UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38663537

Hsb moving 1000 employees and 20% of it's business to paris.

Ubs also moving jobs from the city

The red in our red White and blue brexit would seem to be the life blood of our economy draining away. ...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

RomThe(UKC Financial Wizard)Bear has already jumped ship.
Sunning himself in Cyprus now (I think).

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:






Have just heard that on the news. I guess the brexiters will be happy that the country will be less full now so all good, right.

Oh, hang on. The economically mobile will move, such as this, taking their tax along too. Is this really what the 52% wanted? How does adding economic worries to an already unstable landscape help.

And then there's the trade negotiations. Oh, hang on. The uk is the worlds strongest financial centre so we're ok right. Erm, see above.

In reply to Lusk:

With no internet connection, now and forever hopefully.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


You might consider your City chums to be the life blood of the economy, but us 'plucky' invisible masses in UK manufacturing are just getting on with expanding and not going anywhere.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Gulliver, who runs one of the world’s most globalized banks, praised Prime Minister Theresa May’s handling of Brexit so far .

“Irrespective of Brexit, London will remain a global financial center, and the revenue impact of Brexit on financial services will be made good in two to three years’ time,” Gulliver said. Although some derivatives operations may need to move, other business areas such as bond and equity trading and underwriting will remain in the U.K. capital, he said.

In reply to Shapeshifter:


It's good that as a manufacturer you won't need to raise capital for growth then isn't it.

Just because their profession rhymes with wanker doesn't mean the UK economy isn't extremely reliant on them (and not just for their taxes)

In reply to Shapeshifter:

Not my chums

But see other recent threads on nhs- 20bn extra per annum needed by end of this parliament

We need all the tax receipts we can get. A few hundred million just exited stage left. I hope you lot in manufacturing are feeling full of energy, because you're going to have to work even harder now to make up the lost ground. ...

In reply to Postmanpat:

As per my reply to shapeshifter- we need all the tax take we can get at present. No one's arguing its the end of the road for London- but even a relative loss of preeminence would be a big deal for the exchequer

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Well they are two banks I wouldn't do business with........before or after.

In reply to Phil1919:

Chances are you are doing business with them even if you don't know it.

In reply to Phil1919:

Hsbc? Why not? Genuinely interested.

Cheers Mark

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I hadn't realised that all the banks and vc's and private equity sources were leaving as well. And that overseas banks would be prevented from investing in U.K. businesses.

In reply to Postmanpat:

No mention of where that revenue will be raised in that...

In reply to MG:


So what are you suggesting? That he plucked the idea out of thin air?

Incidentally, this is the bank that every few years floats the idea of moving its HQ out of London and then doesn't. Just possibly, don't you this speech is aimed at influencing Mrs.May's strategy on a "deal for the City"?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

F*ckity bye..........

In reply to Postmanpat:


That it will be raised in, ooh, Paris perhaps

In reply to JoshOvki:

Well I can't do much about that!

In reply to Mark Westerman:

I bank with a local building society.

In reply to Mark Westerman:

I suppose its the same reason I keep out of supermarkets.

In reply to MG:


The implication was obviously the opposite! You really have left st the plot on this!!

In reply to Postmanpat:


It wasn't. Read it again, it is entirely ambiguous.

You really have left st the plot on this!!

Right everything is just dandy and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor. Yes, I know.

In reply to MG:
>
No. It is totally obvious what he is saying.



No, it is a difficult judgement call, just as the vote was. But your reply suggests that like many remainers you have had some sort of nervous breakdown.

It's become impossible to have any sort of objective discussion of the subject.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>just possibly, don't you this speech is aimed at influencing Mrs.May's strategy on a "deal for the City"?

It didn't sound like that- sounds more like plans now being actioned now we know that single market membership is not part of what brexit means.

You may recall, I was unsure which way to go before the vote; so im not some sort of ideologically blinkered uber-remainer. But I've no doubt that there will be down sides; and losing a significant proportion of the tax take from the city is starting to look like a likely outcome. Are you not at all concerned by that?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
>
As was I.

Yes. Depending on the eventual deal I expect that the City may lose some business, but as we have all agree the economy is overly dependent on the City, so maybe some rebalancing is not a bad thing?

In reply to Postmanpat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38670349

Well yes; motherhood and apple pie.

But tariffs on other parts of the economy are looking likely too. I worry that the re balancing will be to a smaller portion of a smaller pie.

I'm fairly sure we won't end up like Greece; but more austerity, for longer, does seem probable to me. Here's hoping that the three brexit stooges turn out to be better negotiators than it looks!

Edit: oh for f*cks sake. Right on cue. Apparently they're not.

The links gone to the top of the post. Would help if Boris went somewhere much further. ..

In reply to Postmanpat:

If by that you mean thoroughly shocked by the lurch globally to populist nationalism, which in UK means the inevitable loss of economic and political power, the denigration of institutions and people who disagree, friends and colleagues now fearing off their futures, and the inward insular mood that has taken hold. Then yes I have. However I would say I am entirely rational. I am just too old for emigrating to be appealing even given all this. If i we're a little younger I would, many I know have or are so seriously planning on doing. Given all that, I would say you and other brexiteersare the delusional ones

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
They won't really go and nor will any other - that's just scare-mongering from project fear. And if they do, we don't need bankers, they have caused enough damage already and they don't pay any taxes. All the loss in GDP and tax receipts will be made up by a surge in manufacturing thanks to the depreciated Pound and that isn't just a temporary advantage that will inevitably be eroded by imported inflation. Anybody who contradicts this is an expert (and we know how fallible they are) or a defeatist remoaner traitor who must be ignored. Happy days.

In reply to MG:

Like I said, you've lost the plot. No point in discussing it now. Maybe in ten years we can have an interim review which will probably be a discussion about whether we muddled through a little bit better or a little bit worse.
In the meantime you need to calm down. It's utterly bewildering how normally rational critical thinkers now swallow any old remainer emotional scaremongering media bollox and think that they are the rational ones.Truly weird.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So you really have gone post truth. I know a dozen people who have left jobs, or not come to the UK as a result of Brexit. You can do the smug superior routine all you like, it doesn't alter reality.

In reply to MG:

Its a thirty year or more decision, not a judgement based on the immediate personal decisions, which maybe entirely misguided, of one's acquaintances.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You'll be dead by then.

>not a judgement based on the immediate personal decisions, which maybe entirely misguided, of one's acquaintances.

So the media can't be trusted and personal experience doesn't count. Speak for yourself.

In reply to MG:




The point is we don't know, neither do the media, nor our mates. You know that much. So using them as evidence of the impact of an unnegotiated outcome is not not rational

In reply to Postmanpat:
Oh FFS it's entirely rational. It's not evidence of the impact, it *is* the impact. Already. Enjoy your post truth nivana

In reply to Postmanpat:

it does matter though; if enough people do as MG claims, then it will have an impact on the economy; whether they were misguided or not won't make any difference.

In reply to MG:


Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Its a short term reaction or overreaction which will very possibly look ridiculous and irrelevant in two years let alone ten years time.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


In the short term, yes. That is not what its about. Obviously there may be short term uncertainty and negative impacts.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The general idea of "rebalancing" is normally to strengthen the weak bit, not to weaken the strong bit.

In reply to MG:


You have been kidnapped by the pust truth world and cant even see it! Weird.

In reply to Postmanpat:


which is pretty much what we were told would happen, if you stripped out the hysterical stuff from the politicians about WWIII and punishment budgets.

goldman sachs now talking about 3000 posts moving from london- 50% of their presence.

we were also told by most 'experts' that overall there would be a negative impact in the long term; i'm not seeing anything so far that allays my concerns that this is what's going to happen- the loose cannon that is Boris, seemingly determined to make life more difficult for our negotiators, and Trumps protectionist noises, it all seems to be headwinds at present.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You used to be someone with views which I found challenging, and often disagreeable, but generally well-thought out, rational, and intelligent; someone worth paying attention to and listening to. This probably means nothing to you, but that's fine, I just wanted to say it.

But now, you've just suggested that MG has gone post-truth for telling you things he has seen happen, said people leaving jobs and the country because of Brexit are not part of the impact of Brexit, and used the now-classic buzzword 'scaremongering', for bonus points.

As a die-hard remainer who is horrified at the way things are unfolding, I have no problem accepting that there will be some positive effects from Brexit along with all of the negatives. Why is it that you seem completely unable to acknowledge real, concrete negatives that are happening right now to us and to people we know?

As you point out, it's impossible to know what the long term effects will be on the economy (though some consequences and, yes, benefits, do seem more likely than others). But, important as the economy is, it isn't the only thing which matters.

Deciding that negative consequences such as those MG describes are an acceptable price, or a necessary evil, is one thing; denying that they exist is something else, entirely.

In reply to Lusk:



Unfortunately they still have the internet over there.

In reply to Postmanpat:

If you want to look over 30 years the trend is going to be for larger political units and eventually global government. Nation states with customs barriers and national regulations for products that race to the bottom on taxes aren't going to work. Technology is already too advanced and Artificial Intelligence and Genetic engineering are just getting going, markets are too global and our planet is getting too close to ecological limits.

If the UK leaves, chances are it will end up back in the EU or in some other global block within 10 years.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Announced in 2013;


http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22537306



Let's not forget;

In reply to Postmanpat:
Interesting isn't it, that those who were formerly decrying the evil bankers, now all seem to be sad they are leaving.

Goldman Sachs being a particularly strange one for them to be sad for lose.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/18/goldman-sachs-protests-new...


I cannot help but think the banks would be shooting themselves in the foot to relacate from business friendly UK to the socialist EU.

In reply to Big Ger:


You'll need to find some quotes of me decrying them, otherwise you're just making things up....

And I'd pass your concerns about moving staff to the EU to the CEOs of HSBC and UBS if I were you- im certain that your insights would be welcomed, they probably haven't considered that. ..

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Sorry mate, I didn't mean to implicate you, the point was a general one.

My insights, like a certain credit card, are welcomed everywhere.

In reply to pec:


What we need is another referendum: Do you think the UK should continue to be part of the internet and allow free movement of data, or should it take back sovereignty and negotiate individual data sharing agreements.

In reply to skog:
So its ok for remainers to use the post jibe but not visa versa?

I'm not suggesting that what MG's friends are doing isnt happening. I am saying that in the greater scheme of things they do not show the outcome of brexit any more than somebody planning to emigrate to the US because they think Trump is a great guy would demonstrate that Trump will be a great president. They may just be wrong.

In reply to john arran:


I am sure May believes in free movement of data to government servers.

In reply to Postmanpat:


How many lives need to be thrown into turmoil before it is more than collateral damage in your view? "The ends justify the means" is a pretty dodgy approach, history shows.


> any more than somebody planning to emigrate to the US because they think Trump is a great guy would demonstrate that Trump will be a great president.

If Trump attracted capable immigrants for whatever reason that would absolutely be a consequence of his presidency.

In reply to Postmanpat:

May referred to the 48% and those who couldn't vote to remain as "losers". Pretty clear that one of the undeniable outcomes of Brexit, and perhaps an explicit strategy of the government is to create a deeply divided society, with each division profoundly suspicious of the other (and outsiders, foreigners). This enables the government to steamroll it's own people in order to progress it's own interest - not the UK's, not "the people's". What compassionate, competent government calls over half it's people losers? Whatever we voted we should all be wary. May is a authoritarian who takes her guidance from God, and thinks Boris, David and Liam are credible professionals. She is arrogant but ignorant and insecure but recklessly sure of her own limited ability.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Whereas if the vote had gone the other way the 48% would be fruitcake and looneys, no division in society there, eh?

May is doing exactly what we, the electorate, voted for. Very much democratic, hardly authoritarian.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Only if your view of democracy so blinkered and narrow that one narrow vote gives carte blanche to take the most extreme interpretation possible and denigrate any institution or person who disagrees. If 52/48 remain had resulted in joing Schengen, the Euro and EU army, and telling anyone who disagreed they were delusional, treacherous liars, you might have a point. Of course it wouldn't have though.

In reply to john arran:


Perhaps you misunderstood the point I was making. Its not that they have the internet in Cyprus that's the problem, its that even though Rom has moved there from the UK he can still come and spout sh*t on here.
It was obviously a tongue in cheek remark.

In reply to MG:

Leaving the EU is not the most extreme position possible, it's one of the two available options. The one we chose. I get that you chose the other, but we is all of us so includes you.

In reply to thomasadixon:


No its not. What is proposed is one (extreme) of many options.

In reply to Big Ger:

The banks will go wherever they need to to make the biggest profits, they are loyal to no-one but their shareholders (and many would say they're not even loyal to them). If they have loads of EU customers then that's where they'll base themselves to 'serve' those customers.

In reply to Postmanpat:

At what point does reality start to intrude, start becoming significant?

The pound has been devalued by 20% - is that significant? Inflation is inexorably on the rise - is that? Nissan blackmailed the government into underwriting their production costs, was that significant? And now some banks are doing exactly what they said they would do pre-brexit, starting to move their operations to mainland Europe.

It may be 20 - 30 years before we can fully evaluate the effects of Brexit but we won't have to wait that long for trends to become apparent. Some might think they already are.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




Quit scaremongering, loser!

In reply to Big Ger:


Socialist EU? You must have a rather faulty political calibration.
Ireland, Holland and Luxembourg for example are all known for their harsh approach to international business.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Would it not be better to use it on people who are ignoring truths, rather than those who are actually reporting something they've personally experienced?

I don't see why tribal affiliation is of any relevance, by all means knock yourself out if you spot any of the enemy denying actual, concrete, positive aspects of Brexit.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Do you ever wonder, how have I ended up defending this lunacy or does it just creep up on you bit by bit?

Wouldn't the sensible way to 're-balance the economy' not be to nurture and invest in the underdeveloped parts rather than decimating the already lucrative bits?
jk

In reply to jkarran:


It's insidious.

After the Scottish independence referendum, a very good friend of mine (a Labour councillor, and a proud Brit and 'No' campaigner) told me about the abuse his wife had received when campaigning.

She has a clear English accent, and had repeatedly been told she should 'go home', and worse, by some of the more unpleasant characters she had tried to reason with; sometimes even in front of their young child.

This really hit home with me, and I realised that I had not been properly accepting the reports of such behaviour, because the 'Yessers' I knew weren't like that, and I knew that there really was smearing going on by some elements on the other side, trying to associate our cause with anti-Englishness - and, most importantly, it felt like we were all one big team, so a (possibly entirely justified) attack on one felt like an attack on me or on those I knew didn't deserve it - so it had been easy to shrug it off and pretend it was a smaller problem than it really was.

It took a fair bit of effort to remember that ‘my side’ is simply the people who don’t hurl abuse at others because of where they were born, regardless of which faction they were in during the campaign, and if I'm completely honest, I still don't always manage.

In reply to skog:

Most of the talk on here has been about what is going to happen in the future, as a result of Brexit, which is fairly hard to predict. Some talk is about what is actually happening now, which is already worrying, in my view. But there has been much less discussion about what has actually happened in the UK in the last few years: a strong lurch towards a more insular, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-European Britain, etc, etc... I think that is pretty bad, and has nothing to do with predictions.

In reply to MG:


Yep, just been to a managementy meeting about the difficulty we're having recruiting the new developers that we need at the moment. At least part of the problem is that we're basically getting no applications from the continent, where we used to get a fairly high proportion of our applications and quite a lot of our hires. We're not screwed just yet, but it's not inspiring optimism.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I assume then you are actively engaging with your local colleges and universities to get those skills. Or are you looking at training up suitable apprentices?

In reply to neilh:

That is quite a preachy response. Many jobs require people with some experience, and can't always be dealt with by saying that it is that up to each employer to do all of the necessary training to get each employee they need.

This is exactly the sort of benefit that allowing immigration brings - we get a broader pool of people to do jobs, so that businesses can find the people they need and thrive. This exchange of information is why we have prospered as a species...

In reply to thomasadixon:
You appear to have missed the point entirely that I was trying to make about the responsibility of government to unify it's people, not to denigrate and divide them. A government that seeks to divide the populace is one that is up to something that I think isn't going to pass the democracy test.

edited: "the" change to "that I"

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Let us here the response first from the poster.

It would be interesting. I am sure there are other developers here, those studying etc, who would like to know.

And my daughter doing computer science would be interested.

In reply to thomasadixon:
And it's not democratic. The referendum was explicitly designed as an advisory, non-legally biding referendum. Have you not been following the news or other information sources on this? There has been a lot of discussion and interpretation at a very knowledgeable and technical level, but still accessible for those who care enough to understand.

In my view the government as embodied by Theresa May is using the referendum result to effect a massive powergrab from parliament (and "the people"). I will fight the erosion of democracy and freedom because I love the UK (cheesy, yes?) and deeply believe in the ideals of tolerance, fair play, liberalism and progressiveness that aim to ensure a happy, secure and satisying life for everyone. Preferably free of chlorine-washed chicked and crushing personal healthcare debt.

edited for typos.

In reply to John Stainforth:


Have we really lurched in that direction or have we noticed what has always been there?

In reply to neilh:


No, because we're trying to hire senior C++ devs, and they don't generally fall fully-formed from the end of a three year degree course.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


It is not an uncommon situtation. But I am always interested in finding outwhat companys do about it for their future needs.

Does your company bother about training and development or do you just push to buy in the skills whne needed.

In reply to timjones:

It's hard to say for sure without a careful investigation but anecdotally, newspaper headlines appear to me to be getting worse and those that are divisive/jingoistic much more frequent. Ok so newspaper headlines may not be the best social barometer but they're are (perhaps unlike content) designed to reflect the mood of the masses as much as to inform it. Newspapers are well established with long track records unlike social media.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

The Guardians's reporting seems to have gone into blind panic mode over the last few months.

In reply to jkarran:



IME the only real change in peoples opinions is that most are far more cynical about newspaper headlines

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


No, I was making the point that prior governments had explicitly been denigrating those who they disagreed with, and so fostering division. I didn't see any complaints about that prior to the referendum (perhaps I missed them) and based on that I think the complaint is a bit much. I have also not seen May doing this, as far as I can see all she's said is that she is going to abide by the vote, so I don't think she's guilty of doing it at all. Care to show where she has been doing what you're suggesting?

On your claim that it's undemocratic - the MPs in office forming the current government were elected on a promise to hold a referendum to determine whether we stayed in the EU or left. The leader of the previous government (Cameron) made it very clear that he would abide by the vote. You're saying that doing that is undemocratic because of some bit of technical law. I'd say that's meaningless - democracy is based on promises made and on trust, not on technical law. We elected the Tories on a promise, they are fulfilling that promise, that's democratic. Legally trained, and very happy to say I understand all the technical aspects - care to point to what I'm missing? Or to explain how what they are doing is undemocratic?

MG - You think that leaving the EU is extreme, so to you it's an extreme position. No real point discussing that, we disagree, obviously.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/barclays-city-of-london-will-be-europe-s...

No doubt you remainers will will say he is totally wrong.

The EU now has the perfect opportunity to start far reaching reforms, but despite brexit there doesn't seem to be any signs of them doing so. They will continue down the path of political and economic integration. The thought of a common European army fills me with horror. Assuming this happens who is going to make the decision to mobilise troops. Getting the remaining 27 countries to agree to that will be difficult.

IF the EU were to make concrete plans to reform then, if there were to be a 2nd referendum, I would to vote to remain.

In reply to thomasadixon:
From Theresa May's speech this week: "The losers have the responsibility to respect the legitimacy of the outcome."

Democracy is based on rule of law - you don't get to make it up as you go along. Lawmakers are governed by the rule of law as much as the people which they are govern. Are all equal under and protected by the law. Governance by arbitrary decisions is bascially anarchy. Cameron was unwise to say that, because it had no fact in legal basis and could thus be challenged as it is being challenged.


PS the rule of law as a basis of governance goes back to the Magna Carta

disliker: sorry if you dislike anything here - but it is all factual and true. You can verify it on the internet, or a book or something like that

In reply to thomasadixon:


They were also elected on a promise that they supported the single market and wanted to expand it.


Do you really not understand that its a bit more complicated than simply in/out?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>
Good, so we can choose to conform to and benefit from globally agreed standards and not hide within a single protectionist block.

In reply to icnoble:

>[...] The thought of a common European army fills me with horror. [...]

What do you mean? it'd be great! The Italians could do the uniforms, the French could do the catering and the Germans could design the tanks.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:
I'm not much of a May fan but this characterisation bares little relationship to reality. It's just an updated of the usual "Tory scum" nonsense. When in trouble, attack the man (or woman).

As for the using the term "losers" for those who "lost" an election or referendum. I don't think Theresa May set a precedent.

In reply to Postmanpat:
It is an accurate description based on extensive observation of words, deeds and results. In my lifetime, I have voted Democratic, Republican, Independent, Labour, Tory and Lib Dem. I evaluate people on how the act, not empty labels.

In terms of the "losers", as a leader, May should be very sensitive of the language that she's using - the use of lose in this context is calculated and intentional.

In reply to MG:


Any change creates uncertainty. That is not a very good case for not changing.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



>
These are your interpretations, not "facts". The falling pound can be, and by many economists is, regarded as a good thing. The banks have not actually moved people .They have sid tht under circumstances that they will. If the government chooses to incentivise investments isn;t this what lefties have been demanding for decades?

Your are just choosing to take the negative intepretation and then portraying your intepretation as "fact"

In reply to Postmanpat:

Speaking from someone with experience of change management in organisations - you do it with as little disruption and uncertainty as possible. Most don't because the lack the confidence, skills, emotional intelligence, and long term planning to effect change without destroying the values, foundation and people of the the organisation that you are trying to change. I've actually based part of my career on making people comfortable with profound and unwanted change -it can be done with out breaking s**t.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Dude: the first one is a quote from the speech, the second one is a fact of history.

In reply to Postmanpat:


We won't, because we can't even tolerate the idea of european standards - the whole single market is about having a level playing field so that stuff made as jam in Dundee can be sold as jam in Helsinki and Madrid. Unfortunately it has come with a common court to arbitrate on international jam disputes, which we don't like. And a european jam commissioner in charge of jam standards, which we don't like.

As a second point, I'm pretty sure that a jam maker in Dundee can try and flog jam in non-eu countries too, so it's not like we're "hiding"

In reply to jkarran:


>
You mean the sort of of industrial policy Mrs.May is championing?

"Finance minister Philip Hammond told the meeting that by reducing the productivity gap between the rest of the country and London and the southeast, economic output could rise by 9 percent, adding over 150 billion pounds to the economy.

Ministers agreed the strategy should also be focused on "playing to the country’s strengths while also creating an economy that is open to new industries, particularly those that will shape our lives in the future," the spokesman said.

That push that could help carmakers such as Jaguar Land Rover (TAMO.NS) and Nissan (7201.T) and aerospace industry leaders like BAE Systems (BAES.L) to weather the Brexit storm.

It is also geared to support the creation of new technology firms such as microchip designer ARM, which was sold to Japan's SoftBank (9984.T) last month for $32 billion.

Experts say recent efforts at implementing closer cooperation between the state and industries such as carmakers and aerospace have been partially successful, but need to be scaled up and placed at the heart of government thinking.

"The very fact that the new prime minister is chairing this committee, I hope, addresses one of the weaknesses of the last two administrations ... that is the relative lack of joined-up thinking, a cross-governmental approach," said Terry Scuoler, head of the EEF manufacturing trade body."

In reply to Postmanpat:


nice statement. Completely unrelated to what MG said though.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


I may be many things, but not a "dude"

I don't know which "first" or "second" you are referring to.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm American - everyone is dude.

From above:
From Theresa May's speech this week: "The losers have the responsibility to respect the legitimacy of the outcome."

Democracy is based on rule of law - you don't get to make it up as you go along. Lawmakers are governed by the rule of law as much as the people which they are govern. Are all equal under and protected by the law. Governance by arbitrary decisions is bascially anarchy. Cameron was unwise to say that, because it had no fact in legal basis and could thus be challenged as it is being challenged.


PS the rule of law as a basis of governance goes back to the Magna Carta

disliker: sorry if you dislike anything here - but it is all factual and true. You can verify it on the internet, or a book or something like that

Edited to include smiley face

In reply to KevinD:


These people who fearing the outcome of brexit and leaving the UK or not coming to the UK. Why not? Nothing has yet changed so it must be the result of uncertainty about what will happen (or in some cases apparently a misplaced certainty).

In reply to Andy Hardy:

lol

In reply to damhan-allaidh:




And? how does this make the description "losers" for those who lost an election a precedent?


And? What is your point?

In reply to Postmanpat:

When Hammond refers to closing the productivity gap, I think what he means is bringing the rest of the country up to the same productivity level as London / SE, not reducing London to the same level as the rest.

Any detail about what would actually be proposed to achieve those goals would be good - it's all well and good saying we'll do something, but do they even have any ideas what to do?

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

That's a factual comment, you think that saying those who voted one way and lost did in fact lose is an attack in some way?


What bit of law is he/the current government going against? What part of our constitution is he breaching? He promised something, we made decisions based on that promise. A democratic government honours the promises they made, as ours is. How is this undemocratic?

In reply to Postmanpat:


This isn't true, unless you think that because something is uncertain there is no possibility of predicting likelihoods. Unless you are denying that the Brexit vote increases the likelihood of , e.g., more restrictive immigration conditions, or of leaving the single market? Just because it "hasn't yet changed" doesn't mean people aren't sensible to take into account the likelihood it will. That isn't just a fear of uncertainty.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think you should address jkarran's question about how you came to be defending this stuff. You are sounding utterly barking.

"Nothing has yet changed"??
Yes. It. Has. I gave you examples above but apparently they don't count because I know the people, and media reports don't count because...well it's not very clear why beyond not agreeing with your wishes about how the world should be. skog has detailed his experiences. Perhaps make some attempt to connect with reality again rather than simply calling everyone liars?

In reply to Postmanpat:


>
>>And? What is your point?
Maybe you need to see to whom I was responding (thomasdixon)


And? how does this make the description "losers" for those who lost an election a precedent?

Usually, people speak of winning in personal terms (I won) but rarely use lose in such a sense (more like "those who lost", using some sort of grammatical or syntactical construction to make it impersonal). Donald Trump has been taken to task for his frequent use of "loser" - it's not a bridge building word; it's a bullying threatening word.

May's speech writers will have been very alive to the rhetorical force of the word 'loser.'

In reply to MG:

Which is how you sound to me! I believe that there are many potential upsides of brexit and that many of the potential downsides are unsubstantiated, despite the efforts of so many remainers to cast them as incontrovertible "facts". That you regard that as "barking" is why discussion is utterly pointless.

>
You said "I know a dozen people who have left jobs, or not come to the UK as a result of Brexit. " withut any explanation. What rules or regulations have actually changed as a result of brexit vote that forced this upon them?
What other opportunities may be created in the medium term?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Nice swerve away from the very real bad news coming out of the city from those banks that were bluffing onto what is at present little more than a wishlist. Good for them if they implement it and really get the post-industrial regions thriving but who actually believes they will, who actually thinks the promised money won't just wither and dry up as banking revenue shrinks and a new wave of even harsher austerity is prescribed as the cure while what little there is left is used to prop up the city... I don't but I look forward to being pleasantly surprised.


Is this a proper policy or a euphemism for whatever piecemeal and opaque deals have been made to persuade Nissan and presumably now others not to flee the leaky brexit boat before it has even sailed?
jk

In reply to thomasadixon:


See comment below on rhetorical force, speech writers


European Union Referendum Act 2015 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
There are a few other documents I can't be bothered to look up at the moment, but might later.

The very undemocratic bit is the hard Brexit we are being forced to endure, when prominent Leave campaigners said we'd stay in the SM and CU. We didn't vote on the type of exit and we deserve a say in that.

In reply to jkarran:
As Gulliver imself said, any City revenue lost by brexit will be made up within 2-3 years.
Do you have some inside knowledge of how the financial services ill be treated post the brexit negotiations?

>
It's a philosphical approach to government involvement in industry.

If you want to see every negative angle as "fact" and any positive interpretation as fantasy , wishful thinking or dishonest then carry on. But don't think that this is rational.
The only "fact" is that we don't know.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The rule that says that we can't just randomly decide that we've got too many people so we're going to boot out some of the ones who weren't born here, presumably.

In reply to Postmanpat:


No idea - no-one has ever been able to describe any plausible ones. More jobs for customs staff?

In reply to Ramblin dave:


But we haven't said that. That is a classic part of the remainers "post truth" fallacy.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The fact that I (and many other people, young people, future generations) will lose the right to live, work, start businesses or retire in 27 other countries.

Would you want to come to a country that is projecting a portrait of xenophobia and intolerance to the world? We're not giving the impression of being an organised, welcoming, cohesive, warm, progressive place to live at the moment. Researchers, for example, are looking to go elsewhere as Brexit will cut off vital forms of international research funding and research networks (as happened to Switzerland for a bit).

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Yes.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The point is we haven't said whether or not the 3 million EU citizens can stay:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/04/liam-fox-refuses-to-guaran...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/30/theresa-may-defends-refusa...

http://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit/73161/will-eu-citizens-be-allowed-to-stay-i...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes we have. We've given up membership of the EU, which is the main thing that makes it very hard for us to do that. We haven't said who if anyone is going to get kicked out, but we are very directly removed the biggest protection that people have against us doing so now or in the future.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Great. If that's the only one, we could have employed more people on the UK government payroll anyway, without needing to leave the EU and deprive us of the rights to live, work and trade freely in the single biggest economic area in the world?

Perhaps if we'd done that, they could even have done something useful, like teaching, or healing / tending to sick people, or providing childcare so that working parents could go back to work. Rather than just paying extra to deal with a self-imposed administrative burden.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

in fact the losers have a duty to resist - are we bound by a vote we were pushed into against our will?

In reply to damhan-allaidh:
was it not a "right" to stay here, rather than permission from government?

I'm wondering if they actually have the ability to remove a "right" - when we entered the EU it may well be that we lost the power to take away rights conferred on individuals as a result of membership. We may be able to prevent future acquisition of the right to remain, but perhaps we need a legal test to see whether the right to live here, once conferred, can legally be removed

The rights arising out of being an EU citizen were not granted by the UK government so how can it remove such a right to remain?

In reply to wercat:

Interesting - I hadn't thought about it quite that way. There seems to be a lot of confusion and anxiety around and the government is not about to clear that up. Or maybe they don't understand the legal implications themselves.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


"6. Rights for EU nationals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU

Fairness demands that we deal with another issue as soon as possible too. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

I have told other EU leaders that we could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.

Many of them favour such an agreement – one or two others do not – but I want everyone to know that it remains an important priority for Britain – and for many other member states – to resolve this challenge as soon as possible. Because it is the right and fair thing to do."

We have made our objective absolutely clear.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


As I understand it you mean the word loser? Given the fruitcakes, loonies, racists, xenophobes, idiots, etc, etc comments by the other side, including by those in government and other MPs, I think it's a little bit precious to be quibbling about an accurate statement because you don't like the feel. If you think losers is divisive then I take it you think that all the comments by your side are completely out of order?


How does it breach this? I'll save you time - it doesn't.


Okay, I'd be interested to see something that means the government are breaking the law.


Ah, so the "undemocratic" bit is that you don't like that we're leaving the EU. Our government made it very clear, and the EU made it very clear, that if we left the EU that meant leaving the single market as we wouldn't be allowed to stay in. Even so, we voted to leave. You can't expect a referendum on every single issue that comes up, it took a huge amount of pressure to get a referendum on this one issue. We have a say on all issues, of course, through our democratically elected representatives.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


We've adopted a prerogative normal to virtually every country in the world, and to the the EU, and then made it clear that we don't plan to randomly kick out people born here.

That you can characterise this the way you have is symptomatic of the loss of rationality of some remainers.

In reply to Postmanpat:





So why doesn't she just do it unilaterally then? It would be a massively positive statement from the UK and put us on the front foot from the start of the negotiations.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

I'm quite sure that is true. If they had any clue about constitutional matters we would have set up a referendum that would have filtered out chances of upsetting the status quo on a small signal, possibly containing electoral noise peaks.

In reply to wynaptomos:

>
I agree, but that doesn't make the mischaracterisation of her position any more true.

In reply to thomasadixon:

First comment first, I'll deal with other if I have time. I'm talking about our PM. Not everyone else.

In reply to Postmanpat:


We've made a lot of objectives absolutely clear, but the fact remains that until we actually and bindingly follow through on those objectives, a lot of people have a lot less certainty about their future than they would otherwise have done.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Part 2, quick answer. I don't like that we didn't get to vote on how, especially as leave was predicated on cont SM and Customer access.

I am persuadeable and open minded. I don't like being lied to or lack of data on Govt's part. Evidence is how I make my mind up.

Maybe a long reply later if I have the energy.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What mischaracterisation? IMO, it just goes to show that she is using people's lives and futures as bargaining chips

In reply to Postmanpat:

you are right on this point, Pat. but in this issue, sentiment matters as much as objective reality, on both sides. a contributory factor to the leave vote was the perception that immigration was out of control, and that leaving meant 'taking back control'

but- over 50% of immigration was from non-EU countries, and already under our complete control. i would speculate than for many people, it was this immigration that was of particular concern, but of course i have no actual evidence for that. the impact of the notorious Farage 'Breaking Point' poster would give some support though.

anyway; it seems to me that many people are likely to have voted leave believing that it will solve a 'problem' that was already completely within the government's power to deal with, and which it was choosing not to.

likewise, there are many contributors here who fear what the future holds for them as EU citizens already living here, or fear for their ability to recruit more to come. now, i'm sure some deal will be reached that doesn't involve mass deportations and that there will be a skilled migrant policy allowing people to come in future.

but people only have one life; and while it is uncertain what that will be, they will take stock of their situation and many will- and are- choosing to move elsewhere, or not to come in the first place. i have also had conversations with trainees in my field, who are going to look elsewhere for senior positions. the perceived 'tone' or attitude towards non-british nationals is important too- even if this is just a perception, that's how people work, we aren't robots following opportunity-maximising algorithms.

so when there is no clarity on arrangements, but a likelihood that these will involve at best a lot of form filling, and a mood that is unwelcoming, and a perception that the economy is likely to do less well, many people will indeed decide to explore options elsewhere.

and if enough people do that, then the perception becomes the reality- it will hit the 'bottom line', tax receipts- just as the perception that we'd control immigration, in a way that we could actually already do, hit the bottom line in the referendum, ie votes.

a bit rambly, but in a rush and dont have time to edit...!

In reply to wynaptomos:

"The rule that says that we can't just randomly decide that we've got too many people so we're going to boot out some of the ones who weren't born here, presumably."


Right. So did you get the transcripts of her debates with the cabinet and senior civil servants on this? Did you get transcripts of the Merkel/Hollande/ Junckers discussions in which they explained why it was impossible for them to show goodwill on this?

In reply to Postmanpat:


What does this actually mean, that revenue from the city will be back today's levels within 2-3 years of the harm being done? Great! Why are we doing this again?


None at all but some banks are clearly not too keen on leaving all their eggs in one London shaped basket while they find out. Or is this also to be dismissed as a bluff or even a desirable re-balancing?


So it's a wishlist.


We knew before we plunged headlong into the rabbit hole, we knew we were doing very nicely inside the EU, we knew that within the EU we'd grown from basket case into an economic superpower. You're right though... now we don't know.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:


Or the deep mistrust and disgust many of us feel for our government.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:
There is no misrepresentation. Millions now don't know if they need to find new jobs, houses,schools etc. Not sorting it out when she has the power to just makes it worse.

In reply to jkarran:



Exactly, so based on prejudice and emotion rather than sober or objective analysis of the evidence. Thankyou.

Nuts

In reply to pec:


But, we could 'take control' of the Internet too, and vet foreign traffic

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's odd, I thought you said

Yet apparently now we do know the outcome and anyone who feels more confident in planning for their future in a country that does legally guarantee them a right to remain there than in one that doesn't is working on prejudice and emotion.

In reply to andyfallsoff:



It would be great, but all the evidence shows that the government aren't really interested in this. Even Osbourne's Northern Powerhouse was barely a half hearted effort and that has very much been shelved.

In reply to Postmanpat:



No more nuts than voting to leave because people thought that this meant we'd have an extra 350 million quid a week to spend on the NHS, or that we'd stop immigrants coming. Of course I don't think all leave voters thought that, but some did. Emotions matter in politics.

Coming back to the gulliver quote- is that 'back where we are now' in 3 years; or 'where we would have been had we not left'. The two could be very different.

In reply to neilh:


Obviously we train and develop our people, but small-to-medium tech firms tend to grow (or not) rather unpredictably, so the ability to hire experienced people when you need them is pretty crucial to staying competitive. Not to mention that to some extent people brought in from outside actually have advantages over people you've trained up from graduation, since they'll have fresh perspectives and have seen alternative ways of doing things that you might not otherwise have considered.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Agreed


Neither. Surely you understand it? Let's say, entirely theoretically, that in 2020 the City loses 10% of its revenues. By 2023 we will be back to 2019 levels. Not great but hardly a national cataclysm.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Just asking. One of the reasonable critics from the electorate to private businesses is that we( I own one) do not train the uk work force. We just go overseas and look for the right people.

I share your concerns.

In reply to Ramblin dave:



No, they are working on uncertainty, as I said before.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It was / still is a difficult one this.

I suspect the powers that be in the EU would have seen it as a sign of weakness. After all by the same token the EU could also have been positive and stepped in first and guaranteed the rights of U.K. citizens. That would have been very positive for the EU' s image .

So it could be argued that both sides are as appallingly bad as each other .

In reply to John Stainforth:


I seem to remember Teresa May went to Europe and offered a bit of reasuurance to those from abroad living and working on UK shores .
She was sent packing , by Merkel I believe , who was more interested in making a political point ( no negotiations before A50) than putting EU workers in Britain's mind at rest) And of course paid no heed to the concerns of Britain's living and working in the EU.
We're the EU not acting anti UK, anti immigrant , by shunning this offer?

In reply to neilh:




Yes, which is why it is irrational to regard mrs. May as the great satan in this.
Nor do we know what discussions have been had about the ramifications of this or feelers put out about it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

this is the kind of reason I don't trust exiters - look how you are preventing us even having the benefit from the EU

http://www.itv.com/news/border/2017-01-18/15million-eu-flood-fund-spent-on-...

In reply to wercat:



Read it again!! Brilliant. Both Labour and Tory governments, reamainers and exiters mispent EU funds but you can only spot one side of it! Point proven.....nuts...

In reply to KevinD:



Oh, so socialism is international business friendly? That's a concept I hadn't come across.

In reply to wercat:



I assume you were being ironic?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, but by 2023 had we not exited we might have been considerably ahead of 2019 levels. According to this article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/12031950/Ci...

in 2014-2015 financial services in the city generated £66.5bn (just think, if it had been 66.6bn, the conspiracy theorists would have had a field day!). A 10% hit would be 6.6bn pounds.

Tax revenue from the city by 2023 would hopefully be more than 2020; even if the city was going to grow at only 1%PA between 2020-2023 had we remained, that would be approx 4% growth, about 3bn- so that a tax take down 6.6bn in 2020, reducing to 3bn in 2023, and onwards, less than would have been taken had we remained.

all of that will have to be borrowed, and added to the deficit; pure guesswork on the amounts, its true, but compounded over a parliament perhaps £20bn more borrowing from the effect on the city alone.

not a national cataclysm, no; but taken along with probable hits to manufacturing and services from tariffs, more than a minor inconvenience- a medium term move down to a lower trajectory than we'd be on otherwise.

maybe in the long term it will be made up by benefits, as yet unproven. that seems a big gamble to me, with unclear odds. but we're taking it, so we'd all better get used to it; it would feel better somehow if the scale of the gamble was acknowledged, rather than glossed over with jingoistic nonsense about 'red white and blue brexits'

In reply to MG:


The rational reaction is to say:

1)This is one part of a massive negotiation. Not the be all and end all of brexit.

2) The blame for lack of resolution is as much or more the EU's as the UK's

3) We don't know who or why the decision has been made not to take a unilateral decision regardless of the the EU reaction but there may be good reasons.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Ho hum......

In reply to Big Ger:

"We continue to work through all possible implications of the Brexit vote. "There remain numerous uncertainties as to what the [Brexit] negotiations will yield in terms of an operating framework for the banking industry. As a result we have not taken any decisions as to what our eventual response will be."

So, can the remainers please take note?

In reply to Postmanpat:

noted Pat. i'm not trying to claim that the waters will pour over our island and submerge us beneath the waves. there is too much hyperbole being deployed by both sides. but its a little frustrating that supporters of brexit appear so reluctant to acknowledge any events may be negative in their impact. from your own guesstimate above, i made some rough calculations which come out at a number that would be a concern for our finances as a country. of course its speculative; but a hit of some billions seems very likely, when we are faced with having to find extra tens of billions to prevent serious negative consequences for our health and social care system.

i'm looking for some positives; but our handling of the process so far hasn't given me any encouragement that we've got the senior figures in the team to get us a good deal. the persistent assumption by leavers that the EU will necessarily put commercial factors above political in the negotiations, when they are telling us the opposite- or perhaps, refusal to accept that they will perhaps do what they are saying- is also frustrating. do you not have moments of doubt, where you worry that it may not turn out as well as you hope? or are all leavers Pollyannas, whistling cheerfully as we walk on into the unknown?

In reply to Postmanpat:

What exactly are we supposed to be taking note of? One bank hasn't decided how many people to move yet (although several others have). We can't quantify how bad the hit is, yet. Accepted. How's that good news, though?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Yup. That's about it. The world hasn't ended. Politicians, businessmen and other interest groups lobbying for their desired outcome doesn't make their words gospel. People making decisions on the back of their fears is not evidence that their fears are justified. The worst probably won't happen. Neither will the best. Theresa May probably isn't a great stateswoman but nor is she the great satan. We don't know what the EU will look like in two years time let alone ten years time. If we've been reminded of anything in recent times it's that most predictions are wrong.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>
Of course, but actually, given the stance that the EU is taking, I think May is positioning us generally quite sensibly. Not much we can do if they want to punish us except try and find some different friends. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It should be some indication of the level of dissatisfaction that leavers feel with the EU that they are prepared to accept the unknown rather than remain in the EU.
The EU will probably act like a petulant child when it comes to negotiations and the chances of a positive deal for the UK are slight. Does that mean we should have voted to remain?
Only if you think that staying in an abusive relationship is a good idea.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


If you are going over the top, ( and we are) you may as well appear to go bravely, the other side can smell the remainers fear.

You may see Pollyannas, but others may prefer a picture of Brexiteers , with stiff upper lips , dragging petulant, fearful remainers with their lips trembling, into a post Brexit Britain

Not everything in the dark is to be feared, change is not a bad thing, have courage. ( you have no choice either way)

In reply to Big Ger:


Lets leave that alone and stick with exactly why you think Juncker is the sort of person to head a socialist body. Someone who spent his entire national career making his country a international business law and tax haven.

In reply to Postmanpat:


i don't think they will 'punish us'; but pursuing their collective interests may lead to them adopting a position in negotiations that is different to what we want. how much can we get them to move from that? i don't know either. it irks me though when this is painted as being unreasonable or childish- they will just be doing what we are, defending their interests as they see them, and prioritising the aspects they see as most important. our petulant reaction when they do just what we are doing too, but we don't like the result, suggests that its us that are the childish ones.

In reply to Jim C:


As metaphors go thats a bit moronic. Since anyone with a clue about history would be thinking ermm lets wait for the generals to think through how to use tanks and use them rather than charge into barbed wire and get gunned down.

Also what the f*ck is it about fear. the out campaign was filled with fear of the EU.

In reply to Jim C:

what is it with the world war references...?

and not sure that the metaphor of brexit as an existential threat, requiring grim bravery in the face of destruction, is particularly helpful to the leavers' case..!

In reply to Jim C:

A moronic post.

It will be the trembling remainers dragging this country out of the shit that the plebs have dropped us in. It won't be morons from Sunderland or retired xenophobes who have lost faith in humanity that's for sure.

In reply to Jim C:

what is it with the world war references...?

and not sure that the metaphor of brexit as an existential threat, requiring grim bravery in the face of destruction, is particularly helpful to the leavers' case..!

In reply to Jim C:

As usual it is the Leavers who are flinging around the insults and providing no logical argument as to why this is a good idea. Perhaps Jim C (56 in 2005?), you would like to convince why I would want to go over the top, bayonet fixed, screaming at Jerry's machine guns?

In reply to Hugh J:



However, I did flag it was a teasing lighthearted response to the Pollyanna comment. ( obviously not taken in that light

In reply to Jim C:

missed the smiley... fair enough- and like you say, we've no choice...

In reply to andyfallsoff:


It's far better than this;

youtube.com/watch?v=9EH1G4EwljM&

In reply to KevinD:


Hmm... Apart from the fact that I didn't reduce it to a single personality issue, that sort of reductio ad absurdum argument will get us nowhere.


Yes, and Nigel Farage is head of UKIP and an MEP. Does that mean that the whole of the EU is anti-EU?

In reply to Big Ger:


Paul Nuttall is leader of UKIP. Nige will thankfully be unemployed soon.

In reply to Big Ger:


Its not reductio ad absurdum to point out the rather blatant fact that it would be rather unlikely for a socialist institution to vote for, as president, someone who dedicated their entire career to working with international business.
Even a cursory study of the EU would show its a bloody complex mix of different groups and so calling it socialist is as idiotic as calling it neoliberal (as some socialist groups do).


I dont recall him being elected President of the EU?

In reply to Hugh J:


He has his radio show and will be sponging off the taxpayers for a couple more years yet.

In reply to Andy Hardy:



Whatever you do don't get the jobs mixed up!

In reply to KevinD:


On a commercial radio station?

In reply to KevinD:


i'm sure Donald will find a use for him in some capacity.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:
As far as I can see she used a normal word in its usual context, and that's it. I don't think you can expect people to support leaving, but if you accept the system generally then you can't just change your mind when things don't go your way.

On UK democracy, it's worth noting that the checks you might think of as normal coming from somewhere like the US don't exist in our system. Our Parliament can do whatever it likes, the only check is on who we vote for, and so us. Might feel dangerous for us to have so much power, but that's how it is and its definitely democratic (and much more successful than constitutional protections).

In reply to Lusk:


on his mep wage and then he will get a pension.

In reply to KevinD:
I concede the point. Having checked, there are more right of centre governments in the EU than left of centre*.

I withdraw my point, mea culpa.


*Which is a good thing.

In reply to thomasadixon:



apparently it can't vote on brexit though, at least according to our Prime Minister.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

It was not predicated on SM, it was made very clear by the government and the EU that we couldn't keep it! As for customer access, do you think they'll stop selling us stuff altogether? Access to a market does equal customs union. In general this is the question of referendums vs representatives, and in the UK they're only held on binary issues (so not now) when promised at an election and very rarely, it's just not practical.

NMSE - Except that our Parliament can get rid of May right now if it wishes, so they can block us leaving the EU. They could make a government that puts it to a vote. I don't think they will, but you never know.

In reply to KevinD:


They were elected on a whole range of issues, including a referendum on a major decision which would have implications on all the other issues. Life isn't simple, but clearly the result of the referendum would affect other things and so change what was within their remit.


It's really not. From a binary decision thousands of implications flow, but the decision is still binary. That we won't accept the jurisdiction of the ECj means that the EU will deal with us on different terms, and working those out will certainly be a difficult and complex negotiation.

In reply to thomasadixon:


well, that's what all the fuss in the Supreme court was about. but, yes, in the end they could no confidence her

re the point about single market access, see my post at 00.16 on the "getting behind brexit" thread running just now- it was in the Tory manifesto in 2015 that they would not just preserve SM membership, but extend its coverage. this was on the same page where they announced the referendum. i think its reasonable to assume many people voted leave on the basis they thought that SM membership would be a priority. had there been a three way option on the manifesto- ie remain in EU and SM; exit EU and remain in SM; exit EU and SM; i think the third would have been the least popular.

of course, the manifesto couldn't deliver that- but it could deliver a mandate to negotiate for it.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
You've edited when I've answered, argh! Same question though - access or membership?

There couldn't be a three way referendum, because the third option wouldn't be a decision our government could make alone. It would have been an option the EU had already refused to accept, and so impossible. People do like to have everything though, so maybe the vote would have gone that way anyway. Who knows - but that's not what we voted for, and it's not what happened.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I meant to say 'the referendum couldn't deliver it' - yes, it would be something that would have to come from negotiations, and the EU have said it's not possible- but that's just a negotiating position, right. ..?



If the vote had gone that way, it would have strengthened may's hand I think; which still doesn't mean we'd have got it, for sure

But we didn't vote for hard brexit either, though; that's the problem. We bought a pig in a poke, and everyone thought that they were buying different pigs. Its a strategy that won the vote, but at the cost of increased division afterwards

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

What it is is something other than a yes/no question, so not something suitable for a referendum I'd say. The term "hard brexit" is essentially a synonym for leaving the EU made up by remainers for political reasons because "hard" sounds bad, it's exactly what we voted for. It's what we were told by everyone who matters would happen if we voted the way we did.

In reply to thomasadixon:

That's not correct though; its perfectly possible to leave the eu and be in the SM and all the discussion I heard was around whether we'd have a swiss, norwegan or bespoke model to access it. The eu kept saying we wouldn't get it without free movement, we were told that was just a bargaining position and we were such an important trading partner that we'd talk them into it, once bmw began to worry we wouldn't be buying their cars.

The brexit= hard brexit is a recent phenomenon, at odds with the campaign, and the tory manifesto.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Mate, access or membership! The Switzerland, Norway, Canada, etc references were repeatedly made clear to be examples of other countries that exist that aren't in the EU, not prototypes to follow. Trade agreements are tailor-made and we'll see what we get.


What does "hard brexit" mean to you?

Definitely last one - goodnight .

In reply to thomasadixon:

No it absolutely was not.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=656997&v=1#x8480933

Check out the link in the post by Trevers. There are many Leave politicians, including Farage, who were saying that leaving the SM was not going to be the outcome. In fact one even said, "Only a madman would leave the single market." And another said, "Absolutely no one is talking about leaving the single market." It's at 48:15 in the link.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Hard brexit- outside SM; possibly outside customs union. Worse trading terms than at present. It seems clear that without free movement, we ain't getting SM access on terms similarly favourable to those we currently have. All to be determined by the negotiations of course, and im sure some deal will be done, but it won't be what we have now.

And yes-goodnight!

In reply to thomasadixon:

"Our Parliament can do whatever it likes, the only check is on who we vote for, and so us."

We do have checks in UK. Parliament cannot do whatever it wants. Please look up and learn about the rule of law as the basis of government in the UK (as I said before, this goes back to the Magna Carta).

The PM is executive - the checked by HoC. Opposition parties are also intended as a check on executive and governing party powers. Parliamentary procedures and committees were designed to scrutinise proposals, and the gov't doesn't always get exactly what it wants (see PACE 1984).

The HoL is another check - I'm not going to explain how that works, because I have an actual job to do, but there is plenty of info on the internet, in books and such like.

Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2006, the legislature was taken away from Lords and given to the Supreme Court which is separate to Parliament. It also removed the Lord Chancellor from being speak of HoL. The purpose of this was the govt recognised a need to respond to need for constitutional separation of powers by having a judiciary independent from the gov't.

We (if we choose) exercise influence through pressure and interest groups and voting.

Good examples: recent HE Bill; does Executive have to consult Parliament on triggering Art 50, PACE 1984. I am sure there are others.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Yes it can.

Parliament can create or end any law. No Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

In reply to damhan-allaidh:


Care to be a bit more specific? What does Magna Carta do, do you think? As I said before, I'm legally trained so just stating I'm wrong isn't going to convince. Looking up Parliamentary sovereignty first might be worthwhile.


The government aren't parliament of course - and PACE has only the power Parliament gave it (which can be withdrawn). Parliament is *both* houses, and if I'd just meant the Commons then you should know it can overrule the Lords - it can *dissolve* them and replace them (and it probably will soon enough).


That Act was, as all Acts are, drafted by Parliament, it was passed by Parliament, Parliament can undo it.


And our MPs listen to them as much or as little as they choose. The only real power we have is to select those MPs.

In reply to Hugh J:


They seem to have searched out 2 quotes, one by Dan Hannan who I know repeatedly clarified his position on this and that's all they've managed to find to make their case. On the other side we've got Cameron (the leader of the government holding the vote, the one responsible for what will happen), Tusk, etc, etc, all being bloody clear just before the vote. This is just revisionism, and far too close to the event to be credible.

NMSE:


So what does "brexit" mean to you? How do you comply with the referendum and keep membership (which does not seem to have been a Tory commitment after all, unlike their clear commitment to have the referendum)? All of the rest of this stuff isn't within May's gift, she can't demand SM access and refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ, it's just not up to her. The only thing she/we can decide is that we're leaving, and it's then up to the EU to decide what's on offer.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Easy. Don't rule out free movement of people. That was never on the ballot paper. We leave; keep SM access; restrict movement to people that have a job offer, as the Swiss do; and further reductions in numbers if politically required from non eu migrants.

Problem solved, no economic disruption.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No problem except that we would still be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ and have to contribute (probably £350 million a week) to the EU... Good luck selling that to the swivel eyed loons currently in charge.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Agreed. Most countries outside the EU only allow one to enter with either a tourist visa or a working visa.

One good point of TM's speech is that she is going to put the proposed deal to a parliamentary vote, and I can't believe that MP's would really vote for a hard Brexit.

In reply to John Stainforth:


Don't believe that! Half will vote from a ideological prospective and others will vote for it because holding onto their seat is more important to them than their principles. And May knows it.

In reply to John Stainforth:


Hard to see them having the courage not to. Hard to see what the point is either if the options are yes for a negotiated hard brexit, no for a harder exit still as David Davis believes will be the choice. It's no choice at all, it's a figleaf.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Considering JC is instigating a 3 line whip to vote for Brexit, I consider any chance of a Parliamentary challenge a tad remote.

As Hammond himself has said, we live in a democracy and things can always change. But at the moment it looks like the Liberals are the only ones who are going to really take on the challenge.

In reply to neilh:


On current performance I 'd say that actually increases the chance.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

lol

In reply to neilh:


And the SNP. Not a whole load of MPs.

I'm voting Lib Dem next time around, anyone else?

Although I hope Scotland would remain a part of the UK in IndyRef1, I now hope Sturgeon gets IndyRef2 and it's a landslide. I had Scottish grandparents and have no doubt what colour passport I want!

In reply to Lusk:


No, for not doing his job as an MEP.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The EU wouldn't break their own treaty rules, would they?

Lisbon Article 8
1. The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation.

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the Union may conclude specific agreements with the countries concerned. These agreements may contain reciprocal rights and obligations as well as the possibility of undertaking activities jointly. Their implementation shall be the subject of periodic consultation.

In reply to Big Ger:

Im sure they won't. The wording there is flexible enough to cover pretty much any outcome...

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Now why would we want to massively increase our contributions?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hi pat, any comment on my back-of-a-fag-packet calculations of the impact of brexit on tax revenues from the City ....?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


The tory official line is it is all fine and so postie thinks it is all good.

In reply to Big Ger:


How much do you want to pay the lawyers? The obvious pragmatic position is anything offered to an outsider cant beat what is available internally.
As an aside I had to do some law courses as part of my degree. It really was eye opening how differently the world was viewed. Out of all the people I have interacted with the hopeful lawyers were the ones i just couldnt understand.

In reply to Hugh J:

I voted liberal,in the last 2 elections....always for the same reason.. pro-eu.....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Sure. Taking your estimate, £6.6bn out of total governments of nearly £700bn tax revenues or a £20bn increase in national debt on top of £1.5trn, like you say, not great but not a national cataclysm. How that will stack up on a ten year plus view in the context of the national finances I cannot predict.

Of course it is still possible that there will be virtually no impact on the City, if either the interpretation of current laws allows the UK based institutions to transact within the EU or of some sort of passporting system is agreed. Then again, the negative impact could could be much bigger than your numbers.

One thing that I assume everyone could understand when voting in the referendum is that brexit would be likely to cause short and intermediate term disruption.

In reply to KevinD:


Yawn.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




>

As predicted some jobs will have to go elsewhere.
This can have a substantial tax receipt impact as these are typically very well paid jobs and they also support a vast ecosystem of contractors and small expert consulting businesses.

However I don't think London will stop being a big financial hub anytime soon, there is an ecosystem and a wealth of expertise quite unique that just can't move overnight - but we could see a slow degradation over time, or more likeky, just less growth that it would otherwise have enjoyed.

IMO the biggest impact on the long term for the city will not be loss of passporting rights but simply the loss of easy access to talents from the EU (and the tax receipts they bring, of course).
In fact that's true not only for the city but for the whole economy.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

We wouldn't want to, but we wouldn't get a rebate either.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Yes , the rebate would go

But this is one area where I'd be hopeful that there would be room for negotiation on and the agreed amount might not be too different from net contributions at present

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not sure that everyone did understand that, pat. And a lot of energy seems to be going in to dismissing evidence of disruption, rather than just accepting it as a 'price worth paying'.

Yes 20bn against 1.5tn is not a lot; but it's only one cost, there may well be others. And the increased interest payments would be money not available for other purposes at a time when there is vast pressure on health and social care.

All for uncertain benefits in the long term. It feels reckless to me; and there are definitely brexit models available that are less so.

In reply to Postmanpat:


He's right though

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yawn.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

We'd pay the same (or maybe more) we'd be still subordinate to the ECJ, and you'd consider the referendum result honoured? If we stayed in SM we'd also be unable to make trade deals of our own. Can you see why I think your "soft Brexit" is just not leaving?

In reply to thomasadixon:
You might think that; many others will share your opinion. But the referendum asked if we wanted to remain in, or leave, the EU. That was all. So, yes, I would consider it honoured.

And while the other things you say are true, we have no way of knowing how much we'd pay. Remember, those Germans want to sell us a lot of cars, or so we keep being told. I'm sure a mutually beneficial deal could be arrived at. ..

In reply to Postmanpat:

They are still right, though.

In reply to thomasadixon:


The only reasons I can see that you might think a soft Brexit doesn't honour the referendum result are a. you were misinformed about what we were voting on or b. you're stupid. I don't mean this in an insulting all-brexiters-are-stupid kind of way. These are genuinely the only reasons I can think of. The vote was very clearly just on the EU and was clear that anything else would need to be worked out by the government of the day.

In reply to MG:

No they're not. Ive repeatedly been critical of May, especially on immigration.
Yet more evidence that you remainers only hear what you want to hear!

In reply to neilh:

The liberals are the only ones likely to 'really take on the challenge'. Love it.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It is worth mentioning here that HSBC is one of the banks best placed to cope with brexit. As Stuart Gulliver says, they already own a european bank which they can use as the euro "brand", and they have a ready-made alternative HQ in HK they can flip to if required. So HSBC have the greatest certainty about Brexit and can probably cope with it better than others who have their roots more in Europe.

...Which is why they are one of the first to announce what they are doing.

Or, to put it another way. If one of the banks *least* affected by Brexit is moving 1,000 jobs, I suspect banks more Europe based - Deutsche for example - will move many more.

I suspect it is these banks which will leave announcements until the last minute.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well done. Must have hurt.

In reply to MG:


Not at all. Quite enervating.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I would like to have an objectively positive discussion on it. But in all likelihood, as a result of Brexit, I've lost my free-movement/citizenship rights to Europe. Europe is very likely to no longer be a place I can choose to live in or work in, as an unskilled/semi-skilled worker. A right I cherished has been taken away by some vague notion that we'll gain something positive out of exiting. Its like being a US citizen who finds out as a result of an election he's now just a citizen of North Dakota, but promised maybe jobs are on the way so that should make it alright. The yank can fortunately vote out the buffoon who makes that decision, whereas this will be me for life.

This makes it pretty hard to discuss small, dubious, victories here and there when overall I've been utterly shafted.

In reply to David Martin:

While not trying to make light of your possible future employment situation, are there really that many opportunities for unskilled and semi skilled workers from the UK in Europe? And would such jobs pay more than a similar job in the UK?

In reply to baron:
It's more a question of being able to relocate somewhere, live there for a while, and see what crops up. Networking, meeting people, getting to know people, whereas under a visa-mandatory system, you really have to a) have work organised in advance or a very particular skill, and b) undertake very specific work as mandated by the visa terms. Basically its about being treated like anyone else in Europe, rather than as an outsider.

Many years ago, prior to obtaining my UK passport, I spent a little while in Copenhagen and was desperate to live there. I was offered work (stuff in a warehouse, bar work) through people I met, but ultimately never took it. As much as I wanted to stay there, the potential to be deported if found and never allowed to return was too much of a risk. The freedom my subsequent EU membership allowed felt amazing.

As for pay, the option of living overseas, a different environment, different living standard, is likely to be far more valuable than any pay drop. But thats a decision each individual can make for themselves at least...or used to be able to. The point remains, this was an option freely available and one that will likely not remain.

I understand that many in the UK find the prospect of leaving England for anything more than a holiday far from enticing. So I may be in a minority. But this is a very real issue for me, probably my number one issue - having experienced the alternative. That so few seem concerned by this loss of what was quite an amazing right does lend credence to the accusations of "insularity" in Brexit thinking.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

To those who think that our trading relationship with Europe will help us:

Brexiteers in warning to German business
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38694465

Interseting