Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

Thrugelmir

NineDeuce wrote: »

That will make up for the 15-20% increase in cost of goods caused by fall in pound wont it?

Only a deluded Leaver would make this argument...

If you can only resort to name calling in order to make a point. Suggest you take your debate elsewhere.

System

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

There's not a country in the world that has not benefited from British ingenuity either.

And here is yet another example of the ingenuity that powers the UK:
Oxford team to test universal flu vaccine in world first

Everyone will be delighted to get cheaper imports (unless you're a local supplier or work for one) but good news.

The UK sells high added value stuff like aero engines, luxury cars, vaccines per your example. An issue (a good problem to have maybe) is they're not particularly price sensitive - a 30% tariff on a high value jet engine amortised across 25 years doesn't make much difference.

I do wonder if our exports will increase that much if tariffs are reduced and whether there's really loads more business to be gained. We've seen sterling depreciate and haven't seen 'that' much of a change in exports (although I think exporters have increased prices to expand margin so maybe not a good reference.)

Much different for price sensitive goods but we don't really do that now and won't be in the future either. As you say our skill-set is in ingenuity and adding value.

Thrugelmir

mayonnaise wrote: »

You mean the EU should just leave European Agencies in a non-EU state until their lease expires? Now who's being unrealistic?

The EU likewise isn't exempt from meeting it's liabilities in full. That building might be an asset of your own pension fund.

System

cogito wrote: »

I posted about this a few weeks ago. If my employer had tried to move me to another location outside reasonable commuting distance without my agreement, I could have sued and won for constructive dismissal. There are numerous legal precedents.

It's not that clear-cut judging by gov.uk info.

https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights

Much would depend on what is reasonable and what is covered by the employment contract.

Maybe you could be entitled to statutory redundancy (or whatever was in your contract) but constructive dismissal seems unlikely.

cogito wrote: »

The other thing is of course, the no one is forcing them to leave the UK. They have 25 year leases with no break clause in Canary Wharf and would have to stump up around £300m in rent to cover the remainder of the lease. Unsurprisingly, they say that the UK should pay for that.

That seems much simpler to deal with. Who signed the lease?

cogito

ilovehouses wrote: »

It's not that clear-cut judging by gov.uk info.

https://www.gov.uk/employer-relocation-your-rights

Much would depend on what is reasonable and what is covered by the employment contract.

Maybe you could be entitled to statutory redundancy (or whatever was in your contract) but constructive dismissal seems unlikely.



That seems much simpler to deal with. Who signed the lease?

I was given a contract to sign which gave my employer the right to send me anywhere. I took legal advice and was told that there was no reason not to sign it as it couldn't be enforced.

System

cogito wrote: »

I was given a contract to sign which gave my employer the right to send me anywhere. I took legal advice and was told that there was no reason not to sign it as it couldn't be enforced.

Unfair contract terms can't be enforced so maybe your adviser considered the relocation clause unfair.

Even with a mobility clause your employer still has to be reasonable.

Thrugelmir

ilovehouses wrote: »

Even with a mobility clause your employer still has to be reasonable.

Depends on the nature of the work, and what you would be reasonablly expected to know in accepting the position offered. The other side of the coin then being a lack of a redundancy payment. If one choose not to.

Fella

Theophile wrote: »

We had plenty of good economic news from the Eurozone lately.
Not so much from the UK.
So your statement is....incorrect.

Actually my statement is correct & yours is nonsense.

CKhalvashi

ilovehouses wrote: »

The UK sells high added value stuff like aero engines, luxury cars, vaccines per your example. An issue (a good problem to have maybe) is they're not particularly price sensitive - a 30% tariff on a high value jet engine amortised across 25 years doesn't make much difference.

Actually, in a price sensitive industry, it does.

The Trent has the advantage of being one of the most fuel efficient engines across a range of applications, however taking into account the cost of one (2 Trent 772s to power an A330 sell new for around US$32m with a list price of around US$47m), that's a lot of 1% fuel savings to make up a 30% tariff.

The CF6/E1 isn't that different in terms of fuel usage (I don't have details to hand for the PW4000 series). A loss on a typical order of 20 aircraft/45 engines is talking US$1,5bn. That's a lot of money.

RR do have an advantage of being the only supplier for the A330NEO and A350, and they are looking into a re-engine of the A380 at the moment.

IAG have ordered the CFM-Leap for the A320NEO aircraft instead of the PW1000. Rolls Royce is a supplier for the latter but not the former, so again it's a sad loss of a big customer. All of BA's current A320 aircraft with the exception of G-EUNA are powered by the V2500, which is the predecessor of the PW1000. This shift is likely more due to standardisation within IAG though, as BA is the only part of it with a different engine choice currently.

The last part is not a lot to do with exports obviously, but I am looking closer to home. Just for reference, all of Easyjet's fleet are powered by CFM, (I think) all of Monarch's were powered by the V2500, however there would have been a change to CFM over the next few years.

I do wonder if our exports will increase that much if tariffs are reduced and whether there's really loads more business to be gained. We've seen sterling depreciate and haven't seen 'that' much of a change in exports (although I think exporters have increased prices to expand margin so maybe not a good reference.)

Businesses will tend to buy a quality product that will last, however I think the average consumer is much more swayed by price.

Unless margins for exporters have more than doubled, there will be a change in the cost of a base pricing in £.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The EU likewise isn't exempt from meeting it's liabilities in full. That building might be an asset of your own pension fund.

Completely agree. I'd like to see the space being used to home the offices of UK subsidiaries of EU SMEs trading with the UK.

It would increase the tax take of the UK and would enable the individual EU countries to benefit as a whole, so everyone wins. The EU as an organisation may make a profit from such an arrangement, which may (or may not) mean a small part of the exit bill can be returned to us at a later date.

ilovehouses wrote: »

Unfair contract terms can't be enforced so maybe your adviser considered the relocation clause unfair.

Even with a mobility clause your employer still has to be reasonable.

If you're working for a pan-EU organisation then anywhere within the EU is likely to be classed as reasonable, given sufficient notice and possibly a contribution towards moving expenses.

NineDeuce

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If you can only resort to name calling in order to make a point. Suggest you take your debate elsewhere.

In other words, you dont have an answer to that, unless you clearly cant deduce from that very simple sentence that an increase in tourism is a poor compromise for more expensive goods.