Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That was toilet paper and was leaked as a scare story.

My belief anyway. Every projection the government gave for immediately after the vote didn't come to pass, so I can't trust them with this either.

Who do you believe? What's the source of your optimism?

Herzlos

OK, so say the current UK agency has 100 staff, and 10 visitors per day (I'm not going to go looking for the figures because they aren't relevant to the example). That moves to the EU and a UK replacement appears.


You're saying that's a net draw, or a macro issue to be ignored. You're even trying to say this is an example of job creation.


But, say the UK equivalent only has 10 staff, and 1 visitor per day. The other 90 staff and 9 visitors/day are "lost to the EU". They get them, we don't. They get the income tax, residence taxes, local spending etc.



So that's 90 less staff we have to fund, sort of, but we were only paying 1/28th of them, so we were paying for 3 staff, we're now paying for 10 staff. Our share of the bill has gone up by 3x.


So we're already paying more for same thing.


Now, those visitors. Some will likely fly in, taxi from airport to office, meet for a hour or so and fly home. They now do that to the EU so we're out 2x taxi fairs and airport food. No big deal.
The majority of them, however, will have stayed in the UK overnight, because that's how the flights work out. So we're out, say, 7 hotel stays per night. These visitors are probably not staying at Travellodge, so we're likely out 7x £100/night+ hotel stays. That's a minimum of £182k/year in hotels. Probably double that.
We're also likely out by whatever food they buy here - probably nice restaurants for lunch/dinner and a few coffee shop visits. That could easily be £100/day+ for each visitor too.


So our bag of fag packet costs for just the loss of business visitors for this agency is sitting around £360k/year.



Since the hub is now no longer in the UK, any UK staff that need to visit the hub (because we'll still be interacting with them closely, even if we're just mirroring them), we'll be spending additional money in the EU that we wouldn't need to spend at home.


And that's for a single company. You can do the same for literally any of them to see that the economic damage goes way beyond (staff count x salary).


As for EU/UK staff, I just pointed out that these new/retained jobs may still use immigrants.


For the Heathrow runway; I haven't seen a single remainer say it's a bad thing - it's been long overdue and we'll be able to benefit from it whether or not we're in the EU as we'll still need to fly to the rest of the world for the forseeable future.

Graham_Devon

Herzlos wrote: »

OK, so say the current UK agency has 100 staff, and 10 visitors per day (I'm not going to go looking for the figures because they aren't relevant to the example). That moves to the EU and a UK replacement appears.


You're saying that's a net draw, or a macro issue to be ignored. You're even trying to say this is an example of job creation.


But, say the UK equivalent only has 10 staff, and 1 visitor per day. The other 90 staff and 9 visitors/day are "lost to the EU". They get them, we don't. They get the income tax, residence taxes, local spending etc.



So that's 90 less staff we have to fund, sort of, but we were only paying 1/28th of them, so we were paying for 3 staff, we're now paying for 10 staff. Our share of the bill has gone up by 3x.


So we're already paying more for same thing.

And then we look at the massive investment Amazon are making in the UK (much to my disgust) and it outweighs all of this on a massive scale.

Hence looking at macro economics locally is pointless.

I get your point - I get the premise of services used by visitors. I'm just saying that we can't look at such macro issues and ignore any other positive, in this case, Amazons investment far outweighing the possible loss you describe.

While, yes, there will be losses. We can't ignore investment elsewhere. All of the reports completely ignore the investment, so it's all one sided.

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't believe anyone in particular.

But I certainly don't believe government scare propaganda which has been proven wrong over and over again.

Remember that leaflet we all got sent in the post? If anyone still has it, have a look at it. Nearly every page of it has been proven wrong, from the "back of the queue" trade deal with the US (Trump has already said he's willing and waiting to get started), to airport investment declining (er, wrong, Heathrow), to banks leaving (er, wrong, no one has left), to having to leave with no deal after 2 years (er, wrong, much to my dissapointment, we've extended and pretended), to car manufacturers taking their manufacturing hubs elsewhere (er, wrong, we have more investment now than we did when the leaflet was printed).

I could go on.

I wouldn't suggest I'm optimistic. Just realistic, based on the above.

Why continue believing in all this claptrap when it's been proven to have been wrong? I don't get that.

So you believe it will all be good because the people who predicted it would be bad got it wrong?

gfplux

Here is a Brexit dividend........for the EU

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-19/ecb-poised-for-power-over-euro-derivatives-clearing-post-brexit?cmpid=BBBXT062018_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=180620&utm_campaign=brexit

gfplux

Here is additional details about the Medicines agency, Brexit dividend to the EU, Amsterdam in particular.

https://www.politico.eu/article/amsterdam-european-medicines-agency-new-host/

QUOTE
The EMA is one of the most coveted spoils of Brexit, thanks to its nearly 900 well-paid employees, its role at the heart of the EU drug approval system and the massive research and development industry it feeds. The agency also drives business tourism, with more than 30,000 experts flying in for EMA meetings every year.
END QUOTE

gfplux

Another Brexit bonus/dividend story about the Banking agency

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/11/20/european-banking-authority-to-be-relocated-to-city-country/

gfplux

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Strawman again.

I believe there will be challenges, but overall it will be better for the country to be in control of it's own destiny.

How we use that control is a separate matter.

I don't trust the scare tactic stories. I don't think I need justification for that.

I believe I have answered all questions put forward. Maybe some of the remainers could now do the same instead of throwing straw men arguments in every second post.

Graham you will see a few storys above about Brexit dividends for the EU which are facts and not speculation.
These were discussed at length in the past in these threads but are old storys that Brexiters are keen to forget.
You obviously were unaware that the only definite Brexit dividends have accrued to the EU.
At this time there is not ONE positive Brexit dividend paid out to Britain, only negatives.

If you have just one, yes just one Brexit dividend that has actually happened in Britains favour I would love to hear from you.
To me it all sounds like jam tomorrow.

gfplux

It is comforting to know that this will not happen after Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/20/co2-shortage-could-hit-uk-beer-and-chicken-supplies-during-world-cup

The BBC says
The UK is a large market for carbon dioxide and imports about a third of its CO2 needs. It has a vast range of applications in industry, with one of the main uses being the manufacture of dry ice to chill airline meals.
END QUOTE

Who new? OK apart from Brexiters.

Herzlos

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And then we look at the massive investment Amazon are making in the UK (much to my disgust) and it outweighs all of this on a massive scale.

But we could have had both. Losing the agency doesn't facilitate any Amazon investment. We're still worse off than no-Brexit, even if we're just not as well off as we could have been rather than moving backwards.


Plus, Amazon, the company famous for not paying corporation tax, and it's poor treatment of minimum wage staff that's also blamed for killing off lots of smaller brick & mortar stores, is the example you're holding up as to why it'll be good?