If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

CKhalvashi wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-nissan-uk-business-jobs-7000-employees-car-plant-sunderland-a7603721.html

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/27/bmw-electric-mini-germany-uk-brexit-germany-oxford



BMW hit the nail on the head.

So, we gain Boeing and lose Nissan, Vauxhall and Mini.

Really smelling of roses, isn't it?

Wooooosh! So you missed he Brexiteers all along arguing the most likely outcome would be that trade would remain un-hampered as this would be in the interests of EU nations and us.

BMW are arguing for the very same thing JUST AS WE SAID GERMAN BUSINESS WOULD

Trade barriers would harm everyone

It has always been my view that business will in effect drive the debate and politicians will act on it

gfplux

kabayiri wrote: »

Tracking cars by number plate can be problematic when it comes to private plates. I know this from direct experience of data migrations. It sounds straight forward to implement, but it's not.

Unless things have changed, there are some subtle differences too. We link one active registration to a vehicle here, but this is not the case in all parts of Europe. Have a look into Belgian security forces to see what I mean.

Tracking number plates sadly works perfectly well on my private car having been flashed and fine arriving by post TWICE in the last four years.
Where do I look for details on Belgium security forces. Is there a particular story I should google. Thanks

gfplux

kabayiri wrote: »

It's interesting.

I do pick up on people speaking something like Polish in to their mobile phone out on the street or in the shops now.

I don't recall noticing that much in the past. Now, is it because it is more frequent, or does the current climate mean I am likely to be more aware of it?

It could well be that EU migrants are moving into places where there has been traditionally little migration, and people are starting to notice.

Perhaps these places are less accepting of change?

It could also be that in the past people did not have mobile phones!

davomcdave

Conrad wrote: »

Wooooosh! So you missed he Brexiteers all along arguing the most likely outcome would be that trade would remain un-hampered as this would be in the interests of EU nations and us.

BMW are arguing for the very same thing JUST AS WE SAID GERMAN BUSINESS WOULD

Trade barriers would harm everyone

It has always been my view that business will in effect drive the debate and politicians will act on it

Trade barriers do harm everyone IMHO (although there is some interesting research into trade between rich and poor countries which is starting to make me revise some of my views). However we have trade barriers and it's not just the EU that has them or wants them.

For example, now the car industry has shut in Australia people still argue for car import restrictions to benefit car dealers. Won't someone think of the car salesmen. Worst rallying cry ever.

So it's clear that trade policy isn't always rational. Why would we expect the EU and UK to approach the talks rationally? The UK doesn't want to pay for what it's already agreed to pay for and the EU doesn't want the UK to get off too lightly for walking away so there are 2 big tablespoons of bile stirred into the coffee pot before negotiations even start.

gfplux

davomcdave wrote: »

Trade barriers do harm everyone IMHO (although there is some interesting research into trade between rich and poor countries which is starting to make me revise some of my views). However we have trade barriers and it's not just the EU that has them or wants them.

For example, now the car industry has shut in Australia people still argue for car import restrictions to benefit car dealers. Won't someone think of the car salesmen. Worst rallying cry ever.

So it's clear that trade policy isn't always rational. Why would we expect the EU and UK to approach the talks rationally? The UK doesn't want to pay for what it's already agreed to pay for and the EU doesn't want the UK to get off too lightly for walking away so there are 2 big tablespoons of bile stirred into the coffee pot before negotiations even start.

Indeed, trade barriers often make very little sense as they are often driven by special interest groups.
Witness this
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/10/09/americas-strange-trade-policy-makes-your-jeans-more-expensive-than-they-should-be/?utm_term=.fdfa374eef3f

And this even more strange.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/01/25/511663527/episode-632-the-chicken-tax

Yes I know it refers to the USA but it is the principle that a trade barrier once thrown up takes an enormous effort to take down, if ever.
During Britains negotiations with all its new trade partners people should be on their guard as special interest groups will be very hard at work for their paymasters not the British people.

PS I can thoroughly reccomend the Planet Money podcast.

davomcdave

gfplux wrote: »

PS I can thoroughly reccomend the Planet Money podcast.

Thanks I'll give it a go.

A downbeat view on Brexit from Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-28/u-k-faces-post-brexit-war-on-four-fronts-in-march

Earlier this year, the U.K. banking community gave up on the idea of retaining the so-called passporting regime that allows 5,500 financial firms based in the U.K. to sell services across the bloc. Instead, its hopes lie with an inferior arrangement called equivalence, designed to allow countries whose laws and regulatory authorities are deemed sufficiently robust to trade financial services with EU members.

But equivalence is a poor cousin of passporting; the rules were not designed to cope with a huge financial center operating on the EU's doorstep, and would need to be revised to cope with the new reality. As Bloomberg Intelligence notes in a report on the subject, it doesn't provide market access for "banking services such as lending and deposit-taking, retail asset management or payment services. Equivalence offers less-extensive rights and protections, and the process is often laborious, time-consuming and vulnerable to political persuasion."

Pro or anti-Brexit it's well worth a read. It takes a negative stance (if it bleeds it leads) but it raises some good points. Presumably people that are pro-Brexit like to understand some of the potential roadblocks and pitfalls. One of the good things about this site is that it's not an echo chamber.

Conrad

davomcdave wrote: »

Thanks I'll give it a go.

A downbeat view on Brexit from Bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-28/u-k-faces-post-brexit-war-on-four-fronts-in-march



Pro or anti-Brexit it's well worth a read. It takes a negative stance (if it bleeds it leads) but it raises some good points. Presumably people that are pro-Brexit like to understand some of the potential roadblocks and pitfalls. One of the good things about this site is that it's not an echo chamber.

I've read negative and positive reports, so we're back to tack your pick I guess.


Last night a very lucid speaker from Open Europe was saying there is nothing like a free market in services anyway, and I've read / heard this several times - Lord Lawson often makes this point as does Redwood.


I understand not many UK firms with Passporting rights took them up as the claim was Passporting was a waste of space.




Xavier Rolet, CEO of the London Stock Exchange Group;


London acts as a money pump to the European economy. If London loses business, the European economy suffers and the business, capital and associated benefits will likely move to New York anyway.






The UK financial ecosystem, with clearing at its heart, makes London the most economically attractive and stable destination for global investors and issuers. It is no longer just a few banks transacting individual products but the innovative home of global finance. Our opportunity now is to put greater access to finance for entrepreneurs at the centre of post-Brexit industrial strategy.


This ecosystem must be championed and protected. The best way is to secure continued regulatory equivalence with the EU, membership of which also provides equivalency with the US. But people in Europe and the UK should realise this isn’t a zero sum game. If business leaves the UK, the European economy would suffer – and very little of that business is likely to go to Europe anyway.
Where London leads the world, the European economy benefits. Indeed, our range of services and asset classes mean we provide efficiencies that save customers capital across the eurozone. LCH clears all 17 major currencies, so it can also reduce or eliminate risk; last year it saved customers $25 billion in regulatory capital, which could then be invested in the real economy.






MOODY’S ASSESMENT OF CITY PROSPECTS;


In a boost to the City, analysts at Moody’s Investors Service have largely dismissed concerns that London would be unable to withstand the consequences of the UK leaving the single market, arguing the loss of passports would be “manageable” for most banks and financial services firms.


While analysts at Moody’s agreed that leaving the EEA was likely to result in the forfeit of passports, they argued that the EU’s forthcoming Mifid 2 directive on financial services regulation, which comes into force in 2018, would make up for much of the loss. Under Mifid 2, the UK will have to adopt an equivalent regulatory regime to the EU, potentially giving firms an alternative access point to the single market


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/19/banks-can-cope-with-loss-of-eu-passports-after-brexit-says-moody/

CKhalvashi

Tromking wrote: »

Bad day (night!) CK?
Of the course the natural extrapolation from any reasonable person to your article is that Nissan, Vauxhall and Mini are off isn`t it?

I'd just woken up, I like to deal with boring stuff early, so I can get on with other things I need to do

It doesn't mean they're off, it does mean that options are being reviewed and that they are giving serious consideration not to remain in the UK. That's especially harmful to your cause in the case of Nissan, who have been given unknown guarantees by the government and still may not be staying, which just proves the entire plan as it stands is unworkable.

Conrad wrote: »

Wooooosh! So you missed he Brexiteers all along arguing the most likely outcome would be that trade would remain un-hampered as this would be in the interests of EU nations and us.

BMW are arguing for the very same thing JUST AS WE SAID GERMAN BUSINESS WOULD

Trade barriers would harm everyone

It has always been my view that business will in effect drive the debate and politicians will act on it

Germany are arguing, I've argued, many others have argued, however the government isn't listening.

The British government wants to impose trade barriers, not private businesses. Using capital letters doesn't make your argument any more plausible, although is a common sign in Leave voters to add some credibility when often there isn't any.

Noone still answered where the workers needed to produce all these magical exports that will come our way are going to come from, especially the lower skilled manual workers. Perhaps you'd like to answer that, as I believe the British government is looking as getting the numbers significantly down, which will place employers under huge strain. Unless of course they will come from rising unemployment of what we have now, which again renders your entire point completely invalid.

I fear this isn't going to end well, as once again, you can't have this both ways.

Conrad

In summary I expect the UK and it's business to adapt, and that the prize of full autonomy will give us an edge over the lumbering slow EU 27.


There will be some losses for us, but gains also.

Conrad

CKhalvashi wrote: »

The British government wants to impose trade barriers,


Where did you get this idea? May wants fullest possible access to European markets. Also did you not read the links provided by Setmefree (I think) on new UK freight efficiencies and new WTO trade enhancing measures? Why would you ignore important new information like this that will enable trade to be enhanced regardless of what the little EU does?




Noone still answered where the workers needed to produce all these magical exports that will come our way are going to come from, especially the lower skilled manual workers.


Where have you got the idea we will have NO further immigrations? We also have more than a million out of work and lots of people that would love to train for skilled jobs.




Perhaps you'd like to answer that, as I believe the British government is looking as getting the numbers significantly down, which will place employers under huge strain.


Japan with very limited immigration is a great manufacturer -why are you so defeatist and prone to thinking the solution has to be mass immigration?


How did we manage before 2004?



I fear this isn't going to end well, as once again, you can't have this both ways.


I cannot work out why you always throw up your hands in despair instead of thinking of ways in which we can adapt to change. We used to train our own yooof for the world of work you know....

Me in red.....