Brexit Referendum Superthread

lucat

I agree that (in all likelihood) there will be no practical impact on Irish workers. But I still think the uncertainty must factor into employer's hiring decisions, especially in the early stages when they have a large amount of applications to go through and can only interview a small number of people.

lucat

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

lucat wrote: »

Anyone here currently working in the UK or (like me) do you want to work there? If so, I found this analysis and I think it's worth a read: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/brexit-briefing-impact-on-common-travel-area-and-the-irish/

I'm probably wasting my time even considering it (let alone applying for a job) until our status is more certain.

I really wouldn't worry about it tbh. I've just secured a job in London and I asked about this and they basically shrugged. The only way to retain access to the vital single market is to accept free movement. Apply sure and see what happens.

Good to know- thanks!

lucat

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

lucat wrote: »

Anyone here currently working in the UK or (like me) do you want to work there? If so, I found this analysis and I think it's worth a read: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/brexit-briefing-impact-on-common-travel-area-and-the-irish/

I'm probably wasting my time even considering it (let alone applying for a job) until our status is more certain.

I really wouldn't worry about it tbh. I've just secured a job in London and I asked about this and they basically shrugged. The only way to retain access to the vital single market is to accept free movement. Apply sure and see what happens.

Good to know- thanks!

ancapailldorcha

lucat wrote: »

I agree that (in all likelihood) there will be no practical impact on Irish workers. But I still think the uncertainty must factor into employer's hiring decisions, especially in the early stages when they have a large amount of applications to go through and can only interview a small number of people.

I don't think it will. No business wants to get rid of free movement. The EU won't accept it anyway. Some companies may move abroad but those who don't won't be bothered.

lucat

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

lucat wrote: »

I agree that (in all likelihood) there will be no practical impact on Irish workers. But I still think the uncertainty must factor into employer's hiring decisions, especially in the early stages when they have a large amount of applications to go through and can only interview a small number of people.

I don't think it will. No business wants to get rid of free movement. The EU won't accept it anyway. Some companies may move abroad but those who don't won't be bothered.

Well their policy won't be 'let's screen out all non-UK citizens'. But they might think it makes sense to screen out 'applicants who may cost us money in the future, either because we'll have to sponsor a visa or because we have to re-hire for this position if they can't stay in the UK''. Whether or not that will actually be necessary is irrelevant; businesses hate uncertainty.

I'm glad things seem to be ok though. I'll keep up the applications!

Lemming

With apologies for going off-tangent; bear in mind lucat that if you're not already in the UK - or even within the region of the UK to which you are applying for jobs - you are at an immediate disadvantage. The single biggest question on a prospective employers mind will be whether or not you will commit to the move if they offer you a role whilst passing over someone closer to hand. I think that you may find that is a bigger thought in an employers mind than Brexit (unless they're a howling racist of course ... ) considering that nothing has actually happened yet nor likely for quite some time to come, if at all when push comes to shove and the fantasy lie evaporates.

Bob24

Lemming wrote: »

With apologies for going off-tangent; bear in mind lucat that if you're not already in the UK - or even within the region of the UK to which you are applying for jobs - you are at an immediate disadvantage. The single biggest question on a prospective employers mind will be whether or not you will commit to the move if they offer you a role whilst passing over someone closer to hand.

Very true. Not having a UK address and phone number on the CV will definitely have a negative impact (to a different extend depending on the employer), but this is nothing new and not related to Brexit.

Briefly as it is getting off-topic, but even if you don't move to the UK one thing that might help is just to get a 3 UK prepaid simcard with free roaming and use that number on your CV. A friend of mine who was looking at IT contracting in the UK got direct experience of this: as soon as she got a UK sim card she started receiving significantly more calls than she did on her Irish number.

longford101

Loving May's politics so far... anyone else any opinion?

Bob24

longford101 wrote: »

Loving May's politics so far... anyone else any opinion?

I think she's playing quite well with the tough hand she was dealt.

Even though she was not initially a Brexit supporter she' slowly positioning the UK in a decent position to negotiate*, and at the same time thinking of how to prepare it for the post EU era.

Won't be an easy task for sure, but she seems to have a strategy.

* she has started a divide and conquer strategy playing different EU leaders against each other, and has sent some warning shots to some of them that if they get nasty in the negotiations she has ammunition to fight back - for example Hollande is now concerned about her having put the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant project on hold - which is a genuine threat to Frances nuclear electricity industry if it doesn't go through.

The Hinkley project is definitely not a good idea to use as a negotiating tactic!

Especially if they hope to cut a good trade deal with China!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37016120

Failing to go ahead with the Hinkley Point nuclear project could threaten China's relationship with Britain, its ambassador to the UK has warned.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/10/hinkley-point-c-mandelson-government-china-backed-project
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/09/china-uk-investment-key-questions-following-hinkley-point-c-delay
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/09/chinas-relationship-with-uk-at-risk-over-hinkley-point-delay-war/

Some relevant news today for the Chinese Firm involved too... (not good!)

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

The Hinkley project is definitely not a good idea to use as a negotiating tactic!

Especially if they hope to cut a good trade deal with China!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37016120


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/10/hinkley-point-c-mandelson-government-china-backed-project
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/09/china-uk-investment-key-questions-following-hinkley-point-c-delay
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/09/chinas-relationship-with-uk-at-risk-over-hinkley-point-delay-war/

Some relevant news today for the Chinese Firm involved too... (not good!)

1) It is just a threat - for now it is just a suspension, not a cancellation
2) China will get over it - of course they have to react and complain about it but it is not nearly as critical to them as it is for France (something like meeting the Dalai Lama would for example be a larger threat to relationship)

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

1) It is just a threat - for now it is just a suspension, not a cancellation
2) China will get over it - of course they have to react and complain about it but it is not nearly as critical to them as it is for France (something like meeting the Dalai Lama would for example be a larger threat to relationship)

The 'threat' applies equally to both China and France, given that they both have similar stakes and interests.

I would be extraordinarily confident that Hinkley is not a pawn in the Brexit plan.

K-9

Putting Boris and other Brexiters on the inside for negotiations was a very good move for her and the Tory party, lessens the chances of a split over a new deal. Whether it's the best move for Britain well, we'll see.

Lemming

K-9 wrote: »

Putting Boris and other Brexiters on the inside for negotiations was a very good move for her and the Tory party, lessens the chances of a split over a new deal. Whether it's the best move for Britain well, we'll see.

I think it may well be in a roundabout sort of manner; in so much as due to the intransigence of Fox & Davis in particular, Brexit negotiations will flounder. I suspect that May is looking for Brexiteer scalps to be delivered by the public in full view of the public when it inevitably fails to deliver that mythical, fantasist "better deal" that means all things to all people (since nobody can actually give a concise answer on what Brexit actually means ... ). The net benefit being that Brexit does not carry through and she quells any dissention within the party ranks for a very long time.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

1) It is just a threat - for now it is just a suspension, not a cancellation
2) China will get over it - of course they have to react and complain about it but it is not nearly as critical to them as it is for France

It's even more critical to the UK. There's absolutely no way Hinkley Point is going to be used as some sort of bargaining chip - it would be political suicide.

And whatever about France (which is planning a nuclear phase-out, by the way), a trade deal with China is going to be pretty high on the British governments' agenda post-Brexit - there's no way they're going to do anything that could jeopardise a favourable deal. The UK needs to appear "open for business" now more than ever.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

I think it may well be in a roundabout sort of manner; in so much as due to the intransigence of Fox & Davis in particular, Brexit negotiations will flounder. I suspect that May is looking for Brexiteer scalps to be delivered by the public in full view of the public when it inevitably fails to deliver that mythical, fantasist "better deal" that means all things to all people (since nobody can actually give a concise answer on what Brexit actually means ... ). The net benefit being that Brexit does not carry through and she quells any dissention within the party ranks for a very long time.

That's a good way to look at it. The Adam Smith Institute, a libertarian think tank argued for Brexit and now favours the EEA option which will necessitate a contribution to the Brussels coffers, free movement and full EU regulation with no input in any of them after the negotiations. The Brexit voters will naturally be livid if this happens but it's the best scenario short of delaying Brexit indefinitely.

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a good way to look at it. The Adam Smith Institute, a libertarian think tank argued for Brexit and now favours the EEA option which will necessitate a contribution to the Brussels coffers, free movement and full EU regulation with no input in any of them after the negotiations. The Brexit voters will naturally be livid if this happens but it's the best scenario short of delaying Brexit indefinitely.

Not only would Brexit voters be livid at such a scenario, the likes of Andrea LeadsomLoathsome get to explain to Farmers (given that she got handed the agriculture portfolio .. ho ho ho) why they aren't having their EU CAP subsidies matched by a government that has even less money in the kitty despite her promises that they'd be overflowing with excess cash no longer being sent to the EU. The regions will get militant when their economic, education & infrastructural funding gets sliced & diced for the same reason, never mind any view on Brexit not being delivered.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

The 'threat' applies equally to both China and France, given that they both have similar stakes and interests.

I'll agree to disagree here.

EDF is in very bad financial situation and has committed a lot to the project (what for some time many people in France have been calling an unreasonable commitment which could endanger the company). If the project fails it will become a huge item in French national politics and Hollande or his successor will have to decide between spending public money countlessly to save a national electricity company which has symbolic and strategic importance or to let it collapse (and it is definitely not a choice Hollande will want to have to make in an election year).

What China has to loose is an investment deal, possibly some technology transfer, and a chance to be involved in a project in Europe (all opportunities which will it will get elsewhere at some point). Not something they would like, but definitely not something which has potential to become a top item in national politics for months.

K-9

Lemming wrote: »

I think it may well be in a roundabout sort of manner; in so much as due to the intransigence of Fox & Davis in particular, Brexit negotiations will flounder. I suspect that May is looking for Brexiteer scalps to be delivered by the public in full view of the public when it inevitably fails to deliver that mythical, fantasist "better deal" that means all things to all people (since nobody can actually give a concise answer on what Brexit actually means ... ). The net benefit being that Brexit does not carry through and she quells any dissention within the party ranks for a very long time.

Best case scenario they deliver a deal and carry most of the Euroskeptic wing of the party with them.

Or the Euroskeptic wing splits into Gove vs. Boris which limits the impact to that side of the party and leaves May relatively untouched.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

It's even more critical to the UK. There's absolutely no way Hinkley Point is going to be used as some sort of bargaining chip - it would be political suicide.

This is definitely not a consensus opinion. The Economist (which represents the opinion of at least some influential people) was for example arguing for scrapping the project last week: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21703367-britain-should-cancel-its-nuclear-white-elephant-and-spend-billions-making-renewables

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

I'll agree to disagree here.

EDF is in very bad financial situation and has committed a lot to the project (what for some time many people in France have been calling unreasonable commitment which could endanger the company). If the project fails it will become a huge item in French national politics and Hollande or his successor will have to decide between spending public money countlessly to save a national electricity company which has symbolic and strategic importance or to let it collapse (and it is definitely not a choice Hollande will want to have to make in an election year).

What China has to loose is an investment deal, possibly some technology transfer, and a chance to be involved in a project in Europe (all opportunities which will it will get elsewhere at some point). Not something they would like, but definitely not something which has potential to become a top item in national politics for months.

EDF are not irreversibly entwined with Hinkley Point. If anything a cancellation of the project that isn't their fault, or due to their funding issues could possibly be a boon.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26f4b45c-190f-11e6-bb7d-ee563a5a1cc1.html

It affords them the chance to pull out without the reputational damage that they were worried about

But she conceded that withdrawing would damage the French state’s reputation. “It would send a bad signal [and] competitors would say: ‘Look at France, the state does not keep its word’,” she said, adding: “That kind of thinking tends to weigh very heavily on decisions over whether we can reverse things when we got a bit carried away.”

The 'close' board decision was made under the thinking that the plant would definitely go ahead, and was very nearly not made (included a resignation) positively.

If EDF's board themselves are barely 55% committed to the idea considering their Fiduciary duty to their shareholders then there is merit in the suggestion that May pulling the plug might suit their interests better than going ahead with it!

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

EDF are not irreversibly entwined with Hinkley Point. If anything a cancellation of the project that isn't their fault, or due to their funding issues could possibly be a boon.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26f4b45c-190f-11e6-bb7d-ee563a5a1cc1.html

It affords them the chance to pull out without the reputational damage that they were worried about


The 'close' board decision was made under the thinking that the plant would definitely go ahead, and was very nearly not made (included a resignation) positively.

If EDF's board themselves are barely 55% committed to the idea considering their Fiduciary duty to their shareholders then there is merit in the suggestion that May pulling the plug might suit their interests better than going ahead with it!

The link is behind a pay-wall - but I have read countless articles in the French press about how a cancellation would be a catastrophe for EDF (rightly or wrong the French are indeed very worried about this).

Being able to pull out of the project without penalties on their end or reputational damage (for this project) is only a small part of the story as far as EDF is concerned.

A lot of resources have been committed to the EPR technology and they need this project (alongside with a few other ones) to make it viable. They also need to be able to show they have learnt from previous mistakes and things can go more smoothly than with the initial EPR projects. This is why EDF has made crazy investment in this: they know they can't afford to let it fail or their technology will never take-off and their huge investment will never bear the fruits they need to survive.

Calina

Bob24 wrote: »

The link is behind a pay-wall - but I have read countless articles in the French press about how a cancellation would be a catastrophe for EDF (rightly or wrong the French are indeed very worried about this).

Being able to pull out of the project without penalties on their end or reputational damage (for this project) is only a small part of the story as far as EDF is concerned.

A lot of resources have been committed to the EPR technology and they need this project (alongside with a few other ones) to make it viable. They also need to be able to show they have learnt from previous mistakes and things can go more smoothly than with the initial EPR projects. This is why EDF has made crazy investment in this: they know they can't afford to let it fail or their technology will never take-off.

Links in French press welcome please. I read French fluently so you don't need to worry about that.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

The link is behind a pay-wall - but I have read countless articles in the French press about how a cancellation would be a catastrophe for EDF (rightly or wrong the French are indeed very worried about this).

Being able to pull out of the project without penalties on their end or reputational damage (for this project) is only a small part of the story as far as EDF is concerned.

A lot of resources have been committed to the EPR technology and they need this project (alongside with a few other ones) to make it viable. They also need to be able to show they have learnt from previous mistakes and things can go more smoothly than with the initial EPR projects. This is why EDF has made crazy investment in this: they know they can't afford to let it fail or their technology will never take-off and their huge investment will never bear the fruits they need to survive.

Google Cached version of the FT Article

(For FT / Economist / Paywall articles in general, if you google the headline and the first link is the article you are after, click the drop down arrow just below the link and choose 'cached'. Usually gets around paywalls as is just a Google page at that stage and is not hosted on the originator's site)

I agree that it would not be plain sailing for EDF if Hinkley does not go ahead, absolutely. But I'm fairly confident that it's not going to be plain sailing for EDF if it does go ahead either! Lot of worries about overstretching etc.

There's certainly a possibility that the chance at this stage, to walk away without reputational damage and unscathed beyond the (not inconsiderable) sunk costs could be the best option for EDF themselves!

Bob24

Calina wrote: »

Links in French press welcome please. I read French fluently so you don't need to worry about that.

Here is a detailed one I had in mind:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/economie/2016/04/22/31007-20160422ARTFIG00305-nucleaire-francais-histoire-d-un-scandale-d-etat.php

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

Not only would Brexit voters be livid at such a scenario, the likes of Andrew LeadsomLoathsome get to explain to Farmers (given that she got handed the agriculture portfolio .. ho ho ho) why they aren't having their EU CAP subsidies matched by a government that has even less money in the kitty despite her promises that they'd be overflowing with excess cash no longer being sent to the EU. The regions will get militant when their economic, education & infrastructural funding gets sliced & diced for the same reason, never mind any view on Brexit not being delivered.

I don't know how realistic it is to hope that the UK remains in the EU. If it is at all possible then I think it would only happen if we step close enough to the economic precipice for people to see how disastrous Brexit would be.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know how realistic it is to hope that the UK remains in the EU. If it is at all possible then I think it would only happen if we step close enough to the economic precipice for people to see how disastrous Brexit would be.

I think that it is thoroughly unrealistic to expect the UK to remain within the EU, given that result of the referendum which asked pretty much exactly that question was a resounding enough 'Leave'.

EEA / EFTA would be the 'moderate' Brexit, and would allow life to continue pretty much exactly as before, though Parliament would have some explaining to do.

That 'moderate' Brexit seems a difficult thing to deliver such was the reluctance on both sides of the referendum debate to discuss the benefits of the Single Market to the UK, the benefits to the country of Freedom of Movement of Labour and the disproportionate contribution to the state by those same immigrants.

The Brexit debate discussed very, very little of this, and now I feel it would be extremely difficult for Parliament to turn around to the people and try and sell EEA / EFTA to them.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that it is thoroughly unrealistic to expect the UK to remain within the EU, given that result of the referendum which asked pretty much exactly that question was a resounding enough 'Leave'.

EEA / EFTA would be the 'moderate' Brexit, and would allow life to continue pretty much exactly as before, though Parliament would have some explaining to do.

That 'moderate' Brexit seems a difficult thing to deliver such was the reluctance on both sides of the referendum debate to discuss the benefits of the Single Market to the UK, the benefits to the country of Freedom of Movement of Labour and the disproportionate contribution to the state by those same immigrants.

The Brexit debate discussed very, very little of this, and now I feel it would be extremely difficult for Parliament to turn around to the people and try and sell EEA / EFTA to them.

That's a fair point but when those who voted for Brexit see that what they were promised was never actually an option then it'll be too late. I work in science which has already taken a hit from Brexit. I do think the EEA option is the best thing to hope for now but, as Lemming has said, tell that to the farmers who were concerned about too many immigrants while expecting the Tories to match their subsidy.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

Google Cached version of the FT Article
I agree that it would not be plain sailing for EDF if Hinkley does not go ahead, absolutely. But I'm fairly confident that it's not going to be plain sailing for EDF if it does go ahead either! Lot of worries about overstretching etc.

Yes we are on the same page here.

EDF has been facing two bad options: signing the Hinkley point contract and taking a huge financial risk in case things don't go smoothly, or not signing it and risking their new technology would never take-off or at least never be exported again (and as far as France's national interest is concerned it is not just EDF which is impacted but also all the companies involved with it in the nuclear energy industry - on which many jobs depend).

My gut feeling is that they had to go for it as otherwise the industry would slowly die. I know it is not exactly fashionable to build nuclear plants in Europe at the moment, but I think it is worth preserve that know-how as there are still many of them active and politics can change in the future making there desirable again - plus there definitely is an export market in large developing countries.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

This is definitely not a consensus opinion.

Nor is your opinion that abandoning Hinkley Point will bring about the collapse of EDF.