If we vote for Brexit what happens

Thrugelmir

Ballard wrote: »

I was told by the general manager that by law they had to offer an interview with another branch and being as they were all abroad that's where it would have been.

Your employer was under no obligation to offer any relocation package etc though. An interview is not a guaranteed job offer. Different to actually transferring staff and their families lock stock and barrel. Finding homes, selling homes, mortgages, schools , doctors and all that relocating entails to ensure a smooth transition. With a minimal disruption to work activity.

Ballard

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Your employer was under no obligation to offer any relocation package etc though. An interview is not a guaranteed job offer. Different to actually transferring staff and their families lock stock and barrel. Finding homes, selling homes, mortgages, schools , doctors and all that relocating entails to ensure a smooth transition. With a minimal disruption to work activity.

That's why I didn't say that they were under any obligation. My post was merely meant as an aside.

Conrad

Interesting article in the Telegraph tonight describing the EU as a poverty making machine as poverty rates accelerate, and especially for those nations using the Euro.

In the same paper the Swedish Finance Minister is calling for soft treatment of Britain on the back of Swedish exports falling off a cliff

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

The idea that there will be any scope to renegotiate a parliament-rejected deal is laughable.

The debate and discussions will go on in parliament from the day article 50 is triggered. All involved parties will get their say. By the time any vote is held - if at all, everyone will know where they stand, everyone will know what we and the EU will move on and everyone will have had their say.

Yes, I agree. I think it's unlikely parliament will throw out the deal and, if they do, the only realistic alternative will be leaving without a deal.

mrginge wrote: »

Someone has to be in charge of this process though. You might not like that being the tories, but they are the government so tough.
To be honest I'm not really sure what you think the alternative is. Let Jezza run things? Farron?

I'm not bothered about governments governing. I don't think we do too bad for governments in the UK either. Part of the reason for that is we have processes which hold them to account. We voted to leave the EU and that's all but the deal will be far ranging. On every item apart from the question of membership, the government will have to make assumptions about (a) what the people want (b) what's in the best interests of the people and (c) what's in the best interests of the governing party.

Without parliamentary process there's an increased risk of bias towards what's best for the Tories. I really don't think it's that big a deal given the scale of changes heading our way.

I'd be saying the same thing if Corbyn was trying to negotiate a deal and avoid all parliamentary processes. In fact, I think if that was the case, you wouldn't find my argument in the slightest bit objectionable.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'm referring to moving entire operations. Easy to talk about oneself as an individual. As you are looking at the micro rather macro level.

It depends on the business function; most of us don't need any special facilities or equipment that doesn't fit in a van. Even then, even factories tend to be modular and can be moved from site to site.

As said, moving to Germany, for instance, isn't logistically much harder than moving to the other side of a city centre - everything still needs to be dismantled and moved.

Arguably Paris or Brussels would be a better location given the direct train link to London. The City of London's influence isn't going to diminish.

Yeah, a direct train link to London would be preferable, but most of Europe is still going to be within maybe a 3 hour flight.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

Without parliamentary process there's an increased risk of bias towards what's best for the Tories. I really don't think it's that big a deal given the scale of changes heading our way.

Other than being a political party who are the "Tories" you are referring too? What are they going to personally gain?

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Other than being a political party who are the "Tories" you are referring too? What are they going to personally gain?

Let's not be naive - it's power of course.

The referendum was called by Cameron to try and put internal arguments about Europe to one side so they could present a united front in the run up to the last general election. It was a good strategy and, IMO, helped them gain a majority.

They'll have better chance of winning the next election with a deal that unites the party than one which is a little bit better for the people but causes Tory implosion.

There's no need for democratic principles to be dropped after such a big deal was made about democracy during the campaign.

Conrad

Sweden holds out olive branch to Brexit Britain.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/24/sweden-holds-out-olive-branch-to-brexit-britain/




24 October 2016 • 7:47pm

Sweden has warned that it would be a serious mistake to chastise Britain for voting to leave the EU, appealing instead for an amicable settlement to minimise damage for both sides.


“I think our basic instincts are the same. We’ve heard some voices from the Continent that now is the time to punish the British, whereas our instinct instead is that this is the new situation and we have to make the best of it. We have to see what is good for jobs and growth,” she told the Daily Telegraph on a trip to London.


The EU itself needs to tread with care since there are large eurosceptic movements in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. A hard-line stance that ignored the concerns of the Scandinavian bloc would risk opening fresh rifts within an already badly-fractured Union.


The comments came as Swedish companies start to feel the chilling effect of the referendum campaign in Britain and the sharp fall in sterling. Data released this week show that Swedish exports to Britain are in free-fall, with a drop of 19pc over the period from January to July compared to the same period a year ago.


Pharmaceuticals fell 38pc, chemicals 23pc, and paper goods 15pc. “It’s amazing. If this persists, it will lead to fewer jobs in Sweden,”

Conrad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/24/the-eurozone-is-turning-into-a-poverty-machine/

The eurozone is turning into a poverty machine.

As its economy stagnates, millions of people are falling into genuine hardship. Whether it is measured on a relative or absolute basis, rates of poverty have soared across Europe, with the worst results found in the area covered by the single currency.

But the fact that poverty levels are rising so fast in what were prosperous countries is shocking. There is no sign of that rise slowing down – indeed, in countries such as Greece and Italy, it is accelerating.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Well British manufacturers have seen stronger investment and stronger exports in the last quarter:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-manufacturing-cbi-idUKKCN12O13K

Meantime the EU wants ............ ABS to be fitted to tractors that can achieve 40 to 60 km/h by 2021.
Why?

CEMA claims ABS technology won’t help improve road safety in any statistically significant manner.
“In fact, with an average fleet renewal rate of 1.7% of total EU-28 tractor sales, it would take more than 20 years before the first fatal accident could statistically be avoided,” said Ulrich Adam, CEMA secretary general.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/transport/news/for-tuesday-sr-farmers-oppose-costly-abs-brakes-for-tractors/

Yet another example of the EU liking useless regulation, then.