devaluing pound shouldn't be viewed as a huge negative re Brexit . There are some winners and losers, but on balance I think it's a good thing long term.

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://newsthump.com/2016/10/18/lower-growth-tumbling-pound-and-rising-infl...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Do you know why the stock market has risen?

The uk is now an incredibly attractive place to invest as the cost of buying Uk companies has dramatically fallen.

Cheap as chips and still a relatively safe place compared with others ( a point often overlooked).

Expect over the next few months some serious m & a's.

In reply to jkarran:

Very good

a couple of those links "from the web" at the bottom have some excellent pictures

In reply to neilh:


Because the FTSE is full of companies with earning in $ with no exposure to the uk economy ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

So in all honesty you do not really know....

In reply to neilh:
buying the rumour now, and selling the fact later . Basically UK companies could be about to be targets for M&A so get in now
also known as carpet bagging

In reply to RomTheBear:


True of the FTSE 100 but not so much the FTSE 250 which is also up

In reply to neilh:


?? I just gave you a clear answer.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Totally agree we are fcuked. We import far more than we export so prices and inflation will rise. Guess who will suffer? The poor and savers.

In reply to neilh:



https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/4155cd6c-9485-11e6-a80e-b...

In reply to Do you know why the stock market has risen?

It has risen due to quantitive easing. The well off who have shares will benefit. The rest of us get increased prices in the shops, and pathetic savings rates..

In reply to Bob Hughes:

The 250 has more UK exposure than the 100 but still lots of non-UK. The FT produced a chart which showed the good v bad performers - the good ones are typically mining / internationals, the bad ones are UK businesses. I'll try to find it and post a link.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You gave an opinion...no more....

In reply to neilh:


So did you.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The economy wasn't sluggish.


That's not true though, even if the only asset you have are your skills, they've effectively been marked down by the fall in the pound.


Pretty much ever time the pound has sunk in the UK it hasnt resulted in a lower current account deficit.


I don't think it's a negative. It acts as a cushion by lowering living standards at the profit of jobs.
Bit at the end of the day, there is no free meal. UK plc will have to change its business model to adapt to the new environment. It could take a generation.

In reply to MG:


But I have asked you several times what these polices are that you find so obnoxious and you then revert to focussing on the rhetoric. When I ask you about the rhetoric you have found only two examples, and one of those of a complete non entity who has since been suspended.

If you are simply of the view that any controls on immigration are "unpleasant and obnoxious" then say so. If not then tell us what actual policies you regard as "unpleasant and obnoxious".

Obviously there are some on UKC who, if Theresa May were the reincarnation of Mother Theresa, would still label her "Cruella" or "daughter of Thatcher" or whatever. Others are more sensible and yet still seem either not to have actually listened to what she has said, or have chosen to ignore the vast bulk of it and focus on a few lines.
Or, and this is more concerning, have fallen hook, line and sinker for the media remainers' portrayal of her policies and for the popular sentiments behind brexit.

Can you tell me how much if May's conference speech was devoted to immigration? Can you tell me exactly which part of Rudd's proposals you find "obnoxious"?

Personally I do fear that May has possibly drawn a false inference about the brexit vote: that it was about immigration, whereas the evidence suggests that it was primarily about sovereignty. But I am still searching for evidence that this is the case and in the meantime I'll follow the evidence not the artificially hyped hysteria.

In reply to Postmanpat:

For the nth time I am talking primarily about the atmosphere and rhetoric. This is what makes people feel threatened and insecure and generates an unpleasant, unwelcoming atmosphere for foreigners. If many people feel this way, it is not "artificial"; it is reality and politicians have a responsibility to change the atmosphere but they aren't, they are doing the opposite in fact. You might gauge atmosphere by timing how much of May's speeches refer to various topics but this isn't how most people judge things.

Despite this, I have pointed to proposed policies, for example the suggestion the companies should be forced to number overseas workers, or the idea that overseas doctors would be regarded as "interim" employees until British ones came along.

It would be entirely possible to present things in a different and positive light and still propose lower levels of immigration in the future.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Well, I didn't say that it did.

In addition to bjartur's comments, the pound has been strong because, against the background of the inflationary nightmare of the 70s, the authorities have been willing to accept or even encourage a strong currency as an antidote to the inflation phanto.

As a politically stable open economy with unusually liquid asset markets the UK has been a very attractive destination for foreign capital. It still can be.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

How many Brexiters does it take to change a lightbulb?

One to hold the lightbulb and 17million to screw the rest of the country...

In reply to Postmanpat:

"The UK has suffered for decades from an overvalued currency, which has hindered exports and thus discouraged investment, and has suffered from trade barriers with non EU countries as a result of its membership of the EU. "

Well, next time try splitting ^that^ sentence up a bit!

Thanks

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: Serious question to your point that it is overall a 'good thing'. Over the last years one of the cries has been that there is an increases in inequality, and that while there are high levels of employment, many of the jobs created are of low value. Many people perceive thtat while the economy is performing rather well, that is only affecting share prices and personal economies are stagnant, or that living standards are decreasing. I fail to see how rising inflation and making most everything more expensive will make this better.

While a lower pound may well make British companies more attractive to deal with, buy, the effect on the UK citizen consumer outside the city will be a decreased standard of living

In reply to MG:
>


Make your mind up! You just referred to "obnoxious polices"!

But you don't seem to realise that it is the media that is stoking up the atmosphere, despite quoting Gaurdian articles doing just that. Rudd didn't use the words "name and shame". They were put into her mouth and she failed to bat it back. The media is in the game of finding careless words and fanning the flames.

Miliband pledged a new system of controls, including a new system to count people in and out of the country, 1,000 new border staff and tougher rules on claiming benefit, promised to end illegal and abusive practices which see migrants living and working in appalling conditions for minimal pay, a 100-strong police and Home Office enforcement unit to increase prosecutions and fines against bad employers who are undermining the minimum wage and encouraging low-skilled migration. From memory he also said something very similar about immigrant nurses being a stop gap
And he said there would be a cap on immigrants coming to the UK from outside the EU.

But the media didn't stir up hysteria because it didn't suit their stereotypes and obsessions. Instead they stirred up hysteria around Brown and the "bigotted woman" because that suited their, and maybe their readers', preconceptions and obsessions.

Don't fall for it.

In reply to Andy Hardy:





I did! I could never be accused of underusing commas!

In reply to wbo:

The BoE inflation target is 2%. That's their target number, The number they want. It's been much lower than that for a long time . It's just increased to 1% (going in the right direction) and a certain area of the press have made out this is a disaster and Brexit is to blame.

I'm trying to stay away from the politics of it and present an agnostic picture of what's happening. Yes, high inflation is not a good thing for a lot of people , stagnation and deflation isn't either. A balance needs to be struck. 1% inflation and rising is not a bad thing if it can be controlled.

In reply to Postmanpat:

How often do they have to use "careless words" and fail to "bat things back" quickly enough before it starts to look like they're deliberate setting out to court racists and xenophobes and validating and emboldening them in the process, though? It's not as if the current government are short of friends in the media...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Well, as far MG can find, once for the former and once for the latter. But I await your examples.

It's ironic, we criticise politicians for giving evasive and bland answers to interviewers whose main aim seems to be to trip them up so that they can create a headline for the next edition of the news. But then we think it's great when interviewers trip them up.

How much of May's conference speech was about immigration?

In reply to MG:

>
Which are both perfectly rational and normal policies. Countries all over the world monitor the number of foreign employees. It's normal and Miliband appeared to support it.
There have been calls from all sides for years for more doctors to be trained domestically. The corollary is obviously that if this were done there would be less dependence on foreign doctors. Yep, it was a dumbshit way of saying it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The government can already monitor the number of foreign employees without requiring the companies to report it themselves, as far as I know this data has even been made available for policy research by universities and the civil service.

The only explanation for such a policy is that they are somehow trying to scare businessses from employing foreign workers, or just simply shore up suspicion of foreign workers, something that seems to resonate with their electorate.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Evil xenophobes!

In reply to Postmanpat:


No I didn't, I said politics. Interesting Freudian confusion there.

In reply to MG:


Fair cop, although not something you pointed out first time around! I've no idea where Freud comes into it....is sex involved?

In reply to Postmanpat:


You don't get it, do you.

In reply to RomTheBear:

In reply to John2:

>Lyndon Johnson once said, 'Making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg. It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else'.

That's a fabulous quote, never heard that before :-D And it's adaptable, I can see me paraphrasing it for years to come.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'Yep, it was a dumbshit way of saying it.'

So, we need to cut these professional politicians, who we pay £150K a year for, a bit of slack because they didn't express themselves very well?

Or do we infer that what they said is in fact what they they meant, and they want to return a time when all medicine was administered by a bunch of homegrown Dr Finlays (PP will get the reference) on push bikes? Obviously a government that appoints a health minister who believes homeopathy should be taken seriously, is probably sufficiently ignorant to think that all other things being equal, 'foreign' doctors are a necessary evil. As opposed to a positive good.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>
Yes, of course. You could pay somebody a million quid a day and they will still not be fluently precise in every conversation. That's just how it is. Obviously her opponents will make the most of it but that doesn't mean people actually have to suspend their critical faculties.

Here is what she said "Yes, there will be staff here from overseas in the interim period until the further numbers of British doctors are trained and come on board in terms of being able to work in our hospitals, so we will ensure that the numbers are there.But I think it£s absolutely right as we look to the future that we say we want to see more British doctors in our Health Service."

It's not xenophobic. It's not racist. It's not even controversial. It simply means that we want to train more British doctors (and therefore be less reliant on overseas doctors) but this will not mean that until they are trained there will be a shortage of doctors. It's ambiguous and open to misinterpretation if you want it to be so not her finest moment. It's symptomatic of the artificial politicised hysteria being generated by the remainers that they keep on harping on about this in the absence of much else to go on.


>
But that isn't what she said, but people want to think the worst of what she said or simply don't care what is said because they don't believe any of it anyway. It is widely agreed that not training enough doctors is both bad for the UK and bad for the countries whose doctors we import. Furthermore, she clarified her meaning within hours, but the hysterics conveniently choose to ignore that.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Curious that everyone seems to assume that what she said was in some way related to the commitment her health secretary made at the same conference:

'At the Conservative Party Conference later in the month, Hunt pledged that by 2025, the NHS would be "self-sufficient in doctors". '

I assume he said that because he - and his boss - thought that was an unambiguously good thing.

How absurd!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




It's absurd because it's unachievable but there no contradiction between what she meant and what he said. It doesn't mean the UK will eject foreign doctors (unless you want it to). It means the UK won't keep needing to take doctors from overseas, unless we wish to.

Nut.You've all gone nuts!!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I would've thought that was a good thing?
I'm not sure how reducing medical students by 10% for the past five years (and nursing students by 15%) has helped, mind, but surely an advanced economy should be training enough doctors?

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's unlikely we'll stop needing foreign doctors unless we somehow forbid the newly trained British ones from leaving the country.

In reply to Postmanpat:
'It means the UK won't keep needing to take doctors from overseas, unless we wish to.' No; it is already a statement that we don't wish to. When in fact we do; the free interchange of ideas and practice between physicians is a key driver of world healthcare.

'You've gone nuts!' Really, we haven't. You may think the whole Brexit thing was driven by careful objective analysis of the economic arguments; really? It was driven by inarticulate and undirected rage, xenophobic paranoia and a desire to return to the plucky little England (and yes, I mean England) of Dunkirk, Dixon of Dock Green and some blissful recollection of an NHS not being (apparently) brought to its knees by foreign doctors and health tourism.

Every word that Farage spoke, that Gove ranted, that May never refuted, was Little England. I had thought there might be more to her; but there isn't.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

My God, what's with all the "glass half empty*" talk?

We're taking back control. We can now go off and do our own trade deals with countries like China! http://bit.ly/2dyfwB4

*thanks BnB for that one!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>
And there have been many other statements saying the whole point is to enable and encourage the UK to employ the skilled overseas people it needs to, but apparently that is all overruled by your interpretation of this comment. Utterly barking.


No, really, you've gone nuts. The evidence suggests that the main issues for most brexiters were democracy and sovereignty. Employing all the sneering old anti working class rhetoric may be fun but it doesn't make it true. It's just inflammatory verbiage.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Employ the skilled overseas people we need by slamming the door on them. Unlikely to work out, PP.


They wanted less of it, from the look of it.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Why on earth would they do that when Hunt is doing such a good job of motivating.....oh as you were.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Actually my sneering and rage is directed against the hideous middle class politicians and media moguls who told lie after lie to persuade undecided voters that the source of all their troubles was in Brussels.

Sadly this huge experiment doesn't have a true control group; but let's see where we are vis a vis France ang Germany in, say, 5 years time.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>
It's grossly inaccurate whichever group it's aimed at. You sound bewildered

>
5?

25.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I was in a local mail order climbing business yesterday who have markedly increased business abroad due to the low pound. They are very happy with Brexit as most exporters are.

In reply to Jim 1003:

In the short term that's fine when selling 2016 stock bought pre brexit vote, next years 2017 stock is going to be more expensive to buy in and in a further couple of years post brexit WTO tariffs may apply

In reply to Jim 1003:


Selling stock they bought before the pound crashed no doubt and without significant trade barriers. What is their new stock going to cost them and what's that going to do to profit and sales volume once it's either absorbed by them or passed on to customers, perhaps with added duty? Enjoy it while it lasts but it's a blip caused by a negative outlook for our future economic prospects, hardly something we should be rejoicing in.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:
Bewildered? Not at all. I have been totally consistent. I even gave Gisela Stuart a hearing, but never heard anything to convince me that this was anything other than a massive experiment with a hugely uncertain outcome.

And no, I don't think it will take 25 years for the ramifications to become apparent. We shall see.

Right now it seems that most of the warning lights are flashing red and Brexiteers are saying oh that's fine, to be expected, it'll all be right shortly. No doubt in a few months time they'll have some excuse, 'well sorry folks this is taking a little longer to sort out because of those bl**dy French and Germans not playing nicely'. And a few years later they will be saying 'Well how could we possibly have known that leaving the EU would result in XYZ?' Because everyone was saying so, idiots.

In reply to Jim 1003:
Well done. I don't like to be rude, but that is one of the most economically illiterate arguments that I have ever heard.

Of course canny continental climbers may be tempted to fill their boots with current stock at devalued prices. How much of that is actually manufactured in the UK? Because when your mail order chums have to restock with goods from China paid for in sterling, they are in for a nasty shock. Never mind when Article 50 results in more stringent shipping and customs rules.

Post script: Ha! I've just noticed that 3 of us have made the exact same points. We must all be part of a great conspiracy.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


You're ill directed rage certainly suggests bewilderment. It actually seems to have driven you all nuts and seeing imaginary monsters.
If you think the ramifications will be clear and decisive after 5 years you don't understand the decision that was taken.

In reply to Postmanpat:

As someone you know perfectly well once said, PP, in the long run we are all dead.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


But our descendants aren't. Well, not for a bit, we hope.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hmmm, well I hope that the 51% of voters who voted Brexit now understand that they were voting to take a significant economic hit during their lifetimes for some possible intangible benefits in the future for their descendants.

I don't remember that point being made very clearly at the time.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Pete Whillance?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You mean you missed all the experts' prognostications???

Anyway, this is going nowhere. You all need to calm down a bit.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/18/british-tea-jam-and-biscuits-wil...

In reply to Postmanpat:

As I say, I am happy (well, not exactly) to park it for 5 years. Over and out!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Talk in 25! (I hope!)

In reply to Postmanpat:

By that time we'll probably probably be back in the EU through the front door or the back door.
Or left trailing behind.
Not too sure Scotland and NI will still be in the UK either.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Quite possibly. Maybe even a sensibly designed EU.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"sensibly designed" = much less unified and much more divided?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well I guess that's the silver lining, without the UK the EU will finally be free to make the changes that are needed.
I'm not too sure there was any point sacrificing the opportunities and freedom of movement of our kids though.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Less unified and therefore less divided.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I wish Lewis Carroll was still alive.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Probably lagging. The Germans have a habit of getting things pretty well organised. And they won't have us throwing spanners in the works.

In reply to becauseitsthere:

We won't be able to afford spanners

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It's 1984 stuff isn't it!?

In reply to MG:

Yes, we could do with Orwell here today too.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


It's a perfectly reasonable point and as clever wordsmith I'm sure he would have enjoyed it.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Ive said it before and I'll say it again.

The UK leaving the EU is a complete f*ck up.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I still don't think it will happen.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Keep up at the back......

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you've obviously not been keeping up. There is just now way we're going to let in skilled workers with a migration target of 100,000 thousands. That's not even enough to cover students and family reunion.
For the most part EU migrants are skilled workers, and the British public willingly decided to slam the door on them.

It's probably going to be hard enough to keep the existing ones from leaving, all the ones I know are anxious, distraught, and feel unwelcome.

In reply to Postmanpat:

More "hysteria", this time from that irrational group of hotheads at the vetinary colleges in their letter to the PM:

"Article 50 is triggered we are experiencing a negative impact on the existing veterinary workforce.
We have received reports that the increasing focus on foreign workers is causing personal distress to individual members of the veterinary profession who live and work in the UK. There are also reports of a negative impact on recruitment and retention: those involved in public health critical roles, such as meat hygiene, are having increasing difficulty recruiting much needed EU veterinary surgeons to work in the UK; leading experts from overseas are turning down employment offers from top UK universities; and many others are considering leaving the UK due to a feeling it is no longer welcoming to foreigners. There is a danger that the language and rhetoric around Brexit, alongside the ongoing uncertainty for non-British EU citizens, could seriously impact the veterinary profession’s ability to fulfil its essential roles."

In reply to MG:




Talking of rhetoric "The Chancellor also indicated that banks and other companies may not face restrictions on moving foreign staff into the UK once migration controls are in place after the country leaves the EU.
“I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we would be using those controls to prevent banks, companies, moving highly qualified, highly skilled people between different parts of their businesses,” Mr Hammond said.

He argued that the public’s migration concerns were not focused on “computer programmers, brain surgeons, bankers, senior managers”, but on people entering the country and “competing for entry level jobs”."

I realise that Rom has the inside track and knows better but senior figures have repeatedly made comments along the lines, now in a parliamentary hearing. If you just think they are all lying then at least it would be a consistent position!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not been through the thread but saw the independent are reporting there must be a final parliamentary vote..

In reply to Roadrunner5:


That is what the government lawyer says, but best you ask Rom

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hammond does seem a bit saner. But he is contradicted by others with statements about for example PhD student being restricted. But then, they are experts so I guess not needed.

In reply to MG:

Where have you seen these comments?

There is a big argument about whether students should be counted as "immigrants". It seems perfectly obvious that they shouldn't to me but that if they get the right qualifications with appropriate skills they should be favourably considered for continued residency as "immigrants". I'm not clear as to why this can't happen.

In reply to MG: 'Hammond does seem a bit saner.'

Er yes. That may be the understatement of the year, on the other hand the bar is set pretty low. It's beginning to look like Hammond - always a Remainer - understands perfectly well the inevitable consequences of 'hard brexit (yes inevitable, PP) and as well as hanging out with that irresponsible and incompetent doom-monger Karney (irony alert) is desperately trying to minimise the effects of the swivel-eyed brigade.

I give both of them 3 months, max. Gone by Christmas.

In reply to MG:


recent farming stuff I've read said current vet shortages were because many UK vets simply wanted to specialise with say race horses, less requirement for a broad knowledge and more money. Perhaps if the UK had been pushing sciences more, less promoting of 'soft' degrees, etc.. there wouldn't be a problem. This isn't a very recent problem.

Vet work is highly skilled, there is a shortage, training is long... there is nothing to suggest that with even the hardest possible brexit a qualified vet would have any problem obtaining permission tp stay. It's just another association trying to use brexit to highlight a problem they've had for decades.

In reply to summo:
So a home grown problem has been laid at the doors of Europe 😉 Bloody foreigners coming over here and stealing jobs we can't do or won't do

In reply to Postmanpat:


So far as I can tell they propose a visa system for essential workers, at the moment they're talking about brain surgeons and bankers (FFS, who thought bankers would play well to the mob) because that's relatively unconsciousness, few feel threatened by them. How many seasons worth of fruit will be left to rot on the trees, how many farmers bankrupted with their crop in the ground unable to recruit domestic pickers before someone has the courage to point out almost everyone working here, foreign and domestic is essential. This government is showing itself to be nasty, spineless and divisive at the very moment when the exact opposite is needed. That you back this and keep defending however low they stoop them I find surprising.

I thought people hated the EU's 'red tape' yet we're heading for far, far more of it. It seems satire truly is dead.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Top rant! Hysteria rules OK

One hates to bring you back to earth but much as we all hate bankers, we love the taxes they pay, ergo....

You have obviously missed the bit where the UK decides who can enter and who can't. So if the we need fruit pickers we let in fruit pickers, as we always have done. Simple

In reply to Postmanpat:

So if (as we're assuming will be the case) we're letting in the unskilled fruit pickers and presumable the much derided Polish plumbers and all the other foreign trades we need... who are we keeping out, what is the point of this whole, unfathomably expensive and corrosive exercise?

edit: I see my spellchecker substituted unconscious for uncontentious in my previous post. Oops.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


So that we can decide what is appropriate for the UK.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I thought Hammond was excellent and well measured from what I read of the transcript from yesterday.Clearly Liam Fox is a problem for them all ( I suspect Fox will have been moved on within a year, he seems to want to annoy everyone).

The most intersting comment was his point that it was New York not Paris or Frankfurt which is the threat to Londons financial services. And that it is likely that jobs will move there rather than to Europe. Any thoughts on that?

In reply to summo:

I view veterniary science as a professional cartel. It seems to be rigged by professional standards demanding that everybody has ridiculous grades to get in to uni which are far higher than medicine and there only a limited number of places. Guy I know who runs his own practise, would not even get a lookin these days ( he is dyslexic so would fail at first hurdle).

No doubt somebody will say I am wrong!

In reply to neilh:

Well you are wrong about dyslexia being a bar - it's illegal to discriminate on that basis. Don't know about the rest.

In reply to neilh:

New York is a threat. The biggest players in the City are mainly American Banks (JP Morgan, Citi, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs etc) and the big European banks all have large US presences. If the US gets full passporting rights into Europe then I suspect London loses some of its appeal. NY also has the support industries that the banks need, far more so than Paris or Frankfurt (legal firms specialising in finance etc)

Regarding Europe, everything I am hearing and seeing suggests it would likely be Dublin that benefits if much business leaves London. Mainland Europes problem is it's very unattractive for financial services. Perception is France (and to a lesser degree Germany) will tax the banks and staff to high heaven and very high regulation/red tape. Also, more staff would probably consider a move to Dublin rather than Frankfurt or Paris and it's cheaper to relocate to Dublin (from the banks point of view)

In reply to jkarran:

'what is the point of this whole, unfathomably expensive and corrosive exercise?'

I thought the point was to allow anyone, whether from the EU or anywhere else, to enter the UK provided they have a job offer but not to continue the present situation where an EU citizen can relocate to the UK without having a job.

In reply to Postmanpat:

All you get to decide is who can enter from the pool of people desperate enough to apply for a visa to a country that has said clearly it doesn't want them, from whatever is left of your quota of 100,000 once you've removed family reunion, asylum seekers and students (presumably zero unless we stop students and foreign spouses, a distinct possibility).

Moreover, the government is utterly useless at knowing who we need - the idea of freedom of movement is that businesses can decide - and it has profited us greatly.

In reply to neilh:

>
I think Bjartur has hit the nail on the head.

There is about zero chance that Paris will benefit much. The cultural clash with US practice is insurmountable.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I thought that's what Conservative sorts preferred to leave to the markets?

...which is what will in effect happen anyway, we're just adding needless layers of cost and bureacracy and lobbying.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


Strange English. = "There is a chance that Paris will benefit a bit" = "There is a chance that Paris will benefit."

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Yes, I agree. I changed it half way through

In reply to MG:

Except he would never have got the grades........so would not even have got past the starting point................

In reply to Postmanpat:


Can't really see anyone benefiting much. Maybe Ireland and NY a bit.
For the most part it's business lost to everybody assuming the city loses passporting.

Ironically (and that's just my own opinion and experience) I would say that it would benefit the EU if London was to retain the same acccess. But if course it will be politically impossible.

In reply to jkarran:



>
You thought wrong. There is a radical "free market" view that movement of peoples should be absolutely unrestricted (along with trade) ,but the Conservative mainstream has never subscribed to that, although it sometimes seemed that Nulabour did.

There are two issues that you are conflating:

1) Should the government have ultimate control over who can reside in the country?

2) What should be the details of this policy?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well I've lived half my life in a world of very restrictive work permits, the other half in a world where half a billion people had the right to move and reside freely and with them, me too. I know which I prefer and it's not the dull monoculture work permits facilitate.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

>
So you're still conflating the issue!!!

How about a happy medium?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Like being in the EU... all for it!

In reply to jkarran:


How do you reach that conclusion?

In reply to RomTheBear:

I wonder how much European gvt debt etc and European govt bonds etc all go through London. Deep down I bet its in both sides interests that a deal is done.....never mind the " spin".

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's easy to poke fun at the US-French relationship (especially given their not disimilar republican history) but the economy of Paris is substantial and finance already contributes much to that. Those US linked or other foriegn companies based partly in Paris clearly don't have a huge problem and the incentives work more that way if we mess things up in the brexit negotiations. The competition isnt black and white anything (like London vs NY) its whatever overall worldwide balance suits the globalised banking industry best across many major cities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Paris

In reply to neilh:

The problem is that the interests on both sides are not driven by rational economics anymore, they are driven by cultural myths on sovereignty and immigration on the British side (well, mostly in England at least), and survival of the single market and European project on the other side.

In reply to neilh:


I once had a dispute with the veterinary association or whatever their governing body is called, they just closed ranks and refused to even discuss my issue with a vet. Who just by chance was part of their elite, gave to charity in their name etc... so I would agree with you.

In reply to summo:
That is true about the shortages - the issue is most people want to specialise in small animal practice (which includes horses) because that's where the cash is. Large animal and food chain safety work is hard, difficult conditions, unsociable hours etc.

Disagree about 'soft' subjects, as a concept and that we should not be promoting them. Research has shown, including a few significant reports, that those who do, e.g., philosophy, history, literature, are much more skilled at dealing with uncertainty, ambiguity and similar than engineers and scientists - simply because in many realms there are no simple answers or because complex systems (people, society, politics) cannot be explained in process diagrams.

The point remains those of us who are not British are living in a poisonous and threatening rhetorical environment. On the 'Political Crime' thread I stated very clearly that despite living here for nearly 20 years and feeling happy, safe and comfortable, I now feel like the tide could turn any time to the complete opposite.

Please do try and imagine (and develop a bit of empathy) what it's like to start to feel that your neighbours, people on the street, people on UKC might start to dislike you because you are not British and want you to go to some other notional home that you no longer have - because Britain is your home. Please try. Just a little.

I am a migrant. This is my home. I have no other.

In reply to Offwidth:

>
A colleague/friend of mine had the joy of running the Paris office of a major investment bank. Culturally it was a nightmare. He reckoned it was harder than working in Japan. But global investment banks have to be in Japan. They can find ways of minimising their presence on the ground in Paris-whether it's London, Frnakfurt, NY or Dublin.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

I know I can't speak for everyone in this country, but there are still lots of us here who welcome you and others like you regardless of where you were born! Please don't forget that, even though some of those with a less tolerant message may be shouting louder at the moment.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Not suggesting the UK doesn't need some in every field, but it's a question of numbers. Pretty much any science or engineering field 80-90% plus employment. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Education/article1609459.e... Same can't be said for media studies, creative writing etc..


but this is nothing to do with the Vets Assoc. trying to use brexit as an excuse for their own failings over the previous decade or more.


It's pretty easy actually, I'm a Brit living in the EU so the notion isn't lost on me.

In reply to summo


One of the Turkey voting for Christmas ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


I work, I pay tax, I contribute; so I can't see myself being kicked out and if I need to I'll put my money where my mouth is and take citizenship.