The economic consequences of Brexit

[Jockman]

What happened on the 23rd September?

[Murph7355]

Jockman said:

Had one on the way back from The Fat Duck a few years ago.

But only a hamburger as pot washing wages aren't what they used to be with all this free movement....

[Jockman]

Digga said:

London424 said:

REALIST123 said:

.....and the EU is taking legal action against 6 of its members and the UK because they didn't take legal action against VW over the emissions 'scandal'.

Never mind that current legal action has already cost 10s of thousands of jobs. Got to stick to the EU rules.

Certifiable, the lot of them.

Well no, we can already predict the outcome. 6 members = all fine, carry on. UK = give us lots of money.

Some pillock will be along again shortly to ask for an example of "where the EU has ever meddled in our affairs?"

The EU appears to be taking action against several countries but its harshest ire seems directed at the UK and Germany as they are also refusing to hand over heir own test results.

[Jockman]

Murph7355 said:

Jockman said:

Had one on the way back from The Fat Duck a few years ago.

But only a hamburger as pot washing wages aren't what they used to be with all this free movement....

Oh there was a fair bit of free movement that night Murph. I regret eating the gherkin.

[walm]

Jockman said:

What happened on the 23rd September?

Ha! Good spot.

[don4l]

alfie2244 said:

Ahem

McDonald's says non US tax base will move to U.K. from Luxembourg - Bloomberg

McDonald’s Corp. says it will create a new holding company based in the U.K., where it will pay tax for most of royalties it receives on fast food sales outside the U.S., Bloomberg News reports.

Hardly a day goes by without more depressing news for the Remainers. Yesterday Tata announced £1Bn investment in Port Talbot, and up to 4000 jobs saved.

Project Fear is unravelling before our eyes.

It should be socially unacceptable to try to talk your country down.

[walm]

don4l said:

It should be socially unacceptable to try to talk your country down.

What is socially unacceptable is to turn a discussion about economics into accusations of talking the country down (or up).
It's pathetically childish.
My 7 year-old wouldn't employ such infantile ad hominems.

See also: "bed wetting, Remoaners" and for balance, "kippers, racists, thickos, poor people etc..."

[CaptainSlow]

walm said:

Cobnapint said:

Didn't want to be voting in General Elections for the rest of my life, full in the knowledge that it'd be a waste of time.

I didn't realise that all my GE votes to date had been a waste. Thanks for setting me straight.

Are you a time traveler or did you not comprehend what was said?

[walm]

CaptainSlow said:

walm said:

Cobnapint said:

Didn't want to be voting in General Elections for the rest of my life, full in the knowledge that it'd be a waste of time.

I didn't realise that all my GE votes to date had been a waste. Thanks for setting me straight.

Are you a time traveler or did you not comprehend what was said?

Probably the latter.
What did I miss?

I genuinely don't understand why it would be a waste of time voting in GEs if we had stayed in Europe.
Isn't that what he meant?

And if so - how would future GEs be different to previous ones - where we have been in the EU...?

Honestly - I probably did fail to comprehend.

[CaptainSlow]

walm said:

Probably the latter.
What did I miss?

I genuinely don't understand why it would be a waste of time voting in GEs if we had stayed in Europe.
Isn't that what he meant?

And if so - how would future GEs be different to previous ones - where we have been in the EU...?

Honestly - I probably did fail to comprehend.

OK fair enough. I'd suggest the UK Government's influence with the EEC/EC/EU has diminished over time and following a Remain vote in June even more so. Do you think Thatcher would have accepted the Sweet FA Cameron brought back?

[don4l]

walm said:

don4l said:

It should be socially unacceptable to try to talk your country down.

What is socially unacceptable is to turn a discussion about economics into accusations of talking the country down (or up).
It's pathetically childish.
My 7 year-old wouldn't employ such infantile ad hominems.

See also: "bed wetting, Remoaners" and for balance, "kippers, racists, thickos, poor people etc..."

Since the Brexit vote we have had a constant stream of good news on the economy. Why do you think that the Remainers keep highlighting the negatives?

Confidence plays a large part in economic success, and the Remainers are desperately trying to dent confidence.

You think that the term "bed wetting" is a bit strong. The term was coined to explain the unjustified worries of Remainers. History has now shown that either the term was accurrate, or the Remainers were lying.

We were going to have an "immediate and profound economic shock". Was that claim a lie, or was it bed wetting?

Inward investment would dry up. The opposite has happened. Again, I ask was that bed wetting or lying?

Did George Osborne really believe that he would need to introduce an emergency £32Bn budget?

I could go on and on.

Have a look at the Remain campaign's "Get the Facts" page. As far as I can see, there isn' a single "fact" on there. http://www.strongerin.co.uk/get_the_facts

The Leave side got 8% more votes than the Remain side. It is about time that the Remainers engaged in constructive conversation which must be based on acceptance of the fact that we are Leaving. Only then will the Remainers be able to have any real input into the process.

[catso]

don4l said:

We were going to have an "immediate and profound economic shock". Was that claim a lie, or was it bed wetting?

Inward investment would dry up. The opposite has happened. Again, I ask was that bed wetting or lying?

I would have thought they were predictions.

Predictions can be wrong but that doesn't make them a lie, as for 'bed wetting' I'll treat that with the contempt such a childish remark deserves...

[Elysium]

don4l said:

I could go on and on.

I know

[AW111]

REALIST123 said:

.....and the EU is taking legal action against 6 of its members and the UK because they didn't take legal action against VW over the emissions 'scandal'.

Never mind that current legal action has already cost 10s of thousands of jobs. Got to stick to the EU rules.

Certifiable, the lot of them.

Do you have a source for your "cost 10's of thousands of jobs" ? I think that would have been reported somewhere, if it was true.

[Ridgemont]

Looks like it's not only Johnson wandering off reservation. Davis, at a meeting with the City of London Corporation, made it clear that if the negotiations get nasty then the UK position will be to apply the screws via a number of competitive measures (tax cuts etc).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/britain...

what caught my eye was this line

meeting minutes said:

"Davis emphasised the PM’s conference speech, in which it was stated that the UK Government wants a strong UK and a strong EU. He went on to say that if the EU, rather than UK stakeholders, want to have transitional arrangements he would be “more in favour. I will be kind"

Busy Primeminsterial spokeswoman said:

Prime Minister Theresa May's official spokeswoman declined to discuss the contents of the CLC memo, but said that it represented "one interpretation of the discussion".

[Digga]

We, I have to say this sounds much more like a negotiation. One hopes the French turn up with their sensible heads on though, not just for our sakes, but for them and the rest of the EU - it's not just their sand pit their stting in.

[RYH64E]

It's worth remembering that tax cuts are great, but you have to make a profit before you see any benefit (or in the case of some large corporates, declare a profit). We need to get our trading relationship with the EU right before we start worrying about tax cuts, imo.

[London424]

RYH64E said:

It's worth remembering that tax cuts are great, but you have to make a profit before you see any benefit (or in the case of some large corporates, declare a profit). We need to get our trading relationship with the EU right before we start worrying about tax cuts, imo.

And part of that discussion might well be along the lines of "don't be dicks when it comes to tariffs etc, and we won't be dicks about our Corp tax rates...sound good?".

[PurpleMoonlight]

London424 said:

And part of that discussion might well be along the lines of "don't be dicks when it comes to tariffs etc, and we won't be dicks about our Corp tax rates...sound good?".

Cutting corporation tax to attract foreign businesses is a huge gamble, because first you have to cover the loss in existing corporation tax revenue before you make any profit. It remains to be seen if the reductions to 19% & 17% will benefit the exchequer.

[Digga]

PurpleMoonlight said:

London424 said:

And part of that discussion might well be along the lines of "don't be dicks when it comes to tariffs etc, and we won't be dicks about our Corp tax rates...sound good?".

Cutting corporation tax to attract foreign businesses is a huge gamble, because first you have to cover the loss in existing corporation tax revenue before you make any profit. It remains to be seen if the reductions to 19% & 17% will benefit the exchequer.

For it to be strategically meaningful, it has to be a long-enough horizon to make major corporate change viable. There can be some earlier pay-back where/when MNCs elect to avoid less tax or re-jig arrangements, but the bigger payoff is longer term - as ably demonstrated by our Irish cousins.