The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

Yes, and getting half back, being as they are highly paid. It would probably make more sense to move the agency to the Pharma hub in Cambridge where the costs will be much lower than London. Take off our costs in paying for the EU to pay these people who then send their tax back to the EU. It would make a fun exercise to break down one blokes salary and the agency costs in London that were burning up our resources and using our infrastructure and see how that played out.

I thought EU employees did't pay tax?

Anyway, about break even after a bit of give and take.

[///ajd]

Rocket. said:

Finally some acknowledgement from some influential people in the EU that they might have got this a bit wrong....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/stop-br...

It would be interesting to see how that played with brexiteers.

It was suggested here recently and seemed to have some traction/appeal.

[anonymous-user]

desolate said:

jsf said:

Yes, and getting half back, being as they are highly paid. It would probably make more sense to move the agency to the Pharma hub in Cambridge where the costs will be much lower than London. Take off our costs in paying for the EU to pay these people who then send their tax back to the EU. It would make a fun exercise to break down one blokes salary and the agency costs in London that were burning up our resources and using our infrastructure and see how that played out.

I thought EU employees did't pay tax?

Anyway, about break even after a bit of give and take.

They pay tax to the EU.

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

desolate said:

Won't we be paying 100% of the salary

We more than pay for the current ones - remember that we are a net contributor by a significant margin.

Surely unless we contribute 100% of the budget then we can't "more than pay for the current ones"?

[Sa Calobra]

Looks like Merkel has a problem in Germany.

[anonymous-user]

Sa Calobra said:

Looks like Merkel has a problem in Germany.

[///ajd]

Sa Calobra said:

Looks like Merkel has a problem in Germany.

Hey, look over there!

Farage was at this on LBC earlier. No answers then Nige? Thought not.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

They pay tax to the EU.

Thanks - don't know where I got that idea from.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

Rocket. said:

Finally some acknowledgement from some influential people in the EU that they might have got this a bit wrong....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/stop-br...

It would be interesting to see how that played with brexiteers.

It was suggested here recently and seemed to have some traction/appeal.

Despite your persistent claims that all Leave voters were/are racist xenophobes, 33% of voters (Ashcroft Polls) didn't have immigration as their primary reason for voting to leave the EU.

Whilst some Leave voters might be swayed by their reasoning and suggestions, on the whole and after Junckers State of the Nation speech and Barniers recent speech at the Centre for European Reform, I'd guess any further referendum on leaving the EU would grow in favour of Leave rather than diminish.

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

///ajd said:

Rocket. said:

Finally some acknowledgement from some influential people in the EU that they might have got this a bit wrong....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/stop-br...

It would be interesting to see how that played with brexiteers.

It was suggested here recently and seemed to have some traction/appeal.

Despite your persistent claims that all Leave voters were/are racist xenophobes, 33% of voters (Ashcroft Polls) didn't have immigration as their primary reason for voting to leave the EU.

Whilst some Leave voters might be swayed by their reasoning and suggestions, on the whole and after Junckers State of the Nation speech and Barniers recent speech at the Centre for European Reform, I'd guess any further referendum on leaving the EU would grow in favour of Leave rather than diminish.

Two posters here recently suggested that they might have considered remaining if control of immigration was an option of staying in.

[Funkycoldribena]

///ajd said:

Two posters here recently suggested that they might have considered remaining if control of immigration was an option of staying in.

Well that's that then.
Knock it in reverse.

[anonymous-user]

desolate said:

jsf said:

They pay tax to the EU.

Thanks - don't know where I got that idea from.

Probably the bit where they pay no local taxes.

At least we now know Paris and Amsterdam have just been given the cost of running EU establishments.

This is worth a read, they suggest 75% of staff will resign and that if not a UK citizen staff who refuse to move lose all benefits. Those who are UK citizens can sit on their arse for 3 years after it moves and still be on good pay. https://www.politico.eu/article/ema-eba-staff-lond...

The EU really do like pissing other peoples money up the wall.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th November 21:44

[B'stard Child]

///ajd said:

Dr Jekyll said:

///ajd said:

He is keeping the high skill high pay R&D jobs in the UK and farming out the low skill manufacture jobs. I don't think it is unreasonable to look at his brexit position with that in mind.

From a selfish point of view he is only exporting jobs that would be of no interest to me as an engineer, they are still in the UK. But looking more widely, there is a case to encourage all our engineering and manufacturing jobs -

Why?

What is wrong with manufacturing jobs?

Not everyone has the skills or ability for high skill R&D jobs.

Shouldn't the country be encouraging employment to fit all levels of ability of the population?

I don't think you are saying "sod the car workers, they can work in MacDonalds", are you?

I agree but then you probably knew I would

///ajd said:

I thought Brexit was partly supposed to be about the little guy? (not that I think it Brexit helps them - a Dyson/Minford Brexit does the opposite)

I think Brexit will but it will be a few years before the situation stabilises

[PRTVR]

jsf said:

desolate said:

jsf said:

They pay tax to the EU.

Thanks - don't know where I got that idea from.

Probably the bit where they pay no local taxes.

At least we now know Paris and Amsterdam have just been given the cost of running EU establishments.

This is worth a read, they suggest 75% of staff will resign and that if not a UK citizen staff who refuse to move lose all benefits. Those who are UK citizens can sit on their arse for 3 years after it moves and still be on full pay. https://www.politico.eu/article/ema-eba-staff-lond...

The EU really do like pissing other peoples money up the wall.

If only 50% resign where are they going to get specialist replacements from, this may be more difficult than the EU think it will be, there will not be hundreds of qualified professionals waiting for jobs, it's more than just moving desks and chairs.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

///ajd said:

Rocket. said:

Finally some acknowledgement from some influential people in the EU that they might have got this a bit wrong....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/stop-br...

It would be interesting to see how that played with brexiteers.

It was suggested here recently and seemed to have some traction/appeal.

Despite your persistent claims that all Leave voters were/are racist xenophobes, 33% of voters (Ashcroft Polls) didn't have immigration as their primary reason for voting to leave the EU.

Whilst some Leave voters might be swayed by their reasoning and suggestions, on the whole and after Junckers State of the Nation speech and Barniers recent speech at the Centre for European Reform, I'd guess any further referendum on leaving the EU would grow in favour of Leave rather than diminish.

Two posters here recently suggested that they might have considered remaining if control of immigration was an option of staying in.

So 2 posters on PH gives you the direction an imagined and much wished for (on your part) second referendum would result in a reversal of the first referendum?

Once those 2 posters are made aware of what the other implications of changing the direction of their vote might result in (loss of any rebate, vetoes that previously existed expunged, sucked into the EU army etc) I'd bet their vote would stay as previously which was leave.

[anonymous-user]

B'stard Child said:

I think Brexit will but it will be a few years before the situation stabilises

This is admittedly picking a point out of context and taking it in a different direction, but how at what point does "a few years" cease to be an acceptable period of time?

I'm thinking, by way of comparators, Japan's economic stagnation in the 1990s that the Japanese could not have foreseen would still be rumbling today. Or the GFC, the effects of which we are still feeling ten years on and which we will still be feeling for a few years yet I suspect.

So if stability takes 5 years, even I can live with that. But 10? 20? 30? More?

I'm not asking how long anyone thinks this stability (which really must mean stability that forms the basis of sustainable economic growth for the UK) will take to arrive - the question is different. It's how long would be too long.

[B'stard Child]

Greg66 said:

B'stard Child said:

I think Brexit will but it will be a few years before the situation stabilises

This is admittedly picking a point out of context and taking it in a different direction, but how at what point does "a few years" cease to be an acceptable period of time?

I'm thinking, by way of comparators, Japan's economic stagnation in the 1990s that the Japanese could not have foreseen would still be rumbling today. Or the GFC, the effects of which we are still feeling ten years on and which we will still be feeling for a few years yet I suspect.

So if stability takes 5 years, even I can live with that. But 10? 20? 30? More?

I'm not asking how long anyone thinks this stability (which really must mean stability that forms the basis of sustainable economic growth for the UK) will take to arrive - the question is different. It's how long would be too long.

Fair point - my view is that 5 years would be as long as I would want - if it's more than that then I'd probably have to have some regrets over my voting decision.......

However spinning it round slightly we have no idea of how things would have turned out in 5 or even 10 year had we remained so it's kinda tricky to evaluate the result.

[DeltonaS]

jsf said:

Probably the bit where they pay no local taxes.

At least we now know Paris and Amsterdam have just been given the cost of running EU establishments.

Plus the benefits of 900 employees and 36.000 visitors a year. And the expectation that some pharma will folow.

jsf said:

This is worth a read, they suggest 75% of staff will resign and that if not a UK citizen staff who refuse to move lose all benefits. Those who are UK citizens can sit on their arse for 3 years after it moves and still be on good pay. https://www.politico.eu/article/ema-eba-staff-lond...

Old news, the 75% was probably the percentage if it would be moved to Bratislava or Budapest or something.

The EMA held a survey not too long ago and the favorite choice among employees was Amsterdam, I believe around 80% expected to stay.

jsf said:

The EU really do like pissing other peoples money up the wall.

I believe it's the UK, or rural England to be more specific, who wanted out. So who's pissing other people money up the wall,,,,

[Tuna]

Greg66 said:

This is admittedly picking a point out of context and taking it in a different direction, but how at what point does "a few years" cease to be an acceptable period of time?

The issue is that plenty of people believe there are a few more global crises on the horizon. Within the next 5, 10 years we may well see a Euro crisis, another financial crash and some major conflict erupt.

So it would be optimistic to expect the land of milk and honey. On the other hand, if we can weather the storm... then all the better.

For some though, there will never be a point where Brexit has 'delivered' - they'll always think we'd have been in a better place if we'd stayed in the EU.

[mx5nut]

Sa Calobra said:

Looks like Merkel has a problem in Germany.

The EU will surely fall now!