If we vote for Brexit what happens

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Ballard wrote: »

Well done you.

You are brilliant and I bow down to your superior Intellect.

Is that really necessary?
Are you then another that assumes insult equals persuasive argument?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

I see that the EU's Budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger has been reported in Der Spiegel discussing increasing contributions from existing member states:

"I would imagine that we are trying to save a part, and the remaining 27 member states will agree on how they should make the remaining open amount,"

http://www.politico.eu/article/oettinger-tells-eu27-to-expect-to-cough-up-after-brexit/

kabayiri

Filo25 wrote: »

...
If there is an issue with investment in the UK it is that there is too little of it everywhere, the reason London tends to get more than the regions is simply because of demand and returns on investment.
...

My argument is for a planned long term approach to investment in the UK, where you bolster the infrastructure *before* you increase the numbers of people in that area significantly.

I just don't see how a simplistic notion like FoM helps with that.

Surely labour should follow jobs? There is nothing wrong with advertising roles across Europe, but when over 100,000 arrive in the UK from the EU without even a job to go to, then just how do you plan and cope?

There are cases of Hounslow housing department just reallocating families who arrive to places like Stoke or Liverpool.

That's not planning. That's crisis management.

An EU which is on the ball is one which spots issues with EU policy and adapts accordingly. This is just as true with the resistance of Eastern European states to accept non-Christian migrant refugees, by the way.

Instead, the EU has high minded principles and is willing to let many of the citizens suffer.

Red lines mean nothing if they don't work for the citizens of Europe, particularly the forgotten portion.

kabayiri

Ballard wrote: »

....
I would say in defence of London, and in particular the financial services, that by my fag packet calculations city workers conservatively pay a total of 14,000,000,000.00 a year in tax (based on 700,000 workers paying an average £20,000 tax/NI). Realistically it would be far greater than that as they'd pay other taxes with the money that ends up in their bank accounts.
...

For me, this is a solid enough argument, and personally I can accept it.

But when you live in an employment blackspot, the subtext in the message to those people is that "you're not really worth investing in".

That must be a hard message to swallow.

Hamish is maybe right when he says that all these people should just move to London/SE for work.

Thrugelmir

Ballard wrote: »

I was merely saying that dissatisfaction with the financial services played a large part in the majority of those who voted choosing to leave the EU.

News to me if it was the case.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

An interesting article in the Financial Times about Germany's role in the future of Europe:

It may seem counterintuitive, given the close relationship between Ms Merkel and Barack Obama, the former US president, but another Merkel win in September could play straight into Mr Trump’s hands.

Peter Navarro, Mr Trump’s chief trade adviser, has accused Germany of exploiting the “grossly undervalued” implied Deutschmark exchange rate to the detriment of both its European neighbours and the US. Effectively he is saying that Germany has gamed the whole European project in order to ensure extreme competitiveness for German exports.

It would, almost inevitably, be the eventual death knell for the entire European project.

https://www.ft.com/content/08844954-0fe2-11e7-b030-768954394623

(Search "Germany holds the key to the future of Europe" if you find the link paywalled.)

TrickyTree83

Arklight wrote: »

The important part of this story is that it shows that like a rat in a maze, there is no road the UK can turn down in Brexit negotiations where the EU aren't already there in greater numbers.

They are 27 countries against our 1. We can no more hang on Gibraltar in perpetuity against the wishes of the EU than we could have "kept" Hong Kong.

Spain is now even prepared to drop opposition to Scottish accession. Of course it is, the UK has never been weaker internationally, if it loses Scotland, its seat at the UN and most probably its nuclear threat - England will be too weak to keep Gibraltar anyway.

1st para is wrong.

2nd para is also wrong.

As is the 3rd.

Your bias to show brexit being terrible is affecting your logic and perspective. Wind it in a bit and look at things more objectively and widen the scope. Happy to help if you require it.

A_Pict_In_A_Past_Life

Thrugelmir wrote: »

News to me if it was the case.

Aye, here too.
But then why let the truth get in the way of a good contretemps?

At least there's no direct insult in that post which is more than can be said for a few posts lately.
It's so sad when debate deteriorates into mindless, unnecessary insult.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

My argument is for a planned long term approach to investment in the UK, where you bolster the infrastructure *before* you increase the numbers of people in that area significantly.

Which to be fair sounds like a nice enough idea in theory - however in reality it's just no longer workable most of the time.

That old 'command economy' model, with investment controlled by government, central planning of where the jobs will be created and when, just doesn't really work in the modern age and it's not how most jobs are created nowadays.

Central government cannot possibly predict or plan that some small business owner decided in January to invest a low 6 figure sum in their SME business in the highlands and create 10 new jobs - but that stuff happens every day across the entire geography of the UK.

If central government had tried to predict back in 2007 that the biggest craft brewery in the UK creating hundreds of new jobs would exist within 5 years - would raise millions by crowd funding - and would grow out of two lads in Scotland home brewing in their garage and be based in Ellon Aberdeenshire - well - lets just say I don't fancy their chances of calling that one correctly.

Surely labour should follow jobs? There is nothing wrong with advertising roles across Europe, but when over 100,000 arrive in the UK from the EU without even a job to go to, then just how do you plan and cope?

Labour does follow jobs - that's the entire point of and indeed beauty of the single market.

And you just can't plan in advance where jobs are to be created and by who when such a huge majority of new jobs are created by small and medium businesses.

100,000 may well arrive without a job to go to but so what? They quickly find jobs and spread out to where the jobs are being created.

EU migrants have low unemployment, the UK has low unemployment - below the historical average - and (until the Brexit vote anyway) wages have been growing in recent years at around 2% above inflation.

In a nimble, entrepreneurial, rapidly changing employment market, you can't possibly hope to plan in advance where all the jobs will be created.

But what you can do is allocate funding to help local authority areas that are up-and-coming cope much better with infrastructure investment for rapid change - I will note that Labour for all their faults at least did try that when they were last in power and the Tories cut that scheme in the last government.

Anyway - if you want an interesting read on SME business and high growth companies expansion try this....

https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ERC-Growth-Dashboard-Update-March-2017-Final-Version-.-28.03.2017.pdf

It's even got heat maps of where high levels of business growth occurred last year and by different type of business - small business high growth areas versus all business high growth areas, etc.

As you'll see the figures show significant growth (and thus need for employees) in vastly diverse parts of the country - and not at all focused on just a couple of areas.

I don't see at all how government can predict that in advance - nor manage that in advance - the best they can do is ensure a ready quantity of well trained labour is available in those areas, or to move to those areas, and then throw funding at infrastructure afterwards.

Filo25

kabayiri wrote: »

For me, this is a solid enough argument, and personally I can accept it.

But when you live in an employment blackspot, the subtext in the message to those people is that "you're not really worth investing in".

That must be a hard message to swallow.

Hamish is maybe right when he says that all these people should just move to London/SE for work.

It's a weird situation, where I work we have actually been pulling jobs back into London from the Regions even though wages are obviously much higher in London. because we basically couldn't find the numbers and quality of staff we needed where that office was based previously