Theresa May

saver861

gadgetmind wrote: »

My main markets are USA, Taiwan, China, Korea, India and Japan. Nothing will change regards how I do business in these locations but much less of the money will come back to the UK.

Will it be the same though? Trade Agreements will need to be renegotiated as I understand it. The EU is still going to a bigger player than the UK so, negotiation will be necessary and I'm not sure we will get the best of what is going - it is possible that we do end up at 'the back of the queue'. That would not be good.

On the other hand, if the UK can/does remain under the same EU umbrella for Trade Agreements, I can't see that being smooth.

gadgetmind wrote: »

Already happening and will continue to build. Interesting times.

There wont be many in the EU wanting to throw us a life rope should we need one.

My own view is that the uncertainty of all this may create much more damage than the decision itself. The reality is most people did not expect to leave, including many of those in the Leavers camp. Thus there was insufficient research done to truly assimilate the various pros and cons of Leaving. Thats why there was so much hype and scare mongering both sides while being somewhat short on facts.

I spoke to one person recently who works for a legal firm with offices throughout the UK and Europe. Last year they were asked to look at the impact, implications and relative strategies of their business in the event of a Leave vote.

They did look at it but it was a half-hearted exercise as nobody truly believed there would be a Leave vote. They went into a tail spin after the result came through. Sure, you can say that is their own fault and they were complacent. However, I actually think it reflects a considerable proportion of businesses and organisations who are in similar positions.

If the prospect of Leaving had been considered a real possibility, then the campaign would have been much more factual. Cameron might have got a better deal to start with. People might have made much more informed decisions. The result might still have been the same, but there would have been considerably less uncertainty than there is now.

The uncertainty is definitely the hidden trip wire.

gadgetmind

saver861 wrote: »

Will it be the same though? Trade Agreements will need to be renegotiated as I understand it.

I don't deal much with physical goods. When we do, EU is easy but ROW is a PITA. I expect EU to become as hard as ROW and latter to not get any easier.

The EU is still going to a bigger player than the UK so, negotiation will be necessary and I'm not sure we will get the best of what is going

I'm sure we don't as 1) we don't have the same buying power, 2) we don't even have any negotiators.

There wont be many in the EU wanting to throw us a life rope should we need one.

For us to flounder is a win-win for them.

My own view is that the uncertainty of all this may create much more damage than the decision itself. The reality is most people did not expect to leave, including many of those in the Leavers camp. Thus there was insufficient research done to truly assimilate the various pros and cons of Leaving. Thats why there was so much hype and scare mongering both sides while being somewhat short on facts.

The Remain side made a number of testable predictions that are now in the process of being tested. To date, these predictions look accurate.

Sure, you can say that is their own fault and they were complacent. However, I actually think it reflects a considerable proportion of businesses and organisations who are in similar positions.

We looked and decided that we'd react by reducing our UK workforce and employing more people in other EU countries. This is what we're now doing.

OldBeanz

The only people capable and who had the responsibility for doing the work of investigating the implications of leaving were the Government. The Chancellor's response was to produce an emergency budget which was defeated by Conservative and Labour MPs within a matter of hours.
People believed there were more important factors than indecision bringing more risk into business. How long that will last is down to how much hardball the EU wants to play. It is in no-ones interest to prolong any deals.

gadgetmind

OldBeanz wrote: »

The only people capable and who had the responsibility for doing the work of investigating the implications of leaving were the Government.

They did that. They then put the results of this investigation into a leaflet sent to every UK household. Some people called it scaremongering. I guess we'll see.

saver861

OldBeanz wrote: »

The only people capable and who had the responsibility for doing the work of investigating the implications of leaving were the Government.

I don't think they done enough. Nor do I think the Leave campaign done enough. You may say that is not their responsibility - however, it is. Their duty is to provide the facts to the electorate for them to make their decisions on the ballot paper.

In this case, I think way too many people were voting for something they did not sufficiently understand - both sides. When it was done, then it appears the £350m wont be going where those that voted Leave thought it was going.

The migrant numbers may not decrease in the manner anticipated, particularly if there is free movement.

I suspect we will end up still being in the EU in practice, but not in title.

JezR

OldBeanz wrote: »

The only people capable and who had the responsibility for doing the work of investigating the implications of leaving were the Government. The Chancellor's response was to produce an emergency budget which was defeated by Conservative and Labour MPs within a matter of hours.

The timing for that budget was not for the immediate aftermath of the vote but somewhere down the road to fill a postulated hole in finances. It was a piece of theatre in that the possible tax rises were presented by a Conservative (Osbourne) and spending cuts by a Labour representative (Darling).

Whether a hole does open remains to be seen. My suspicion though is that it would be plugged by additional borrowing, now the surplus target has been abandoned.

redpete

saver861 wrote: »

Their duty is to provide the facts to the electorate for them to make their decisions on the ballot paper.

The problem was that so many of the consequences could only be forecast or opinion, the genuine facts were way short of representing what might happen, and the majority of the electorate had insufficient understanding to come to their own conclusions on those consequences. It was therefore easy for campaigners to tell people what they wanted to hear in order to capture votes. Goves' ridiculous assertion that it was legitimate to ignore experts was precisly because the considered opinions of experts were generally against his position.

saver861

redpete wrote: »

The problem was that so many of the consequences could only be forecast or opinion, the genuine facts were way short of representing what might happen, and the majority of the electorate had insufficient understanding to come to their own conclusions on those consequences.

Indeed. The whole thing has been very theoretical and there was little in the way of hard facts. Even less so that these were presented in a meaningful way to the lay person.

By way of simple example, how many people knew about Article 50 prior to the vote? Not many is my guess and its now a fundamental issue.

redpete wrote: »

It was therefore easy for campaigners to tell people what they wanted to hear in order to capture votes. Goves' ridiculous assertion that it was legitimate to ignore experts was precisly because the considered opinions of experts were generally against his position.

I have no doubt there were some Leave campaigners who genuinely believe that it was the best option. However, there were many of those politicians who were playing a strategic career game, Boris and Gove being the two most obvious.

kidmugsy

I have no doubt there were some Remain campaigners who genuinely believe that it was the best option. However, there were many of those politicians who were playing a strategic career game, May and Corbyn being the two most obvious.

kidmugsy

"Chris Grayling promises not to scrap high-speed rail project": what's the point of an upheaval in the cabinet if the buffoons are going to carry on with their most foolish policies? Next thing you know the clots will announce that they are going to carry on with the absurdly extravagant nuclear power station.