The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Unsurprisingly, more bs. Which treatment cost less than they used to? Contrast them with the ones that cost more.

What scales are changed for obesity?

Increase in real terms is completely meaningless. It would be meaningful if you treat the same number of people for the same conditions.

Is entirely meaningful when the claim is that budgets have been cut. Are you still struggling with this?

HTH

jjlynn27 said:

Saying all that chances of any explanation getting in a way of 'public sector bad, mkay?' idiocy, is close to zero.

I've said no such thing - maybe get an adult to help you read and comprehend my posts if you're struggling with the big words?

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 17th January 11:42

Not increasing spending enough to cover the increase in a number of people and conditions treated is effectively budget cut.

As for comprehension of your posts; they are not difficult to 'comprehend' at all. They are just laughable.

How are you getting on with absorbing the rather simple picture that I've kindly linked for you?

[Burwood]

VolvoT5 said:

This speech makes it very clear that May wants a full/hard Brexit.... no fudge to please the remain voters...

She is saying she is fully prepared for a hard Brexit if the EU punish us. And in doing so will hurt the EU more than us.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Not increasing spending enough to cover the increase in a number of people and conditions treated is effectively budget cut.

1) that wasn't what was being claimed.
2) Increase in people? So immigration does have an impact after all...?

jjlynn27 said:

As for comprehension of your posts; they are not difficult to 'comprehend' at all. They are just laughable.

Given you repeatedly claim I've something entirely different than I've actually said, it's clear you find it more difficult than you realise.

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 17th January 12:59

[skahigh]

Clear speech, not sure anyone can now claim there's no plan.

Was a positive message but not very conciliatory, think it may get a few backs up amongst European politicians.

[FiF]

Burwood said:

VolvoT5 said:

This speech makes it very clear that May wants a full/hard Brexit.... no fudge to please the remain voters...

She is saying she is fully prepared for a hard Brexit if the EU punish us. And in doing so will hurt the EU more than us.

That's how I read it, we are going to be prepared for possible eventualities, I'm not as negative about it as Richard North who has just said "We are totally fked."

[Sway]

Carl_Manchester said:

it will be interesting what the strategy is, I expect corporation tax parity with Ireland would be the first move to stem any bleeding. The big choices will come if we have to eject 2m people from the economy due to a political failure in negotiating a bilateral agreement for our people abroad. How that manifests itself is difficult to predict. Government has proven time again that they simply are unable to reduce total government spending and so pensions seem to be a soft target.

I'm sorry, but that is one area simply not up for negotiation either way - unless we and the EU nations wish to disregard the UN Treaty they are all signatories to that covers 'enshrined rights'.

Whilst I do agree almost any treaty/agreement/concorde between EU nations is up for debate, I very much doubt anyone fancies going up against the UN on a matter that was agreed globally in the 60s.

[Burwood]

Security being a big bargaining tool. The US is also making noises that it's not as interested in helping Europe. We have the best army and bests security service/intelligence. It's on the table...quid pro quo.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Not increasing spending enough to cover the increase in a number of people and conditions treated is effectively budget cut.

1) that wasn't what was being claimed.
2) Increase in people? So immigration does have an impact after all...?

jjlynn27 said:

As for comprehension of your posts; they are not difficult to 'comprehend' at all. They are just laughable.

Given you repeatedly claim I've something entirely different than I've actually said, it's clear you find it more different than you realise.

The increase in the number of people treated. The population is getting older. 0.3% is irrelevant, especially given the age profile of immigration.

Is 'different' one of the big words that I don't understand?

[loafer123]

GBP is up ~2.5% against USD and ~1.6% against EUR at the moment.

[Jockman]

Carl_Manchester said:

Mrr T said:

So let’s discuss. With financial services companies moving 1,000’s of job to the rUK, many manufactures, including the car companies, confirming plans to cease production in the UK, and an expected 5-7% fall in UK tax revenues. BOE confirming it is struggling to refinance gilt redemption. What alternatives would you like to discuss. Can I suggest an immediate reduction in all state pensions of say 50% and a 10% cut in all benefits, and perhaps a 5% c

it will be interesting what the strategy is, I expect corporation tax parity with Ireland would be the first move to stem any bleeding. The big choices will come if we have to eject 2m people from the economy due to a political failure in negotiating a bilateral agreement for our people abroad. How that manifests itself is difficult to predict. Government has proven time again that they simply are unable to reduce total government spending and so pensions seem to be a soft target.

We won't be able to cope if the old dears are forcibly repatriated from the Costas (my parents included).

The increase in Winter Payment Allowances alone will bankrupt us

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Is 'different' one of the big words that I don't understand?

[loafer123]

Jockman said:

We won't be able to cope if the old dears are forcibly repatriated from the Costas (my parents included).

The increase in Winter Payment Allowances alone will bankrupt us

Unbelievably, they can claim the Winter Payments even though they live in a warm country.

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

Burwood said:

VolvoT5 said:

This speech makes it very clear that May wants a full/hard Brexit.... no fudge to please the remain voters...

She is saying she is fully prepared for a hard Brexit if the EU punish us. And in doing so will hurt the EU more than us.

That's how I read it, we are going to be prepared for possible eventualities, I'm not as negative about it as Richard North who has just said "We are totally fked."

Interesting that it appears to hold different meanings for different people. Perhaps deliberately unclear?

[dazwalsh]

Its a middle finger to the EU post brexit vote kneejerk statement of "no single market without free movement"

Good speach, and it sets a hard stance. Lets see how the EU reacts.

[alfie2244]

dazwalsh said:

Its a middle finger to the EU post brexit vote kneejerk statement of "no single market without free movement"

Good speach, and it sets a hard stance. Lets see how the EU reacts.

Balls in their courts now.

[Jockman]

loafer123 said:

Jockman said:

We won't be able to cope if the old dears are forcibly repatriated from the Costas (my parents included).

The increase in Winter Payment Allowances alone will bankrupt us

Unbelievably, they can claim the Winter Payments even though they live in a warm country.

Not any more. There is a new formula.

"You can’t get the payment if you live in Cyprus, France, Gibraltar, Greece, Malta, Portugal or Spain because the average winter temperature is higher than the warmest region of the UK."

https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/eligibility

[FN2TypeR]

alfie2244 said:

dazwalsh said:

Its a middle finger to the EU post brexit vote kneejerk statement of "no single market without free movement"

Good speach, and it sets a hard stance. Lets see how the EU reacts.

Balls in their courts now.

It always was, me thinks.

Still, this is good - time to get a move on!

[Mrr T]

stongle said:

Check you're post Finance to rUK or rEU?

Ignoring Gilts.

Again, where is your basis for this? ING just moved 100 jobs OUT of Belgium into London. As has been repeatedly contributed - the EC is creating an un-level playing field for Finance. No amount of passporting benefit (its the argument for the wet behind the ears grads or risk managers looking to justify their idiosyncratic position), is going to bridge a 20-25bps advantage on Balance Sheet being given to Zombie Euro banks. Behaviour modifying regulations will always trump transparency directives - JP are currently licking their wounds on MDP restructuring, and Dimon is fighting his underlings evermore now... (and if your CET1 costs are higher in UK/US you wouldn't want to fund that sh*t, ever (especially when MREL makes CDS protection fraught with problems as bail-in alters the default waterfall challenging the 40% inbuilt recovery rate).

You keep regurgitating heresy and headlines without any research into real world regulatory. Its classic beta grazer territory. The best explain for passporting benefits thus far, its a convenient excuse rollout it to explain other ills in the sector or upcoming job losses due to technology (go look up R3, or the latest Trade Finance applications of DLT, DTCC invest etc). The jobs were going or gone anyway; passporting is the excuse often used by muppets (and some of your posts don't suggest that - but I think your wrong here).

Edited by stongle on Tuesday 17th January 12:24

Edited by stongle on Tuesday 17th January 12:32

I read your response to that post but did not have time to reply.

You seemed to be suggesting the BOE was looking to substantially increase the capital banks have to hold against risk.

I was not sure what you meant because last time I looked allocation of capital and capital requirements are set by the BIS and implemented in the EU by directive. You also seemed to be referring to new accounting standards on write down of loans. However, again these are set by the IASB and implemented in the EU via directive. Happy to listen to further explanation.

I would also question whether capital costs really matters to most of the financial services companies who use passporting to sell to EU clients. Capital costs only apply to banks so other financial service company, fund managers, rating agencies etc have no capital costs.

As for banks most are not bothered about selling loans to EU clients lending is mainly for the retail and small business sector. They do want to sell, execution services, issuance, custody, cash services, etc etc, all of which have very low capital requirements.

[FiF]

Greg66 said:

FiF said:

Burwood said:

VolvoT5 said:

This speech makes it very clear that May wants a full/hard Brexit.... no fudge to please the remain voters...

She is saying she is fully prepared for a hard Brexit if the EU punish us. And in doing so will hurt the EU more than us.

That's how I read it, we are going to be prepared for possible eventualities, I'm not as negative about it as Richard North who has just said "We are totally fked."

Interesting that it appears to hold different meanings for different people. Perhaps deliberately unclear?

Yes, deliberately unclear. Although it does seem to be aiming for the dort a deal out in one hit approach, which I still think is not achievable in the time available.

[Mrr T]

paulrockliffe said:

Mrr T said:

paulrockliffe said:

Mrr T said:

So let’s discuss. With financial services companies moving 1,000’s of job to the rUK, many manufactures, including the car companies, confirming plans to cease production in the UK, and an expected 5-7% fall in UK tax revenues. BOE confirming it is struggling to refinance gilt redemption. What alternatives would you like to discuss. Can I suggest an immediate reduction in all state pensions of say 50% and a 10% cut in all benefits, and perhaps a 5% c

I asked you for your sources last time you posted this sort of stuff, but you didn't come up with any. Have you got any this time?

Do your own research. It will take about 10 minutes and you will see the consequences for business of a “hard” brexit. Or as its better called a boneheaded brexit.

I'm not sure you understand how this works. You post something, presumably because you want people to think it is true and modify their opinion. No one is going to modify their opinion if you can't or won't support your argument.

I don't know about this stuff in enough detail that I'm not open to being persuaded of your case, if it's correct. But my understanding is enough that I'm not just going to believe unsupported statements of impending doom either.

It's up to you whether you want people to take your point of view seriously or not.

Fair comment.

The key place to read up on EU exit, and before that on the EU in general.

Is Richard North’s Eureferendum.com site.

You should also read the memorandums he has writtenon various aspects of brexit. Links are on the site.