The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[barryrs]

Don't they have plans to cut 35,000 jobs by 2020 regardless of Brexit?

[don'tbesilly]

Mrr T said:

don'tbesilly said:

Mrr T said:

Smollet said:

London424 said:

Well this is going to upset a few.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/eu-trad...

Oh dear. Well that's just unfair. I mean how could they? Bloody EU

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/26/deutsche-bank-4000-jobs-at-risk-of-being-moved-out-of-uk-after-brexit

The Guardian must have a stock article on their 'J' drive.
Once every couple of months a journo opens up the stock one and personalizes it and makes it their own.

I read something similar in May 2016, and the moves were going to take place immediately should the UK vote to leave the EU in June.

I'd imagine we'll see another similar story in the next two months, probably just after May routs both Labour and the Lib-Dems on the 8th June.

I'm sure either Mrr T or ///ajd will post the link, keep your eyes open for it week commencing June 12th.

So the Telegraph story which is positive for Brexit is correct but the Guardian story which is not must therefore be wrong?

I didn't comment on the Telegraph story, and I'm surprised your only response to the article was a link to the Guardian story.

I didn't say the Guardian story was wrong either, just that it's been published many times in differing guises since before the result of the referendum in June 2016, and it's a mystery why Canary Wharf is sill very busy, and has not become a world renowned nature reserve of scientific interest.

[///ajd]

London424 said:

Well this is going to upset a few.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/eu-trad...

It'll be a bargain "free" deal.

Only £349m a week. And no say in the regulations.

Didn't Cecelia mention that? Oh.

[Fastdruid]

barryrs said:

Don't they have plans to cut 35,000 jobs by 2020 regardless of Brexit?

Sssssh. That doesn't fit with the program.

[CaptainSlow]

///ajd said:

Only £349m a week. And no say in the regulations.

The same as before then, just £1m cheaper.

[///ajd]

CaptainSlow said:

///ajd said:

Only £349m a week. And no say in the regulations.

The same as before then, just £1m cheaper.

No not the same, before we had e.g. passporting and the ability to ensure we could influence EU regs to e.g. protect our banking sector.

Now, well, we'll have to see what we've gambled away. The message from the EU about whether our deal with them will be "better" or "worse" seems obvious.

[zygalski]

barryrs said:

Don't they have plans to cut 35,000 jobs by 2020 regardless of Brexit?

That's the ticket!
My new economics guru Sirdicks has clearly demonstrated, using empirical proof, how anything good that happened under Labour was part of the economic cycle or lag from Tories & anything good that happened under Tory administrations was due purely to the Tories. Anything bad that happened under a Labour government was due to Labour mis-management of the economy & anything bad that happened under a Tory government was due to lag from the previous Labour one or the economic cycle.
It's clear, unbiased thinking like this that will win the day.
I now believe virtually everything 'dicks posts. He really has me convinced.

[sidicks]

zygalski said:

That's the ticket!
My new economics guru Sirdicks has clearly demonstrated, using empirical proof, how anything good that happened under Labour was part of the economic cycle or lag from Tories & anything good that happened under Tory administrations was due purely to the Tories. Anything bad that happened under a Labour government was due to Labour mis-management of the economy & anything bad that happened under a Tory government was due to lag from the previous Labour one or the economic cycle.
It's clear, unbiased thinking like this that will win the day.
I now believe virtually everything 'dicks posts. He really has me convinced.

I said no such thing - the key point under discussion was the debt incurred during that period. No surprise you'd try and twist pretend I'd said something quite different.

But the fact that you don't understand that some parts of the economy e.g. the impact of a massive deficit (particularly a large structural deficit) can take a long time to be addressed, whereas other government actions etc fiscal and monetary policy can have much shorter impacts is very telling.

As before, if you want to claim that Labour managed the economy well prior to 2010 and it was in good shape when the Coalition took over in 2010 then you go for it.

To anyone with even a basic understanding of the issues you just look like a fool.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 28th April 06:37

[zygalski]

sidicks said:

I said no such thing - the key point under discussion was the debt incurred during that period. No surprise you'd try and twist pretend I'd said something quite different.

But the fact that you don't understand that some parts of the economy e.g. the impact of a massive deficit (particularly a large structural deficit) can take a long time to be addressed, whereas other government actions etc fiscal and monetary policy can have much shorter impacts is very telling.

As before, if you want to claim that Labour managed the economy well prior to 2010 and it was in good shape when the Coalition took over in 2010 then you go for it.

To anyone with even a basic understanding of the issues you just look like a fool.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 28th April 06:37

You got owned in the other thread & now you want to be embarrassed by me in this one?
You've already established yourself as a total hypocrite....

zygalski said:

sidicks said:

zygalski said:

You're the one who is being inconsistent.
I think I've established the following. Please let me know if I'm misrepresenting your views....

You believe that Labour government deeply damaged the UK economy during the years 1997-2010.
You believe that economic lag is a proven effect of previous governments on present administrations.
You think the UK economy has done rather well in comparison to many of its competitors since 2010.

Seems to me your position doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

Seems to me that you don't understand much about the economic cycle, debt, deficits, QE, monetary and fiscal policy or 'austerity'.

But keep trying!!

Oh I see.
It's lag when it suits & the economic cycle when it doesn't.

Edited by zygalski on Friday 28th April 06:58

[sidicks]

zygalski said:

You got owned in the other thread & now you want to be embarrassed by me in this one?

"owned"

I'm sure you think so.

Is this the one where you demonstrate that you don't have a clue what a structural deficit is?
I even incorrectly quoted a structural deficit of £160bn (which was actually the total deficit) rather than £60bn, but you didn't pick me up on it as you clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

zygalski said:

You've already established yourself as a total hypocrite....

Only to someone who is too thick to understand what I've said. It's no wonder you're trying to make this a personal argument rather than address the issues - you simply don't understand them!

zygalski said:

Oh I see.
It's lag when it suits & the economic cycle when it doesn't.

I said nothing of the sort - you keep telling your 'mates' that the debt incurred under the Coalition was nothing to go with massive deficit (including a large structural deficit) inherited by Labour if it makes you feel better. The economically literate will understand the truth.

Serioudly, come back to the discussion when your understanding of basic economic has exceeded that of an amoeba with learning difficulties.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 28th April 07:26

[FiF]

Blue Oval84 said:

Are tariffs still deemed to be a particularly big deal?

Today's post on eureferendum.com illustrates the huge problems that non-tariff barriers pose to, in the example quoted, the Scotch Whiskey industry. He demonstrated how labelling requirements in India can make it very, very hard to export there.

So is it the case that tariffs really are the cruicial factor and Dr North is wrong? Or is it actually the case that tariffs are nothing but a minor side issue and that the non-tariff barriers are the potential showstoppers (for example under current rules most milk export from NI to ROI would cease post-brexit).

If the latter, what if any attention are the goverment paying to the non-tariff barriers? All I ever seem to read about in the press is bloody tariffs!

To answer the last paragraph, the problem is that the media generally, especially legacy and MSN, operate in their own little bubble. No opinion or published facts exist until they discover it themselves.

For example since before the referendum we have been saying that Britain will have to meet its agreed financial obligations until the end of 2020 under the Multi Annual Financial Framework, it is really only proper and honourable that we do so. Yet Telegraph and Mail discover this and start screaming OMG Brexit divorce bill bla bla bla. The sensible ones amongst us knew this, talked about it, accounted for it, and still voted for out.

As for the rest of your post, tariffs are a relatively minor issue, non tariff barriers to trade are potentially an issue, they don't have to be, but they could be a major irritation to easy shipment of various goods, and trust them, if the French can make it difficult, then they will. What it needs, however, is for the vocal 10% at each end of the Brexit spectrum to shut up their big baby caterwauling and let the 80% of us somewhere in the middle sort this out like adults.


Edited to say,how can I stop the Android auto (in)correct stop changing tariff to tarrif? So annoying.

Edited by FiF on Friday 28th April 10:16

[Twilkes]

There was talk a while ago that the MiFID II regulation that come into being in 2018 would negate a lot of the passporting issues anyway, is that still the case?

[Digga]

sidicks said:

zygalski said:

You got owned in the other thread & now you want to be embarrassed by me in this one?

"owned"

I'm sure you think so.

Is this the one where you demonstrate that you don't have a clue what a structural deficit is?
I even incorrectly quoted a structural deficit of £160bn (which was actually the total deficit) rather than £60bn, but you didn't pick me up on it as you clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

zygalski said:

You've already established yourself as a total hypocrite....

Only to someone who is too thick to understand what I've said. It's no wonder you're trying to make this a personal argument rather than address the issues - you simply don't understand them!

zygalski said:

Oh I see.
It's lag when it suits & the economic cycle when it doesn't.

I said nothing of the sort - you keep telling your 'mates' that the debt incurred under the Coalition was nothing to go with massive deficit (including a large structural deficit) inherited by Labour if it makes you feel better. The economically literate will understand the truth.

Serioudly, come back to the discussion when your understanding of basic economic has exceeded that of an amoeba with learning difficulties.

Edited by sidicks on Friday 28th April 07:26

Utter, delusional nonsense. But then most of the left are economically illiterate.

Twilkes said:

There was talk a while ago that the MiFID II regulation that come into being in 2018 would negate a lot of the passporting issues anyway, is that still the case?

Yes, but //ajd just can't get his head around it. Pasporting is a mantra, like "Fatcher[sic] stole our school's milk!"

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Yes, but //ajd just can't get his head around it. Pasporting is a mantra, like "Fatcher[sic] stole our school's milk!"

and thank god for that.

I used to be milk monitor at my junior school, it mainly consisted of me pouring bottles of milk down the drain that had been stood out in the sun all day. Useless waste of money that was. Proper rank nasty job for a 10 year old to do.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

CaptainSlow said:

///ajd said:

Only £349m a week. And no say in the regulations.

The same as before then, just £1m cheaper.

No not the same, before we had e.g. passporting and the ability to ensure we could influence EU regs to e.g. protect our banking sector.

Now, well, we'll have to see what we've gambled away. The message from the EU about whether our deal with them will be "better" or "worse" seems obvious.

That depends on what you define as better or worse doesn't it slasher.

There was a consistent attempt to have more control of the city by the EU, including introducing transaction taxes that would have driven a lot of business out of Europe to the other financial hubs. With the UK keeping control of our systems we have protected that industry long term.

[Puggit]

https://www.recruitment-international.co.uk/blog/2...

article said:

Morgan McKinley has released its London Employment Monitor for March 2017.

There was a 17% increase in jobs available, month-on-month and a 13% increase in jobs available, year-on-year. There was a 9% decrease in professionals seeking jobs, month-on-month and a 25% decrease in professionals seeking jobs, year-on-year.

[Mrr T]

Twilkes said:

There was talk a while ago that the MiFID II regulation that come into being in 2018 would negate a lot of the passporting issues anyway, is that still the case?

Potential yes. The problem is that ESMA have to draw up the rules. The AIFMD directive was implemented in 2015 which also included some limited passporting for the services covered. Two years later ESMA have still not released the rules.

[Digga]

Personally, I think the magnitude and complexity of the deal prevents us all from seeing a way it will be resolved. However, the bigger the picture you consider, or the more in depth you look on a single issue, the more you realise the Brexit negotiation is really not a conventional win/loose relationship between the UK and EU. In most cases, what is good for the EU is good for the UK and vice versa, barring some key renegotiations - the ones that made people vote "out" - and the cessation of payments.

It serves the UK no better to damage the EU than it does the EU to damage the UK, because neither can inflict hardship without suffering collateral damage themselves. Sure, both side can, will (and occasionally should) talk tough, but it's like Boris Johnson's comments the other day, about joining the USA on an attack against Assad in the event chemical weapons are used again; it's a theoretical and tactical threat.

[Angrybiker]

Mrr T said:

Twilkes said:

There was talk a while ago that the MiFID II regulation that come into being in 2018 would negate a lot of the passporting issues anyway, is that still the case?

Potential yes. The problem is that ESMA have to draw up the rules. The AIFMD directive was implemented in 2015 which also included some limited passporting for the services covered. Two years later ESMA have still not released the rules.

I'm not sure that MIFID II would negate the passporting issues, but it might help a little. Technically it wouldn't apply to the UK following Brexit but all the banks will be doing it anyway. It will certainly help a little.
Also, interestingly, it's far from a case of 'all or nothing'. People are starting to discover that there are lots of existing bi-lateral agreements already in place (covering all sorts of things not just banking). There are three interesting things from this:
1. Post Brexit is actually a really complicated analysis of what's needed and where; and more might hinge on the attitude of the regulatory bodies in each country rather than the attitude of the EU executive management.
2. The sky falling down and dragons circling London scenario is also far from the case. That's not to say it's not going to be really hard, but it's not going to be quite the total catastrophe that some might think.
3. Rhetoric from the EU executive about 'all 27 member states have to agree' is patently nonsense, because if that's really what they see then there's lots of stuff going on 'under the table', that they are either choosing to pretend doesn't exist, or that they are genuinely unaware (which would make them look a little silly)

[Tryke3]

Collateral damage would not be equal. Once we stop spending, we will be fked, don't worry about the details, let's just take the jump already