Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

mrginge

The only fair way to do it is if we have a referendum to see if people actually want a second referendum.

Enterprise_1701C

scaredofdebt wrote: »

The Labour manifesto does indeed support Brexit but the detail in the manifesto says they will not support May's vision of Brexit. So voters got what they voted for.

Now, 27 months after the referendum, who's to say what the "will of the people" is? Things change, we know more about Brexit and some have undoubtedly changed their minds, plus there's aother 2 million or so people eligible to vote. Every poll (I know, polls) for the last several months points towards a shift towards Remain, so another referendum would be entirely reasonable.

We had a general election in 2015 and May called another two years later (with quite different results), so a bit hypocritical of her to refuse another referendum isn't it?

So, if we got another result for leave, would you then be happy? No, you would be calling for another referendum further down the line, it is what europhiles do.

Say Remain won, how about another referendum further down the line? Of course not, that would not be democracy, if Remain had won you would be totally against another referendum.

The fact is that Leave won, i voted remain but would now vote Leave, as would a lot of others after the eu antics of this week, they have been acting like a bunch of kids that have been told they can't have something they want.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

Have you read it? Because the headline tells a completely different story:


"Hand 10% of equity to workers, Labour to tell major UK companies"



So he's proposing that shares in a company are shared with the staff in said company, likely over a fairly long time period so they don't need to do a buy back. He's not telling the stock market to give 10% of it's holdings to the government.


The impact that'd have on pension funds, if any, is to push the price up whilst companies are doing stock buy-backs.


Do you see any problem with workers owning shares in their company, beyond the all-eggs-in-one-basket stuff?

It really isn't as simple as that. The pension funds don't own the shares. They hold them in trust for people like you, me and the bloke down the pub and they are basically proposing to confiscate the shares from us. If the share price goes up as a result of buy backs, that's offset by the reduction of the number of shares held.

If workers want to own shares, they can buy them themselves. Plenty of companies have schemes which enable this.

Herzlos

mrginge wrote: »

Good point.
When we’ve asked for the second time do we have to check again next year?

As we know you’re a big fan of error margins presumably you’d be looking for a super majority this time in order to enact a change from what we decided the first time?
Two thirds majority be enough for you?

With something this important and with such a narrow margin I'd be all for a re-run every time it seems we've changed our mind until we get some clear majority.

I'm not sure we'll ever see a 66/33 split though unless we leave and rejoin. It's just far too divisive and with too much emotion and misinformation. I'm not even sure we'd get a 60/40.

.string.

scaredofdebt wrote: »

We had a general election in 2015 and May called another two years later (with quite different results), so a bit hypocritical of her to refuse another referendum isn't it?

Nonsense, the Referendum result having been adopted by both main parties, the electorate voted in that belief.

I guess you missed the point that "Labour" has changed its policy away from the platform they stood on.

.string.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

So, if we got another result for leave, would you then be happy? No, you would be calling for another referendum further down the line, it is what europhiles do.

Say Remain won, how about another referendum further down the line? Of course not, that would not be democracy, if Remain had won you would be totally against another referendum.

The fact is that Leave won, i voted remain but would now vote Leave, as would a lot of others after the eu antics of this week, they have been acting like a bunch of kids that have been told they can't have something they want.

Yes, me too.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

It really isn't as simple as that. The pension funds don't own the shares. They hold them in trust for people like you, me and the bloke down the pub and they are basically proposing to confiscate the shares from us. If the share price goes up as a result of buy backs, that's offset by the reduction of the number of shares held.

If workers want to own shares, they can buy them themselves. Plenty of companies have schemes which enable this.

I may be wildly incorrect here but my impression is that the fund does own the shares, and that the end investor owns shares or units in that fund. Either way a share is under the control of the fund and not the man in the pub. Insisting that a company has 10% of shares belonging to employees directly or via some employee fund doesn't involve confiscation of those shares. They'd either come from releasing more shares or buying them from an investment fund at market value. The investment fund would lose out on any dividends but would have the likely inflated share price back to invest elsewhere, likely only from a voluntary sale. If there was a forced sake it'd probably come from directors.

Schemes do already exist in many places to allow staff to buy shares but it's generally a bad idea as if the company goes bust they lose shares and job. Gifting of shares is a different matter since the staff aren't out of pocket.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

The EU27 seem to be more in agreement on Brexit than they've ever been on anything in the past - we've spent 2 years trying to find a weak spot and got nowhere.






Sure, trust is important, and there should be some trust. But we're talking about the EU trusting the UK to handle all of it's customs/duties for anything coming in via the UK, with no fall back position or oversight. If we stayed within the ECJ then it'd not be an issue, but that's one of our red lines.

So we're expecting the EU to be happy for us to control customs/duty for their border, despite making it clear they won't accept an option which allows the UK to act as a back door into the EU (exactly Mays proposal), whilst the UK has it's own rules with no deference to the EU. The EU would need to give that trust to a 3rd party that doesn't want involved in the EU, is talking about becoming a tax haven and undercutting the EU, and wants there to be no accountability. That wouldn't be acceptable for any other country, so it's obviously not going to be acceptable here.


Like I said before, if you want to see things more objectively, replace "UK" with "Morocco" in any of these discussions.



Small concessions would be something like a waiver for the ETIAS system for any UK citizen for the first 10 years after leaving, or altering the departure schedule, or a modification to one of the hundreds of thousands of terms we've still to settle on.

I don't believe we want to become a tax haven, funnily enough it was the Tory's chief doom maker Hammond that suggested that.

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I may be wildly incorrect here but my impression is that the fund does own the shares, and that the end investor owns shares or units in that fund. Either way a share is under the control of the fund and not the man in the pub. Insisting that a company has 10% of shares belonging to employees directly or via some employee fund doesn't involve confiscation of those shares. They'd either come from releasing more shares or buying them from an investment fund at market value. The investment fund would lose out on any dividends but would have the likely inflated share price back to invest elsewhere, likely only from a voluntary sale. If there was a forced sake it'd probably come from directors.

Schemes do already exist in many places to allow staff to buy shares but it's generally a bad idea as if the company goes bust they lose shares and job. Gifting of shares is a different matter since the staff aren't out of pocket.

The value of the business doesn't change if more shares are issued to give them to the workers or anybody else. If shares are created to give them to someone else, the value of those in issue will fall by an equivalent amount. If they are to be purchased, where does the money come from?

It really is very simple.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

The value of the business doesn't change if more shares are issued to give them to the workers or anybody else. If shares are created to give them to someone else, the value of those in issue will fall by an equivalent amount.

Yup.

If they are to be purchased, where does the money come from?

The company. I thought that was obvious?

It really is very simple.

It is.