If we vote for Brexit what happens

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

The figures are not for paid work. Just donations. Maybe to a charitable arm.

I would imagine the EU would be only too willing to pay their auditors over and above their normal remuneration if they signed off the accounts and didn't ask too many questions.

Aside from your imagination is there any basis in fact for the statement in bold above. The article does not say these were donations.

What is the source of the data please? The link does not state that.

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

You say this based on a presumption that the EU sets out to support them. The EU funds a range of organisations to enable them to do research and studies for it. So for example a union like Unite might get some EU funds to investigate stress or diversity in the workplace. The NFU might collect data for rural development planning The CBI probably collects data from surveys of its members.

You can read into this all sorts of conspiracies but it is normal business for the EU.

You really think the CBI, 190,000 membership with small firms paying £650 p.a. needs assistance from the EU?

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

Aside from your imagination is there any basis in fact for the statement in bold above. The article does not say these were donations.

What is the source of the data please? The link does not state that.

Well, if they weren't donations they must be for paid work. What paid work could the WWF do for the EU?

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

Well, if they weren't donations they must be for paid work. What paid work could the WWF do for the EU?

So you have no idea of the source of the table or what it covers yet are content to criticise it.

The EU does not make a secret of what it funds, the information is freely available if you look for it.

WWF undertakes a lot of projects funded by the EU.

http://www.wwf.eu/what_we_do/eu_world/

You may not agree with what they fund but suggesting that this creates a political motive is I suggest unfair. As far as I know WWF has no policy on Brexit.

I accept that there is an argument that the EU should not be spending funding drawn from members on some things but it most cases EU Grants go towards laudable activities that Nations would probably choose to fund if the EU did not.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

TBH I'm surprised that the EU pays PwC so little and that EY, Deloitte and KPMG aren't on the list. TBH it makes me wonder whether the list is in any way accurate at all.

Are we really to believe that the EU gets some of its external auditing and consultancy from PwC and it pays less than £1,500,000 for it? It's a ridiculous proposition, risible.

!!!!!!, the fund management firm I work for pays well in excess of that each year for auditing services alone from one of the Big Four and while we're big for Aus we're probably an order of magnitude smaller than the EU, maybe even two.

The numbers aren't credible at all. Not even close.

Put it this way, BP paid its auditors $51 million last year. Do you really think that the EU spent less than 5% of that with the Big Four?

Guido also quotes from the PWC website on the following.

http://order-order.com/2016/03/21/cbis-pro-eu-report-by-eu-funded-pwc/

The Leave campaign are getting quite silly about this. I have no particular sympathy with PWC and the other consultancies but as I read the statements on "Our Service Offerings" all they seem to be doing is recognising that EU Grants are available and so help clients to apply for them. In other words they are not being paid by the EU, they are doing normal business and probably help clients apply for funds from other sources too.

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

So you have no idea of the source of the table or what it covers yet are content to criticise it.

The EU does not make a secret of what it funds, the information is freely available if you look for it.

WWF undertakes a lot of projects funded by the EU.

http://www.wwf.eu/what_we_do/eu_world/

You may not agree with what they fund but suggesting that this creates a political motive is I suggest unfair. As far as I know WWF has no policy on Brexit.

I accept that there is an argument that the EU should not be spending funding drawn from members on some things but it most cases EU Grants go towards laudable activities that Nations would probably choose to fund if the EU did not.

Just type WWF Brexit into your browser and you'll see lots of stuff they give the EU credit for but then suggest brexit would somehow harm wildlife, fisheries etc.

As you admit they get EU funding to do the things they want to do. Strangely I don't see them attacking EU animal welfare conditions, which are way down the list of EU priorities, whilst our laws are far more strict.

Do you think the EU are just sitting there waiting for the referendum result. Or do you think they are pro-active behind the scenes, calling in a few favours from their beneficiaries and doing everything in their power to achieve the result they want?

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Actually the easy way to end this obvious ad hominem is to ask what the big accounts firms that were not on that list of payees think about the risks of Brexit.

Gen, perhaps you could enlighten us?

EY seem to be taking the position that it would all be a bit of a mess, lots of uncertainty with pretty much no chance of meeting a two year deadline meaning that some sort of transitional arrangements would need to be negotiated and fast. The word 'problematic' crops up a lot. For example:

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-helping-boards-assess-and-prepare-for-the-uk-referendum-on-eu-membership/$FILE/ey-helping-boards-assess-and-prepare-for-the-uk-referendum-on-eu-membership.pdf

Resolution measures (say to the euroland subsidiary of a UK domiciled institution via the SSM) could be problematic.....

Depending on the degree of market access negotiated between the UK and EU Commission in the event of Brexit, Firms’ physical and virtual access to EU/Eurozone markets could range from problematic to practical exclusion for a UK entity

I think it's fair to say they're not fans.

Deloitte have prepared this document:

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/consumer-business/deloitte-uk-brexit-report-abta-march-2016.pdf

For the travel industry for example. They make the following 'key findings':

There are strong travel and tourism flows between the UK and EU. The EU is the main destination for UK tourists, and the main source market for overseas tourists coming to the UK. Tourism and travel trade between the UK and EU has been facilitated by the free movement of goods and services, investment and people across the EU. A Brexit could jeopardise
this free movement, and affect the flow of trade and travel.

In the event that the UK votes to leave the EU, there is a high likelihood of uncertainty during the negotiation period immediately following the referendum. This could last until a replacement set of trading relations and regulations were in place, which could take several years

In the event of a Brexit it is likely that EU-originating regulations that benefit and protect travelling consumers would need to be replaced with parallel UK-originated regulations to ensure that consumer confidence is maintained

There are quite a few more key findings but they do basically read like the warnings us remainiacs have been giving.

I can't link to broker research but the Aussie brokers (and branches of international broker dealers) have been very negative on short-term prospects for the UK after a Brexit.

If the UK voted Brexit then everything would likely sort itself out in the end. The problem is that it might not and it's very hard to see what genuine benefits accrue to leaving.

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

Just type WWF Brexit into your browser and you'll see lots of stuff they give the EU credit for but then suggest brexit would somehow harm wildlife, fisheries etc.

As you admit they get EU funding to do the things they want to do. Strangely I don't see them attacking EU animal welfare conditions, which are way down the list of EU priorities, whilst our laws are far more strict.

Do you think the EU are just sitting there waiting for the referendum result. Or do you think they are pro-active behind the scenes, calling in a few favours from their beneficiaries and doing everything in their power to achieve the result they want?

You are obviously a conspiracy theorist. The idea that an established international charity would accept this is silly.

The WWF policy is clear,http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?7824/WWFs-Position-in-the-Referendum-on-the-UKs-Membership-of-the-European-Union

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

You are obviously a conspiracy theorist. The idea that an established international charity would accept this is silly.

The WWF policy is clear,http://www.wwf.org.uk/news_feed.cfm?7824/WWFs-Position-in-the-Referendum-on-the-UKs-Membership-of-the-European-Union

However, on balance, Britain’s membership of the EU has delivered benefits for our environment – such as reduced air and water pollution, reduced carbon emissions, increased recycling, clean beaches and protected areas for rare species and habitats - that would be hard to replicate in the event of the UK leaving.

So the WWF say the UK will want to pollute our rivers and increase air pollution. have they seen some secret files?

Don't forget we are currently in the EU and were part responsible for making those laws. At the time we no doubt had a veto, but presumably were happy to agree to all the environmental improvements.

Basically the WWF are saying 'vote for brexit and you'll be living in a toxic wasteland' Why are people so gullible as to believe these idiots.

Generali

Rinoa wrote: »

So the WWF say the UK will want to pollute our rivers and increase air pollution. have they seen some secret files?

Don't forget we are currently in the EU and were part responsible for making those laws. At the time we no doubt had a veto, but presumably were happy to agree to all the environmental improvements.

Basically the WWF are saying 'vote for brexit and you'll be living in a toxic wasteland' Why are people so gullible as to believe these idiots.

What about Deloitte and EY? They weren't on your list and they aren't keen on Brexit at all.

There is a very real credibility gap that Brexit really hasn't addressed and I don't think they can.