The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[p1stonhead]

jsf said:

Breadvan72 said:

This is harder than it looks -

https://advisa.se/en/research/brexit-bus/

That is actually a bloody fun game

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

That is actually a bloody fun game

Reminds me of the simplicity of games pre-EU

Getting better, just like Brexit.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 2nd December 14:42

[p1stonhead]

jsf said:

p1stonhead said:

That is actually a bloody fun game

Reminds me of the simplicity of games pre-EU

Edited by p1stonhead on Saturday 2nd December 14:42

[///ajd]

If you like that game, you should try Hill Climb 2 on the iOS appstore.

The game would have been more realistic if the logo fell off the bus and turned into "lets spend £300m/week less on the NHS as we're all now that much poorer" by the finish line.

[Jockman]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Was our veto of no use?

Good point. This article is quite interesting at this juncture, with Sir Ivan now shedding more light.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-summit-that...

[Jockman]

CaptainSlow said:

UK manufacturing up, however, the Economists are now saying the factories are too busy and they won't be able to keep it up....priceless, they must be some of our resident remoaning PHers.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42193981

Yes, best figures for Manufacturing PMI since August 2013. Admittedly only 10% or so of UK economic output but still a decent stab. Good to see some companies actually investing. Major companies appear to have been building up huge cash reserves over the last 7 or 8 years. Why?

[Tuna]

Jockman said:

Yes, best figures for Manufacturing PMI since August 2013. Admittedly only 10% or so of UK economic output but still a decent stab.

I may be wrong, but isn't the reason it's "only 10%" that financial services have been so successful in generating even more? The absolute value of our manufacturing sector hasn't in itself decreased (though it's become increasingly specialist, high value work rather than low value, low tech manufacture). In other words we don't "manufacture less", we've just built up another sector that's even larger and runs alongside.

[Crackie]

///ajd said:

Murph7355 said:

Are all EU regs solely driven by safety requirements?

"Safety" is a fabulous strawman to bring into debate as it cannot be argued against. Rightly so. As long as the regs actually ensure safety...

The regs here - about Bromine flame retardant content it seems - look related to environmental protection as much as anything else. They are toxic and bioaccumulative so the concern is both for humans and fluffy animals/environment.

Aside from the details, it would appear more than likely that the UK would insist & regulate the same environmental controls in any case - and whats more, if this company was making 30,000 for the EU market too - nothing at all would have changed for this company and this issue pre/post brexit - unless it dropped out of the EU market to make less speakers for the UK only - but as above the UK regs would still likely match the EU ones so it would not change the price of fish.

Furthermore there is an accusation that the EU legislated "too quickly" - so presumably the new global edge the UK will have once we brexit is to pass legislation "more slowly". Hmmm. Still irrelevant for a company making UK/EU wide product.

Given the UK tests were passed however, the above example reads to me like a simple quality escape with the manufacturing base. There is little credible reason to blame the EU - unless it is a convenient cover to a) demonize them and b) to cover up shortcomings elsewhere in the PM / risk mgt chain.

After this explanation, is anyone still thinking this is an "EU" issue we can escape? I'm not, I'm calling it a true story, but linkage/blame to the EU = debunked.

You are making assumptions and casting aspersions about a subject you have very limited knowledge of. I certainly don't know how you managed to twist the details I provided into options a and b above. Purple asked for examples af where EU legislation had had a negative impact. I think 2002/95/EU was introduced before there was sufficient infrastructure to support it. The leadtime from concept to products being in store was 17 weeks including the delay. I'll reply again when I have more time

[anonymous-user]

Crackie said:

///ajd said:

Murph7355 said:

Are all EU regs solely driven by safety requirements?

"Safety" is a fabulous strawman to bring into debate as it cannot be argued against. Rightly so. As long as the regs actually ensure safety...

The regs here - about Bromine flame retardant content it seems - look related to environmental protection as much as anything else. They are toxic and bioaccumulative so the concern is both for humans and fluffy animals/environment.

Aside from the details, it would appear more than likely that the UK would insist & regulate the same environmental controls in any case - and whats more, if this company was making 30,000 for the EU market too - nothing at all would have changed for this company and this issue pre/post brexit - unless it dropped out of the EU market to make less speakers for the UK only - but as above the UK regs would still likely match the EU ones so it would not change the price of fish.

Furthermore there is an accusation that the EU legislated "too quickly" - so presumably the new global edge the UK will have once we brexit is to pass legislation "more slowly". Hmmm. Still irrelevant for a company making UK/EU wide product.

Given the UK tests were passed however, the above example reads to me like a simple quality escape with the manufacturing base. There is little credible reason to blame the EU - unless it is a convenient cover to a) demonize them and b) to cover up shortcomings elsewhere in the PM / risk mgt chain.

After this explanation, is anyone still thinking this is an "EU" issue we can escape? I'm not, I'm calling it a true story, but linkage/blame to the EU = debunked.

You are making assumptions and casting aspersions about a subject you have very limited knowledge of. I certainly don't know how you managed to twist the details I provided into options a and b above. Purple asked for examples af where EU legislation had had a negative impact. I think 2002/95/EU was introduced before there was sufficient infrastructure to support it. The leadtime from concept to products being in store was 17 weeks including the delay. I'll reply again when I have more time

You are wasting your time, he will always find a way to tell you it wasn't the EU that caused the issue.

[Tuna]

jsf said:

You are wasting your time, he will always find a way to tell you it wasn't the EU that caused the issue.

One of these days, //ajd will successfully prove black is white, before promptly being killed on the next zebra crossing. (with apologies to Douglas Adams)

[powerstroke]

///ajd said:

If you like that game, you should try Hill Climb 2 on the iOS appstore.

The game would have been more realistic if the logo fell off the bus and turned into "lets spend £300m/week less on the NHS as we're all now that much poorer" by the finish line.

Hm but we are already seeing the benefit from Brexit ...

[///ajd]

powerstroke said:

Hm but we are already seeing the benefit from Brexit ...

Hmm. Whatever could you be referring to?

[powerstroke]

///ajd said:

powerstroke said:

Hm but we are already seeing the benefit from Brexit ...

Hmm. Whatever could you be referring to?

lower pound making exporters happy ,
lower immigration making the people who voted for less immigration happy..
seeing the self absorbed /centered elite confused and unsure ... Priceless ...

[p1stonhead]

powerstroke said:

///ajd said:

powerstroke said:

Hm but we are already seeing the benefit from Brexit ...

Hmm. Whatever could you be referring to?

lower pound making exporters happy ,
lower immigration making the people who voted for less immigration happy..
seeing the self absorbed /centered elite charged with making this whole thing work confused and unsure ... Priceless ...

EFA...

[///ajd]

Bit of window dressing, but there it is.

So predictable.

[Robertj21a]

p1stonhead said:

powerstroke said:

///ajd said:

powerstroke said:

Hm but we are already seeing the benefit from Brexit ...

Hmm. Whatever could you be referring to?

lower pound making exporters happy ,
lower immigration making the people who voted for less immigration happy..
seeing the self absorbed /centered elite charged with making this whole thing work confused and unsure ... Priceless ...

EFA...

?? - I thought from comments on this thread that many have no interest in doing anything whatsoever to make it work ?

[///ajd]

Crackie said:

You are making assumptions and casting aspersions about a subject you have very limited knowledge of. I certainly don't know how you managed to twist the details I provided into options a and b above. Purple asked for examples af where EU legislation had had a negative impact. I think 2002/95/EU was introduced before there was sufficient infrastructure to support it. The leadtime from concept to products being in store was 17 weeks including the delay. I'll reply again when I have more time

Obviously we only have the information you provide to go on for your specific example.

You are saying a project that was 17 weeks long start-finish, had an 8 day delay, which effectively cost the company a £1.1m loss, and this was all down to the way the EU implemented some regs in a rush.

It seems this was a product launch linked to (in advance of) the May-June 2002 World Cup. Is that right?

[p1stonhead]

Robertj21a said:

p1stonhead said:

powerstroke said:

///ajd said:

powerstroke said:

Hm but we are already seeing the benefit from Brexit ...

Hmm. Whatever could you be referring to?

lower pound making exporters happy ,
lower immigration making the people who voted for less immigration happy..
seeing the self absorbed /centered elite charged with making this whole thing work confused and unsure ... Priceless ...

EFA...

?? - I thought from comments on this thread that many have no interest in doing anything whatsoever to make it work ?

You do realise that someone is actually trying to make something of it work despite what it looks like?

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Crackie said:

You are making assumptions and casting aspersions about a subject you have very limited knowledge of. I certainly don't know how you managed to twist the details I provided into options a and b above. Purple asked for examples af where EU legislation had had a negative impact. I think 2002/95/EU was introduced before there was sufficient infrastructure to support it. The leadtime from concept to products being in store was 17 weeks including the delay. I'll reply again when I have more time

Obviously we only have the information you provide to go on for your specific example.

You are saying a project that was 17 weeks long start-finish, had an 8 day delay, which effectively cost the company a £1.1m loss, and this was all down to the way the EU implemented some regs in a rush.

It seems this was a product launch linked to (in advance of) the May-June 2002 World Cup. Is that right?

His posts have already told you that. Why do you do this? You never take in what people tell you and just keeping asking questions already answered. It's bizarre.

[don'tbesilly]

Crackie said:

///ajd said:

Murph7355 said:

Are all EU regs solely driven by safety requirements?

"Safety" is a fabulous strawman to bring into debate as it cannot be argued against. Rightly so. As long as the regs actually ensure safety...

The regs here - about Bromine flame retardant content it seems - look related to environmental protection as much as anything else. They are toxic and bioaccumulative so the concern is both for humans and fluffy animals/environment.

Aside from the details, it would appear more than likely that the UK would insist & regulate the same environmental controls in any case - and whats more, if this company was making 30,000 for the EU market too - nothing at all would have changed for this company and this issue pre/post brexit - unless it dropped out of the EU market to make less speakers for the UK only - but as above the UK regs would still likely match the EU ones so it would not change the price of fish.

Furthermore there is an accusation that the EU legislated "too quickly" - so presumably the new global edge the UK will have once we brexit is to pass legislation "more slowly". Hmmm. Still irrelevant for a company making UK/EU wide product.

Given the UK tests were passed however, the above example reads to me like a simple quality escape with the manufacturing base. There is little credible reason to blame the EU - unless it is a convenient cover to a) demonize them and b) to cover up shortcomings elsewhere in the PM / risk mgt chain.

After this explanation, is anyone still thinking this is an "EU" issue we can escape? I'm not, I'm calling it a true story, but linkage/blame to the EU = debunked.

You are making assumptions and casting aspersions about a subject you have very limited knowledge of. I certainly don't know how you managed to twist the details I provided into options a and b above. Purple asked for examples af where EU legislation had had a negative impact. I think 2002/95/EU was introduced before there was sufficient infrastructure to support it. The leadtime from concept to products being in store was 17 weeks including the delay. I'll reply again when I have more time

I wouldn't waste your time Fella.

Regardless of the fact you work in the industry and ///ajd is an aerospace engineer,///ajd knows more about your job/industry than you do.
I'm amazed you haven't come to that conclusion yourself yet, ///ajd knew it after your first post on the subject, and called you out on it straightaway.