Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[jakesmith]

Murph7355 said:

Why would BoA choose London as it's EU hub when London won't be in the EU?

The important thing will be what happens to its business activities across Europe (note not the EU). Of which they have said nothing. They haven't even said whether the Dublin move will create any jobs in Dublin, where they already have 700 people...6,500 or so in the UK...

I would assume large scale migration, based similarly to you on speculation, also opinions I have heard from colleagues, and one BOA friend who is a medium level employee so reasonably clued up but not senior

[don'tbesilly]

jakesmith said:

don'tbesilly said:

The thread is about Brexit, the possible job losses at Tesco's has nothing to do with the UK leaving the EU.

It's relevant if you read back to a bit before it was brought up on the thread as you will understand the context.

Nope, still not relevant.

[jakesmith]

don'tbesilly said:

Nope, still not relevant.

Very compelling argument, have you considered working in law

[don'tbesilly]

jakesmith said:

don'tbesilly said:

Nope, still not relevant.

Very compelling argument, have you considered working in law

No, occasionally I read the FT, perhaps you should.

https://www.ft.com/content/3f0ec9b4-5c12-11e7-b553...

[jakesmith]

don'tbesilly said:

No, occasionally I read the FT, perhaps you should.

https://www.ft.com/content/3f0ec9b4-5c12-11e7-b553...

Excellent, a link to an article behind a paywall. You're not very good at this, are you?

[anonymous-user]

jakesmith said:

Excellent, a link to an article behind a paywall. You're not very good at this, are you?

If you copy and paste the numbers and letters after content on the link you will find it.

[don'tbesilly]

jakesmith said:

don'tbesilly said:

No, occasionally I read the FT, perhaps you should.

https://www.ft.com/content/3f0ec9b4-5c12-11e7-b553...

Excellent, a link to an article behind a paywall. You're not very good at this, are you?

You might want/need to subscribe, at least then you'd educate yourself in a subject that you clearly know next to nothing about.

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

Nothing to see here.
No one said jobs wouldn't move out of London.
And they might not have done anyway. Who knows.
And even if they have, its only a few, hardly matters.
Etc.

Have you found who did say that NO jobs would move yet? Or do you think that if you simply keep repeating it, it becomes true?

And have at least 25% of jobs been noted as moving yet? When are they going? And which companies are involved?

Setting up an "EU" base (it's not even that for these firms as they already have ops there!) is not the same as the UK Financial Services sector being decimated or the EU one becoming pre-eminent for that matter. There are NO indications that either of those things will happen, just hyperbole from people who over 12mths on still cannot accept a decision.

You also have yet to confirm what experience you have of the sector, and what explanation you attach to bigger movements over the last 20yrs whilst part of the EU machine.

[amusingduck]

jakesmith said:

Excellent, a link to an article behind a paywall. You're not very good at this, are you?

jakesmith said:

Here is consumer confidence over the last 10 years, if you think a 15 point drop in 12 months won't cause consumers to think twice before making financial commitments then you are in denial. This will certainly be influencing retail, consumer spending and property transactions

jakesmith said:

Sway said:

Retail figures were out today - up 3% year on year...

Retail figures were up 1.6% value not 3%

Sway said:

It was actually 5.7% across all retail sectors:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/re...

Pot, Kettle, Black.

[jakesmith]

don'tbesilly said:

You might want/need to subscribe, at least then you'd educate yourself in a subject that you clearly know next to nothing about.

You haven't displayed anything at all, apart from being a nasty person with no arguments or knowledge to share or contribute.
You may disagree with what I write and I might be misguided or wrong but just saying 'you're wrong' or 'you clearly don't know what you're talking about' isn't compelling or impressive if you can't critique what someone has actually written, or offer anything of interest to the discussion apart from recommending your favorite newspaper
Your meritless 'contribution' is like a cancer on a thread like this, kills the discussion and makes people not bother to engage.

Edited by jakesmith on Saturday 22 July 18:28

[jakesmith]

amusingduck said:

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Nice selective quoting, what Sway actually said was:

Sway said:

You're right, I was wrong - apologies.
It was actually 5.7% across all retail sectors:

He was looking YOY I was looking Quarter on Quarter it was a simple misunderstanding, but I think your misquoting and smiley faces tells me what I need to know about the level of debate you are comfortable at.
It's a shame because there are some genuinely interesting and informed people on here, but it's too hard work filtering out those with little / nothing to say or add to the discussion beyond a snide comment or a smiley face.

[Murph7355]

jakesmith said:

...
It's a shame because there are some genuinely interesting and informed people on here, but it's too hard work filtering out those with little / nothing to say or add to the discussion beyond a snide comment or a smiley face.

tbf, it's not that hard

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

jakesmith said:

...
It's a shame because there are some genuinely interesting and informed people on here, but it's too hard work filtering out those with little / nothing to say or add to the discussion beyond a snide comment or a smiley face.

tbf, it's not that hard

Maybe the reference was to something like this

"I asked my dentist about brexit sensitivity and she said it was due to lots of holes in the veneer of remainer arguments" hang on almost forgot the smiley

Is there a timetable for jakesmith showing when each thread gets serious?

=> website feedback

[amusingduck]

jakesmith said:

He was looking YOY I was looking Quarter on Quarter it was a simple misunderstanding, but I think your misquoting and smiley faces tells me what I need to know about the level of debate you are comfortable at.

So, you say "if you think a 15 point drop in 12 months won't cause consumers to think twice before making financial commitments then you are in denial".

Sway counterpoints by showing that year on year growth is actually 3%.

You rebut this by saying that it's actually 1.6%. But you, for some reason, are talking about quarter-on-quarter growth, despite him specifying YOY, which makes sense as you were the one to initially specify 12 months.

It turns out he was mistaken. It was actually 5.7% YOY.

There is no debate here. Just you spewing ste that you clearly, know nothing about.

[jakesmith]

amusingduck said:

So, you say "if you think a 15 point drop in 12 months won't cause consumers to think twice before making financial commitments then you are in denial".

Sway counterpoints by showing that year on year growth is actually 3%.

You rebut this by saying that it's actually 1.6%. But you, for some reason, are talking about quarter-on-quarter growth, despite him specifying YOY, which makes sense as you were the one to initially specify 12 months.

It turns out he was mistaken. It was actually 5.7% YOY.

There is no debate here. Just you spewing ste that you clearly, know nothing about.

So yes, as already covered, there was crossed wires on the periods we were comparing, that was sorted earlier.
If you think that some retail sales propped up by loads of people buying inexpensive clothing due to an unusually hot summer, that only just brought us flat year to date YOY, somehow mitigates the collapsing consumer confidence of the last 12 months, then you are as simplistic as you are unpleasant

[Pan Pan Pan]

jakesmith said:

turbobloke said:

Exact;y. Those asking this question know, or ought to know, it is unanswerable.

There's no way of going back in time to see how things would have turned out if we had not gone along the EEC and EU path.

The notion of 'harm' to the economy is meaningless in this context - the question is, would the economy have performed even better, outside the EEC/EU, and the answer doesn't exist and cannot be known.

Yes of course that's all true, as can not be known the impact of leaving. What we do know is that our global ranking in GDP has stayed the almost same since joining. It was unlikely to overtake Germany, Japan, USA, China due to population size and manufacturing.

With the EU block forming the 2nd largest economy in the world, and being pretty opposed to making Brexit look successful, and knowing how devious and caniving they can / will be to achieve that, I see it as a huge risk to leave. Ironically that in itself is a good reason to leave and i do get that, but somewhat feels like cutting your nose to spite your face.

There was a very good looking list from the PanPan poster above. How about the intangible but longest period of peace and prosperity ever, following a period of conflict so ghastly that many would not actually believe how bad life was across Europe and the attrocities that took place. Germany has done very well out of the EU and establishing itself as a manufacturing powerhouse but it was also making amends for something unspeakable. With a resurgent Russia and isolationist USA, there is an intangible benefit to having a close relationship with countries we have historically had fractious relationships with. Which is a lot of Europe.

There are also very tangible benefits. Of course Fishing will benefit from Brexit, that is a great example. Where does that rank though in terms of its economic relevance? How many new jobs vs how many lost, and will we have a native workforce to staff it? I don't pretend to know. What about contributions from the EU? We may be a net contributor but all those tourist attractions in Cornwall and Wales aren't going to get sweet FA when we leave the EU, they will be hit bloody hard. Maybe they can all move to the fishing industry?

The longest period of peace and prosperity (for some) that you refer to, was ensured by NATO, not the EU. Indeed some EU members including the wealthiest of them all, Germany do not even pay their share of NATO`s upkeep.
Bear in mind it was the UK and the UK alone, which stood against Nazi Germany, and without this, It would have been impossible for the US and allied military to carry out an invasion of Nazi held Europe, from across the Atlantic. If the UK had gone down, it is also quite possible that Russia would have fallen to the Nazi`s as well.
As posted before, in the entire time the UK has been a member of the EU it has not received a single net positive penny of funding from the EU. Getting a tiny bit of the UK`s OWN money back, does not constitute positive funding. Only if the UK had received more from the EU than it put into the EU `s coffers, could it be said that the UK has ever received a single penny of positive funding FROM the EU, but it never has..
If I had to give you twenty quid just to be allowed to talk to you about trade, (that's before I am allowed to actually do any trade) and you give me back 3 quid, out of the twenty I have just given you (for what is in effect an extortion / protection fee) Which side has got the `great' deal out of the matter? the side that walks off with 17 pounds of my money which he has been given for nothing, in his pocket, or the side that walks off with 3 pounds of their OWN money in their pocket,. made even worse, by then proceeding to run a hundreds of billions of pounds a year trade deficit with the EU, (You know, where the EU sells more of its goods and services into the UK, than the UK is able to sell into the EU) which amounted to 71 billion pounds worth in just 2016 alone? Just whose factories and businesses are going to be doing best in that situation?
If one then takes into account the seizure by the EEC/EU of 80% of the fish stocks in the UK`s territorial waters, for which the UK received no compensation whatsoever, the one sided `fantastic EU deal' becomes even worse. And yet there are people in the UK who believe being in the EU has been fantastic for the UK, FFS!

[FiF]

Pan Pan Pan said:

jakesmith said:

turbobloke said:

Exact;y. Those asking this question know, or ought to know, it is unanswerable.

There's no way of going back in time to see how things would have turned out if we had not gone along the EEC and EU path.

The notion of 'harm' to the economy is meaningless in this context - the question is, would the economy have performed even better, outside the EEC/EU, and the answer doesn't exist and cannot be known.

Yes of course that's all true, as can not be known the impact of leaving. What we do know is that our global ranking in GDP has stayed the almost same since joining. It was unlikely to overtake Germany, Japan, USA, China due to population size and manufacturing.

With the EU block forming the 2nd largest economy in the world, and being pretty opposed to making Brexit look successful, and knowing how devious and caniving they can / will be to achieve that, I see it as a huge risk to leave. Ironically that in itself is a good reason to leave and i do get that, but somewhat feels like cutting your nose to spite your face.

There was a very good looking list from the PanPan poster above. How about the intangible but longest period of peace and prosperity ever, following a period of conflict so ghastly that many would not actually believe how bad life was across Europe and the attrocities that took place. Germany has done very well out of the EU and establishing itself as a manufacturing powerhouse but it was also making amends for something unspeakable. With a resurgent Russia and isolationist USA, there is an intangible benefit to having a close relationship with countries we have historically had fractious relationships with. Which is a lot of Europe.

There are also very tangible benefits. Of course Fishing will benefit from Brexit, that is a great example. Where does that rank though in terms of its economic relevance? How many new jobs vs how many lost, and will we have a native workforce to staff it? I don't pretend to know. What about contributions from the EU? We may be a net contributor but all those tourist attractions in Cornwall and Wales aren't going to get sweet FA when we leave the EU, they will be hit bloody hard. Maybe they can all move to the fishing industry?

The longest period of peace and prosperity (for some) that you refer to, was ensured by NATO, not the EU. Indeed some EU members including the wealthiest of them all, Germany do not even pay their share of NATO`s upkeep.
Bear in mind it was the UK and the UK alone, which stood against Nazi Germany, and without this, It would have been impossible for the US and allied military to carry out an invasion of Nazi held Europe, from across the Atlantic. If the UK had gone down, it is also quite possible that Russia would have fallen to the Nazi`s as well.
As posted before, in the entire time the UK has been a member of the EU it has not received a single net positive penny of funding from the EU. Getting a tiny bit of the UK`s OWN money back, does not constitute positive funding. Only if the UK had received more from the EU than it put into the EU `s coffers, could it be said that the UK has ever received a single penny of positive funding FROM the EU, but it never has..
If I had to give you twenty quid just to be allowed to talk to you about trade, (that's before I am allowed to actually do any trade) and you give me back 3 quid, out of the twenty I have just given you (for what is in effect an extortion / protection fee) Which side has got the `great' deal out of the matter? the side that walks off with 17 pounds of my money which he has been given for nothing, in his pocket, or the side that walks off with 3 pounds of their OWN money in their pocket,. made even worse, by then proceeding to run a hundreds of billions of pounds a year trade deficit with the EU, (You know, where the EU sells more of its goods and services into the UK, than the UK is able to sell into the EU) which amounted to 71 billion pounds worth in just 2016 alone? Just whose factories and businesses are going to be doing best in that situation?
If one then takes into account the seizure by the EEC/EU of 80% of the fish stocks in the UK`s territorial waters, for which the UK received no compensation whatsoever, the one sided `fantastic EU deal' becomes even worse. And yet there are people in the UK who believe being in the EU has been fantastic for the UK, FFS!

Wasting your breath PPP.

The other day was reading some statistics from one trade body or other, meat and meat products iirc, within which they opined that Britain would have to pay compensation to EU nations that wished to sell us product due to us no longer being part of the EU after Brexit. In the face of utterly daft positions like that, where in a trading relationship the import to export ratio is something like 90:10, paying compensation to someone so they'll sell you something, what chance is there of any sensible debate.

[Pan Pan Pan]

FiF said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

jakesmith said:

turbobloke said:

Exact;y. Those asking this question know, or ought to know, it is unanswerable.

There's no way of going back in time to see how things would have turned out if we had not gone along the EEC and EU path.

The notion of 'harm' to the economy is meaningless in this context - the question is, would the economy have performed even better, outside the EEC/EU, and the answer doesn't exist and cannot be known.

Yes of course that's all true, as can not be known the impact of leaving. What we do know is that our global ranking in GDP has stayed the almost same since joining. It was unlikely to overtake Germany, Japan, USA, China due to population size and manufacturing.

With the EU block forming the 2nd largest economy in the world, and being pretty opposed to making Brexit look successful, and knowing how devious and caniving they can / will be to achieve that, I see it as a huge risk to leave. Ironically that in itself is a good reason to leave and i do get that, but somewhat feels like cutting your nose to spite your face.

There was a very good looking list from the PanPan poster above. How about the intangible but longest period of peace and prosperity ever, following a period of conflict so ghastly that many would not actually believe how bad life was across Europe and the attrocities that took place. Germany has done very well out of the EU and establishing itself as a manufacturing powerhouse but it was also making amends for something unspeakable. With a resurgent Russia and isolationist USA, there is an intangible benefit to having a close relationship with countries we have historically had fractious relationships with. Which is a lot of Europe.

There are also very tangible benefits. Of course Fishing will benefit from Brexit, that is a great example. Where does that rank though in terms of its economic relevance? How many new jobs vs how many lost, and will we have a native workforce to staff it? I don't pretend to know. What about contributions from the EU? We may be a net contributor but all those tourist attractions in Cornwall and Wales aren't going to get sweet FA when we leave the EU, they will be hit bloody hard. Maybe they can all move to the fishing industry?

The longest period of peace and prosperity (for some) that you refer to, was ensured by NATO, not the EU. Indeed some EU members including the wealthiest of them all, Germany do not even pay their share of NATO`s upkeep.
Bear in mind it was the UK and the UK alone, which stood against Nazi Germany, and without this, It would have been impossible for the US and allied military to carry out an invasion of Nazi held Europe, from across the Atlantic. If the UK had gone down, it is also quite possible that Russia would have fallen to the Nazi`s as well.
As posted before, in the entire time the UK has been a member of the EU it has not received a single net positive penny of funding from the EU. Getting a tiny bit of the UK`s OWN money back, does not constitute positive funding. Only if the UK had received more from the EU than it put into the EU `s coffers, could it be said that the UK has ever received a single penny of positive funding FROM the EU, but it never has..
If I had to give you twenty quid just to be allowed to talk to you about trade, (that's before I am allowed to actually do any trade) and you give me back 3 quid, out of the twenty I have just given you (for what is in effect an extortion / protection fee) Which side has got the `great' deal out of the matter? the side that walks off with 17 pounds of my money which he has been given for nothing, in his pocket, or the side that walks off with 3 pounds of their OWN money in their pocket,. made even worse, by then proceeding to run a hundreds of billions of pounds a year trade deficit with the EU, (You know, where the EU sells more of its goods and services into the UK, than the UK is able to sell into the EU) which amounted to 71 billion pounds worth in just 2016 alone? Just whose factories and businesses are going to be doing best in that situation?
If one then takes into account the seizure by the EEC/EU of 80% of the fish stocks in the UK`s territorial waters, for which the UK received no compensation whatsoever, the one sided `fantastic EU deal' becomes even worse. And yet there are people in the UK who believe being in the EU has been fantastic for the UK, FFS!

Wasting your breath PPP.

The other day was reading some statistics from one trade body or other, meat and meat products iirc, within which they opined that Britain would have to pay compensation to EU nations that wished to sell us product due to us no longer being part of the EU after Brexit. In the face of utterly daft positions like that, where in a trading relationship the import to export ratio is something like 90:10, paying compensation to someone so they'll sell you something, what chance is there of any sensible debate.

This is the bit I just don't understand, how can the remoaners claim that the UK, being in the EU is good for the UK, when in reality the UK`s membership, has only really ever been good for the EU? As posted before I would love to do some business with remoaners, It seems I could take them to the cleaners (and back, and then back again), and they would still actually thank me for it.

[Sway]

jakesmith said:

So yes, as already covered, there was crossed wires on the periods we were comparing, that was sorted earlier.
If you think that some retail sales propped up by loads of people buying inexpensive clothing due to an unusually hot summer, that only just brought us flat year to date YOY, somehow mitigates the collapsing consumer confidence of the last 12 months, then you are as simplistic as you are unpleasant

Come on chap, fair enough on wires crossed, but a 6% yoy growth is hardly 'just brought us flat', and yes - money actually spent does trump a consumer confidence survey, by definition.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Given the title of this thread, It would seem to be the correct one in which to ask a question about the nature of the 2016 referendum, which I asked in another thread about the meaning of the term democracy.
Not a single person in the UK voted for, or was given the chance to vote on whether or not, the UK should be a member of the EU. the government simply took the UK into the EU without any referendum for the citizens of the UK on the matter.
But now it seems that following the first and only democratic referendum the people of the UK have ever been given (in 2016) on whether or not the UK should be a member of the EU, the remoaners started bleating it was only advisory, or it was so close it was not valid, or it should never have taken place, or that the governments actions were not legal, or that people did not know what they were voting for, or that they want yet another referendum at the end of the negotiations etc etc.
So I would ask why, when not a single person in the UK was given a vote on the matter when the UK was duped INTO the EU, do the remoaners believe that the result of the 2016 referendum was wrong? and should be overturned, done again, ignored, legally challenged etc.
It seems the remoaners only believe in a highly selective form of democracy, which is only `democracy' when it aligns with their (minority) view.
Given their view, the government should simply have taken the UK out of the EU last year in the same way it took the UK into the EU, with no referendum vote whatsoever for the people on the matter, because after all, they are the democratically elected body, whom we elected to carry out the these actions that the country wants on our behalf.
Why was it OK for the government to take the UK into the EU without asking the people if this was what they wanted then, but somehow it is not OK now, for the government to take the UK out the EU, even after a democratic vote, in which the majority showed that they want the UK to leave the EU. A severe case of double standards it would seem.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Friday 28th July 08:50