The EU: IN or OUT?

Pincher

Why don't we dream up some new exports?

Swiss guards have been hiring themselves out for centuries, most notably guarding the Pope.

Security
_______

There's cyber security for s start.

We could even just play custodian for rich people's wealth.
Have to be less picky about where the money comes from, naturally.


Mercenaries
__________

Every other private security guard seems to claim they are ex-SAS.
Let's cash in on the reputation, and hire out ex-Army personnel.
Hire more youngster to replenish the ranks.

Now that Ghurkas are allowed to retire in England, maybe there's an angle we can play. We will have to keep a register of genuine Ghurka bloodlines.

If I was an African dictator, I could keep a team of Ghurkas at home, and a team of ex-SAS in London. Harrods will provide.


Arms
____

Don't be so moralistic, people need to defend themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, over population just promotes a struggle for resources, and people will find asking for the last piece of bread makes you size zero, but Vogue won't call.


Peace
_____

Being an independent third party has its pluses.
We can offer ourselves as mediators/arbitrators.
Letting these beatnik vegetarians run amok gives Britain a reputation for being a bunch of crazy eco humanitarians.

talexuser

Pincher wrote: »

We could even just play custodian for rich people's wealth.
Have to be less picky about where the money comes from, naturally.

You seriously want even more of London's smartest areas bought up by crooked foreign leaders and drug dealers through shell companies hiding the real owners?

JohnRo

talexuser wrote: »

You seriously want even more of London's smartest areas bought up by crooked foreign leaders and drug dealers through shell companies hiding the real owners?

I assumed the post was sarcasm since those things are already happening.

Marktheshark

The pain if we leave ?
How about the pain if we stay.
€12,766,212,751,490 in debt and it has to be paid back.
Guess which mugs will end up working until they are 70 to pay it off.

Pincher

talexuser wrote: »

You seriously want even more of London's smartest areas bought up by crooked foreign leaders and drug dealers through shell companies hiding the real owners?

There are so many forms wealth can take, I don't know why you assume it will go into London property. If you give Coutts £2million pounds, you wouldn't expect them to turn round and buy houses, do you? Unless you ask them to.

Thrugelmir

BananaRepublic wrote: »

GDP and markets are not of course the same thing. The hit to GDP has not arrived.

GDP has little real meaning. Totally misused these days. A meaningless measure to the man or woman in the street. As no bearing on whether there employer can afford higher wages for example. Shame there's not more focus on the current account deficit. Which is a far better indicator of the UK's declining wealth.

Daniel54

uk1 wrote: »

The mid-point hit on GDP used by the chancellor was 0.5%. Most of the hit on markets has taken place in contemplation. So most of that hit has been already arrived.

Jeff

The Treasury long term impact ,assuming a bilateral agreement with the EU,was 6.2% over 15 years

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

Additionally the Treasury published a shock impact report ( next two years),which is what you are referring to,which estimated GDP reduction of 3.6% -6%

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

Not sure where you got your figures from,but in the short term I have little doubt that most of the immediate hit has not yet occurred and that BananaRepublic is correct to state that the longer term negative impact still lies in the future

uk1

Daniel54 wrote: »

The Treasury long term impact ,assuming a bilateral agreement with the EU,was 6.2% over 15 years

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/517415/treasury_analysis_economic_impact_of_eu_membership_web.pdf

Additionally the Treasury published a shock impact report ( next two years),which is what you are referring to,which estimated GDP reduction of 3.6% -6%

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524967/hm_treasury_analysis_the_immediate_economic_impact_of_leaving_the_eu_web.pdf

Not sure where you got your figures from,but in the short term I have little doubt that most of the immediate hit has not yet occurred and that BananaRepublic is correct to state that the longer term negative impact still lies in the future

It was the mid-point number between the two extremes that the Treasury used for an annual recession after a brexit.

Andrew Neil used this number in the interview with the chancellor when he questioned the voracity of the need for an emergency budget. I don't think you should discuss 15 year figures when the Treasury cannot even predict more than a quarter or two out in a stable environment.

Jeff

Daniel54

uk1 wrote: »

It was the mid-point number between the two extremes that the Treasury used for an annual recession after a brexit.

Andrew Neil used this number in the interview with the chancellor when he questioned the voracity of the need for an emergency budget. I don't think you should discuss 15 year figures when the Treasury cannot even predict more than a quarter or two out in a stable environment.

Jeff

I see my link didn't work ,so please replace with this one

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu

I can't work out where Andrew Neil got his number from,but maybe you can ( meant genuinely -I can't see 1% as being the mid point of anything in the report)

The IFS view is expressed differently

In the short run, our estimates therefore suggest that the overall effect of Brexit would be to damage the public finances. On the basis of estimates by NIESR, the effect could be between £20 billion and £40 billion in 2019–20, more than enough to wipe out the planned surplus. In the long run, lower GDP would likely mean lower cash levels of public spending.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf

Any 15 year projection is bound to be "wrong" as the numbers will change constantly.That doesn't invalidate the methodology.I was not quoting it in order to support my own view that Brexit would cause short,medium and long term damage to our economy

uk1

I can't help you any more .... sorry. You could pick up the interview on iplayer I should think.

Jeff