The EU: IN or OUT?

Ballard

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Our key task now is to organise goverments departments and resources which is going to be a complex process taking a considerable amount of time. And it will take time to recruit suitably trained staff. Without doubt the EU wants us to trigger article 50 ASAP as that means only 2 years of uncertainty for them, and as they already have negotiating teams, they will be able to walk over us. It is in our interest to wait until we are ready to negotiate and only then should we start the formal leave process by which time we will be suitably equipped to stand up to them, and get a deal that is good for us.

Of course the pompous EU bureaucrats were virtually ordering us to trigger article 50 straight away, such is their disdain for independence of constituent states and democracy.

Incidentally, a year of uncertainty prior to formally starting the process could help to keep the pound weak, which would benefit exporters, so I am not so sure this leaving is going to be quite so costly as some assume. Well, to be honest I don't think anyone really knows, such is the 'science' of economics. There are too many unknowns, and too many commentators have a vested interest to be trusted.

Of course the EU want us to get on with it. Why wouldn't they? It doesn't make them pompous in the slightest, they just want to get back to a normal state of affairs so that they can get on with life. If it were any other country I am quite sure that we would be calling for them to go asap.

As long as we're waiting until we leave I don't believe that business will want to invest in any great way. Our business rules are going to change drastically once we're outside so who would pump money into a country where you know that there's going to be an upheaval pretty darned soon.

As for recruiting staff, surely Vote Leave have already done their homework and have a long list of people who they'd like to recruit. They'd have to be completely moronic to campaign for something as big as this without having any sort of exit plan.

uk1

bumpercars99 wrote: »

If we have to leave can we just get on with it. I'm an accountant working around transactions (acquisitions etc) and the whole industry has ground to a halt. Everything we've been working on has been cancelled. No-one wants to make a big acquisition in the UK in this uncertain climate.

The absolute last thing we need is to drag this out for years before getting started! I would much have preferred to stay in, it's going to ruin my career to leave. But if we're going, can we just get on with it. At least once we know where we stand, we can all get on with our lives.

I think if it's a choice between getting the best deal possible for the UK and "getting on with it" so that you can make a bit more quick cash then most sensible people would vote for getting the best possible deal even if it taskes a bit longer.

Once the EU realise that working in an adult and constructive way with some informal talks between adults as has been the way for 40 years then we will make progress. Most of the work is done as we are leaving the EU in a state of full compliance. There are very few issues that need to be resolved . All that is missing at the moment is a positive frame of mind in the EU and that will happen in fairly quick time once the spectre of more referenda looms more clearly in their minds.

Jeff

masonic

Ballard wrote: »

Of course the EU want us to get on with it. Why wouldn't they? It doesn't make them pompous in the slightest, they just want to get back to a normal state of affairs so that they can get on with life. If it were any other country I am quite sure that we would be calling for them to go asap.

As long as we're waiting until we leave I don't believe that business will want to invest in any great way. Our business rules are going to change drastically once we're outside so who would pump money into a country where you know that there's going to be an upheaval pretty darned soon.

As for recruiting staff, surely Vote Leave have already done their homework and have a long list of people who they'd like to recruit. They'd have to be completely moronic to campaign for something as big as this without having any sort of exit plan.

It was impossible for there to be a plan when the referendum was promised and called by a PM who was in favour of remaining and unwilling to see a leave result through to its conclusion. But that ship has sailed. There is no point complaining about it any more.

No detailed planning is possible until we have a new PM in place, because the new PM, whoever it turns out to be, will no doubt be unwilling to take a plan devised entirely by others and execute it.

The state of limbo we find ourselves in is immensely frustrating, but triggering Article 50 prematurely would do nothing to improve that. Nobody currently has a mandate to begin negotiations. There is little doubt Article 50 will be served in due course - probably at year end.

doe808

uk1 wrote: »

That's a bit of a red herring and a completely different comparatively minor issue if you don't mind me saying so. To be honest compared with the issue of getting the right terms it is worthy of delay. I think you'll find that when we haven't triggered article 50 by the end of the year and look like we're in no rush and with the impending likelihood of a potential queue of other referenda the mind will start to get concentrated. Trust me.

In passing let me remind you that whilst large organisations can often provide employment if they invest here one of the anti-globalisation arguments is that the larger the company the less tax they pay in the countries in which they actually operate. People seem to overlook that. Swap me a handful of vibrant SME's to one global any day.

It is the smaller companies that we need to protect, 94% of which do not trade in the EU but are "governed" by them.


Jeff

You might want to look at the tax take figures between SME's and globals in the UK. Not just corporation tax, but VAT, national insurance. etc.

In terms of SME's, why would you now want to be based in the UK? you'll face tariffs, and be cut off from the EU development funding. It will also be harder to bring in key staff, with the restrictions. Stuff like this is gold dust to our rivals, who will already be in the ears of directors trying to get the UK based one to relocate. Trust me- I've been involved in these transactions

To put the question another way, what do we make or provide that wont now be able to be made or provided cheaper by Europe, once the tariffs kick in?

uk1

doe808 wrote: »

You might want to look at the tax take figures between SME's and globals in the UK. Not just corporation tax, but VAT, national insurance. etc.

In terms of SME's, why would you now want to be based in the UK? you'll face tariffs, and be cut off from the EU development funding. It will also be harder to bring in key staff, with the restrictions. Stuff like this is gold dust to our rivals, who will already be in the ears of directors trying to get the UK based one to relocate. Trust me- I've been involved in these transactions

To put the question another way, what do we make or provide that wont now be able to be made or provided cheaper by Europe, once the tariffs kick in?

You have ignored all of the contra arguments. For example:

The removal of red tape compliance for a market you don't trade in.

Being in a country that can negotiate trade deals to suit us rather than 27 other countries with all of the other states that dwarf EU.

Being based in a country where laws are made that suit us rather than everyone else


etc

Jeff

doe808

uk1 wrote: »

And name calling doesn't herald well for the rest of the argument does it?



When the UK becomes "open for business" and is able to start negotiating trade agreements quickly and easily with the enormous chunk of the world that isn't EU, you will find that many companies find the UK to be the best European country to be based in.


Jeff

"quickly and easily"??!! Sorry but do you have any idea how long trade agreements take to negotiate? Read last year that it was between 4-12 years. Look at the recent EU/Canada deal- that was over 9 years.

uk1

doe808 wrote: »

"quickly and easily"??!! Sorry but do you have any idea how long trade agreements take to negotiate? Read last year that it was between 4-12 years. Look at the recent EU/Canada deal- that was over 9 years.

Yes, you are making my point.

Making a trade agreement that has to satisfy 29 states ie the EU and the other .... is going to take longer than a treaty just between two parties isn't it.

uk1

........by the way!


CETA has hit mud, because the EU can't decide who approves and signs it.

Junckers thinks he signs it, and the German vice chancellor has said "no you can't ... all 28 states have to sign it ....".

Jeff

doe808

uk1 wrote: »

You have ignored all of the contra arguments. For example:

The removal of red tape compliance for a market you don't trade in.

Being in a country that can negotiate trade deals to suit us rather than 27 other countries with all of the other states that dwarf EU.

Being based in a country where laws are made that suit us rather than everyone else
etc

Jeff

There is, in fact, very little red tape if you just trade in the UK (despite what the Daily Mail will tell you). Standardised rule help if you export, so you don't have to deal with different rules for 27 different markets- at least that was the consensus at the last CBI dinner I was at.

In terms of your second point, the EU is our biggest market. We now need to negotiate 27 separate trade deals from a weaker position. Who else you would like to negotiate with? We already have deals with most other nations you would like to deal with. You think those we have negotiated as part of Europe, will let us keep the same terms?

If you do my friend, then I suspect you have a limited experience of such matters.

doe808

uk1 wrote: »

Yes, you are making my point.

Making a trade agreement that has to satisfy 29 states ie the EU and the other .... is going to take longer than a treaty just between two parties isn't it.

Not according to the WTO figures.