Brexit discussion thread II

Zubeneschamali · 08-09-2017 10:51am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not convinced. As reported in your link, Hoyer's analysis treats the UK has have a proportionate share of the Bank's liabilities, but ignores any similar proportionate share of the bank's assets. That doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

No, it is doling out 16% of assets and 16% of liabilities.

Peregrinus · 08-09-2017 10:52am

blanch152 wrote: »

Interesting, but let us say that a vineyard in France produces wine that is not up to EU standards (too much antifreeze:)) but is still drinkable. What is to stop that French vineyard exporting that sub-standard wine to the UK post-Brexit? The UK isn't monitoring it and so long as the wine doesn't go on EU shelves, the EU doesn't care. Am I missing something?

The EU does care. The standards are for wine produced in (in this case) France, not for wine sold in France.

And this suits the wine industry. The international reputation of French wine would be imperilled if they were free to export paintstripper as French wine, so they are not really interested in having a regulatory regime which would allow them to do that.

ambro25 · 08-09-2017 10:54am

blanch152 wrote: »

Interesting, but let us say that a vineyard in France produces wine that is not up to EU standards (too much antifreeze:)) but is still drinkable. What is to stop that French vineyard exporting that sub-standard wine to the UK post-Brexit? The UK isn't monitoring it and so long as the wine doesn't go on EU shelves, the EU doesn't care. Am I missing something?

Nothing's to stop the exporting to the UK, and I can't see the problem (since it's "still drinkable"). UK consumers will just vote with their palate wallet.

What the French producer can't do however, is call its antifreeze substitute a Côtes du Rhône or a Châblis, because per Peregrinus post above. That's where the GI bit I posted above comes in (from the point of view of protecting consumers, so much EU ones as foreign (UK) ones).

It would have to be called vin de table (the lowest quality paint-stripping antifreeze that is still drinkable, by French normative standard). Nothing to stop the UK importer lifestyle -rebadging/-rebranding it as they wish for marketability (...just so long as the UK importer itself does not rebadge it a Côtes du Rhône or a Châblis, and which is exactly why the EU is insisting on GIs in its IP position paper: so 'chancer' UK importers who do just that -and you just know that some would- can be knocked on the head).

Peregrinus · 08-09-2017 10:57am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it is doling out 16% of assets and 16% of liabilities.

No, it's not:

"If the 16.1 percentage rate was simply applied to the liabilities, Britain would end up with a 75.5 billion euro tab, from which its share of the bank’s capital should be deducted, leaving a 65.3 billion euros bill with the EIB."

(Emphasis added).

In other words, the only set-off against the share of liabilities is the share of capital. But the bank also has outstanding loans to borrowers of 457 billion euros. That's a bit asset; why is the UK not being credited with a 16.1% share of the loan book?

There may be a justification for ignoring the asset represented by the loan book but, right now, I'm not seeing it.

Gerry T · 08-09-2017 11:08am

If the UK stayed in the EIB would any loans and the receiving parties be subject to European courts in the event of dispute...would that be a problem for the UK
Secondly the UK will have to compete with other non EU countries for loans as all won't get funding, it may prove far more difficult that at present to secure funding.
The EU may take a position that as UK is no longer in the EU, and it's overall balance sheet with the EIB is in deficit, that, that is an untenable position. The EU may request the UK clears that debt as part of exit.
Finally, while the EU doesn't want to "punish" the UK it must put the interests of the member states above "good will" to the UK.

ambro25 · 08-09-2017 11:08am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not:

"If the 16.1 percentage rate was simply applied to the liabilities, Britain would end up with a 75.5 billion euro tab, from which its share of the bank’s capital should be deducted, leaving a 65.3 billion euros bill with the EIB."

(Emphasis added).

In other words, the only set-off against the share of liabilities is the share of capital. But the bank also has outstanding loans to borrowers of 457 billion euros. That's a bit asset; why is the UK not being credited with a 16.1% share of the loan book?

There may be a justification for ignoring the asset represented by the loan book but, right now, I'm not seeing it.

A smaller share of underwriting in the total loan-book?

Would that share be pro-rata he UK's shareholding (as your post suggests), or do EIB members underwrite more or less loans/loan shares than others? What are the rules? [just musing here, IDK]

Still doesn't explain totally ignoring it though, you're right to query that.

Sam Russell · 08-09-2017 11:29am

Thomas__ wrote: »

I didn´t even know that they had one. Always thought the climate is not fit for growing one.

It isn't.

They do more home brew wine than commercial wine. It is one of the industries hoping to make it big after Brexit when all this Prosecco gets too expensive for the yummy muumies.

You need sunshine for red wine, so they produce a very delicate (read - tasteless) white wine, which they might put fizz into and call it Brexecco.

.

View · 08-09-2017 11:46am

The value of the current liabilities that the EIB has is clear since the amount it has borrowed is a known quantity. The value of its current "assets" - specifically the loans it has made - is however not clear and won't be known until their repayment schedules is over. There is risk they won't be repaid of course and all the current member states act as guarantors to cover that risk. If one country decides to avoid that risk (by leaving), it is perfectly legitimate of the others to discount the "value" of those loans accordingly since there is no reason why a country should get all the reward if it avoids a significant part of the associated press risk.

To do an analogy, if Joe & Pat spot that the Dundrum shopping centre is worth a billion and decide to replicate it, their new Dundrum may well be also worth a billion when completed. There is however no way Joe can expect Pat to buy him our for half a billion shortly after the foundations are dug since the new Dundrum clearly isn't worth a billion at that stage. In addition if Joe insists on a sale right now, then Pat is free to offer anything he wants for Joe's stake as Joe has ruled out the "I'll stay in and sell later" option.

ambro25 · 08-09-2017 12:03pm

View wrote: »

The value of the current liabilities that the EIB has is clear since the amount it has borrowed is a known quantity. The value of its current "assets" - specifically the loans it has made - is however not clear and won't be known until their repayment schedules is over. There is risk they won't be repaid of course and all the current member states act as guarantors to cover that risk. If one country decides to avoid that risk (by leaving), it is perfectly legitimate of the others to discount the "value" of those loans accordingly since there is no reason why a country should get all the reward if it avoids a significant part of the associated press risk.<...>

That equitable view makes sense if the EIB is set up as a partnership (wherein the EU27 would, both collectively and individually, shoulder the full share of the liabilities and risks left by the departing UK). But is it?

Fratton Fred · 08-09-2017 12:07pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It isn't.

They do more home brew wine than commercial wine. It is one of the industries hoping to make it big after Brexit when all this Prosecco gets too expensive for the yummy muumies.

You need sunshine for red wine, so they produce a very delicate (read - tasteless) white wine, which they might put fizz into and call it Brexecco.
.

Aah Sam, is there anything about the UK you can't belittle?

When you say "Here" by the way, does that mean you live in the UK?

View wrote: »

The value of the current liabilities that the EIB has is clear since the amount it has borrowed is a known quantity. The value of its current "assets" - specifically the loans it has made - is however not clear and won't be known until their repayment schedules is over. There is risk they won't be repaid of course and all the current member states act as guarantors to cover that risk. If one country decides to avoid that risk (by leaving), it is perfectly legitimate of the others to discount the "value" of those loans accordingly since there is no reason why a country should get all the reward if it avoids a significant part of the associated press risk.

To do an analogy, if Joe & Pat spot that the Dundrum shopping centre is worth a billion and decide to replicate it, their new Dundrum may well be also worth a billion when completed. There is however no way Joe can expect Pat to buy him our for half a billion shortly after the foundations are dug since the new Dundrum clearly isn't worth a billion at that stage. In addition if Joe insists on a sale right now, then Pat is free to offer anything he wants for Joe's stake as Joe has ruled out the "I'll stay in and sell later" option.

Does that not presumes that the loans return a profit, which as far as I am aware, they do not. They are loaned out at the same rate the bank's get. It is a not for profit bank, it is just a facility for the smaller eu states to get cheap loans using the bigger economies credit status and ability to get cheap finance.

jm08 · 08-09-2017 12:56pm

ambro25 wrote: »

That equitable view makes sense if the EIB is set up as a partnership (wherein the EU27 would, both collectively and individually, shoulder the full share of the liabilities and risks left by the departing UK). But is it?

Looks like it from this:

Shareholders

The shareholders of the European Investment Bank are the 28 Member States of the European Union.

The EU Member States are fully eligible for Bank financing operations.
Each Member State’s share in the Bank’s capital is based on its economic weight within the European Union (expressed in GDP) at the time of its accession.

Under its Statute, the Bank is authorised to have maximum loans outstanding equivalent to two and a half times its subscribed capital.

http://www.eib.org/about/governance-and-structure/shareholders/index.htm

edit: Its interesting that countries can only borrow 2.5% of their share capital. With such outstanding loans, it makes sense for the UK to actually remain a shareholder.

ambro25 · 08-09-2017 1:21pm

jm08 wrote: »

Looks like it from this:
<...>

Thanks for the link, jm08, it led me to the Statutes but, from those, it is not a partnership - at least within the conventional sense of the word, from a liability point of view:

The Member States shall be liable only up to the amount of their share of the capital subscribed and not paid up.

(Article 4.1)

But there are other very interesting provisions, material to the present discussion, such as-

The subscribed capital shall be paid in by Member States to the extent of 8.919255272% on average of the amounts laid down in Article 4(1).

(Article 5.1)

So, notionally, unless I have it wrong, that 16% of the UK's shareholding is really only worth €3.5bn (8.9% of €39bn).

oppenheimer1 · 08-09-2017 1:40pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

It isn't.

They do more home brew wine than commercial wine. It is one of the industries hoping to make it big after Brexit when all this Prosecco gets too expensive for the yummy muumies.

You need sunshine for red wine, so they produce a very delicate (read - tasteless) white wine, which they might put fizz into and call it Brexecco.

.

They produce sparkling white and rose wines in the South east of England. In fairness they're not bad wines at all.

Sam Russell · 08-09-2017 2:04pm

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They produce sparkling white and rose wines in the South east of England. In fairness they're not bad wines at all.

I know this is taking the discussion from the meat of the issue, but no matter how good their wine is, it is not a major industry and is not likely to figure in the Brexit deal. For the EU, wine is big business and will figure in the deal in one way or another.

@ Fred: I am not doing anymore than pointing out that wine is not a major industry for the UK and only exists in a very few parts of the most southerly counties and only in a very small way, producing a very esoteric product. If you recall, did not Boris make some snide remark about Prosecco?

In a similar vein, the Morgan car company is not a major player in the motor industry, but it is British owned - and might be one of the largest British owned car companies. They do make nice cars though.

Fratton Fred · 08-09-2017 2:13pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

In a similar vein, the Morgan car company is not a major player in the motor industry, but it is British owned - and might be one of the largest British owned car companies. They do make nice cars though.

and the relevance of that is what?

Oh yes, you like to keep pointing out how Jaguar/Land Rover isn't British owned and therefore the UK doesn't have any major car producers the same with Italy I guess.

A bit like Ireland doesn't have any major Beer or Whisky producers :rolleyes:

Like I said, more belittling.

First Up · 08-09-2017 2:18pm

murphaph wrote: »

I would expect massive assistance from our EU partners, chartering ferries and aircraft if it comes to that. The rest of the EU knows we did not ask for Brexit and know we are committed members of our European Union. It would be the modern equivalent of the Berlin Airlift.

.

Which goes to show that the Brexiteers are not the sole occupants of fantasy land.

There is not the slightest possibility that the EU will get involved in operating or subsidising Irish freight costs, for reasons that were already explained to you.

RDM_83 again · 08-09-2017 3:13pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

something seems off there?

Rich bosses pay workers too little and CEOs too much. Workers complain. Rich bosses buy newspapers, and have the papers blame immigrants and the EU for bad pay.

Workers vote for Brexit, taking themselves out of EU social protections and leaving themselves at the mercy of the Tories who are also bought by the rich.

Now bosses say they are competing with China and India instead of France and Germany, so they must pay workers even less, so there is more for themselves and their Tory pets' golden castle moat duck islands.

That answer doesn't even attempt to answer how the wage flatlining has occured. You might have a low opinion of Brits but even they have the ability to take the job that pays more if there is two vacancies. I'm not a Brexit fan and definitely not a "Branson/Borris" Brexit fan but look at what you've posted in reference to the question.

Peregrinus wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I would also wonder how these studies square with the fact that real wages in the UK in many sectors haven't grown as much at all as they should have, I mean that's a constant source of complaint from the left too right, something seems off there?

You don't think depressed consumer demand attributable to prolonged austerity policies might have anything to do with it at all?

Real wages are not falling because those dusky foreigners are taking all the jobs. The UK is pretty much at full employment, and most of those who are unemployed are in that position not because they cannot find jobs due to competition from the DFs, but rather because they face challenges of their own - illness, disablity, social disadvantage, a prison record, single parenthood.

In times of full employment, you normally expect real wage to rise. So why aren't they? Partly because British labour productivity is poor, which generally reflects under-investment, and partly because (in recent times) inflation is rising, which is of course largely attributable to the declining pound. It's also because wage inequality in the UK is high, and getting higher - what real wage growth there has been in the UK has been for workers earning above the median.

So, a complex of problems and issues, then, and not easy to solve. Particularly not easy to solve without upsetting some of the core supports of the Tory party. On the whole, much easier to blame the dusky foreigners.

I am not discounting the low productivity and lower consumer confidence as factors, that doesn't preclude migration being a factor too.

Inflation/declining pound shouldn't be relevant at all to the period these studies apparently covered (pre-2015).

Wage inequality also isn't a good thing but why would it prevent lower wages rising?

You talk about the full employment thing but it seems to me that while it wouldn't automatically reduce wages the fact that there is a very large body of unemployed potential workers for whom any savings gained in a UK job (remember pre 2015) are worth much more in their home country due to differences in purchasing power parity index (Romania good example of this Vs UK) there isn't the need to raise wages to make role more attractive simply a need to have wages at a level high enough to appeal to those workers.

Why are you taking about "dusky" stuff (well I know why you are because it signals) this is Brexit we're about it's this sort of **** that's frustrating about the thread this was a question about the why an economic situation developed the views of Brexit have no bearing at all on the question.

Nobody got any ideas then on why Cable sat on this for two + years then?seems counter productive.

RDM_83 again · 08-09-2017 3:21pm

Reuters isn't thought of as pro Brexit right.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-jobs/uk-employers-raise-pay-as-brexit-skills-shortage-bites-recruiters-idUKKCN1BJ005?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=59b2437804d301672d4f14f1&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

wes · 08-09-2017 4:38pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Reuters isn't thought of as pro Brexit right.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-jobs/uk-employers-raise-pay-as-brexit-skills-shortage-bites-recruiters-idUKKCN1BJ005?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=59b2437804d301672d4f14f1&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Good news in the short term. Would give multinationals more reason to move to elsewhere in Europe, and in if they don't need EU access moving this further afield.

ancapailldorcha · 08-09-2017 5:09pm

Post deleted. No dumping of comedy links please.

RDM_83 again · 08-09-2017 5:17pm

wes wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Reuters isn't thought of as pro Brexit right.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-jobs/uk-employers-raise-pay-as-brexit-skills-shortage-bites-recruiters-idUKKCN1BJ005?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=59b2437804d301672d4f14f1&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Good news in the short term. Would give multinationals more reason to move to elsewhere in Europe, and in if they don't need EU access moving this further afield.

So stagnant wages are a good thing
in your mind. Your aware Ireland is just as likely if not more so to fall victim to that logic?
Do you dislike Macron fighting the posted workers directives or is the hollowing out of wages only a good thing when it happens in the UK?
This thread would be a lot more honest if a fair few posters just admitted they really don't like the English (working class in particular) and the Brexit stuff is just a good chance to vent

ancapailldorcha · 08-09-2017 5:20pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So stagnant wages are a good thing
in your mind. Your aware Ireland is just as likely if not more so to fall victim to that logic?
Do you dislike Macron fighting the posted workers directives or is the hollowing out of wages only a good thing when it happens in the UK?
This thread would be a lot more honest if a fair few posters just admitted they really don't like the English (working class in particular) and the Brexit stuff is just a good chance to vent

It's got sod all to do with worker's wages. If it was, you'd have the Brexiteer brigade call for strengthening trade unions, putting workers on company boards and building houses to relieve the pressure on incomes imposed by high rents. But it wasn't. It was just sophistry deployed to get the working classes to vote the right way. Now that they have, nobody cares.

RDM_83 again · 08-09-2017 5:32pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So stagnant wages are a good thing
in your mind. Your aware Ireland is just as likely if not more so to fall victim to that logic?
Do you dislike Macron fighting the posted workers directives or is the hollowing out of wages only a good thing when it happens in the UK?
This thread would be a lot more honest if a fair few posters just admitted they really don't like the English (working class in particular) and the Brexit stuff is just a good chance to vent

It's got sod all to do with worker's wages. If it was, you'd have the Brexiteer brigade call for strengthening trade unions, putting workers on company boards and building houses to relieve the pressure on incomes imposed by high rents. But it wasn't. It was just sophistry deployed to get the working classes to vote the right way. Now that they have, nobody cares.

I was remain but for at least some it was, Corbyn was very Luke warm and previously anti EU, Eamon McCann also springs to mind

Water John · 08-09-2017 5:47pm

McCann is around a long time and The Socialist Republic hasn't happened. I think we'll have to make do with what we have got, the EU.

Can say the lifestyle in most EU countries isn't bad. Tough enough in some if you are young and unemployed. At least there is a sense that for economies to thrive, it doesn't mean the plebs have to be paid pittance.

ancapailldorcha · 08-09-2017 5:47pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I was remain but for at least some it was, Corbyn was very Luke warm and previously anti EU, Eamon McCann also springs to mind

I'd have thought you were a leaver.

Oh yeah, I'd say plenty of people thought that wages would increase after Brexit. Various think tanks had the negative impact on low paid workers' wages at very low levels FWIW. Factor in that Theresa May might have suppressed 9 reports on the subject and I'm inclined to discount this argument.

I highly doubt that the likes of Johnson, Gove, Banks and Farage care one whit whether or not cleaners and bar staff get a pay rise or not once they crossed "Leave" in June 2016.

wes · 08-09-2017 6:00pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So stagnant wages are a good thing
in your mind.

Good or bad is irrelevant to the point I was making. Just that higher wages, can result in multinationals leaving a country. If the wage levels start to surpass other developed nations, then it will become a bigger issue.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Your aware Ireland is just as likely if not more so to fall victim to that logic?

We already are being hit by this. Even India is being hit by this, to a lesser degree.

It should be noted the UK, also has the added problems of the Brexit mess.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Do you dislike Macron fighting the posted workers directives or is the hollowing out of wages only a good thing when it happens in the UK?

Who said anything about this stuff being good? I just pointed out a potential pitfall.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This thread would be a lot more honest if a fair few posters just admitted they really don't like the English (working class in particular) and the Brexit stuff is just a good chance to vent

The English working class are going to be hit hardest by Brexit. By you logic Brexit supporters hate them and want to see them suffer then.

Your jumping to all kind of conclusions imo, and reading into things. I am personally all for making more money, but at the same time, I understand that companies are more than happy to move, if employees wages end up being to high. This is the reality of things.

Ignoring that if wages go up too much, that some companies may decide to go elsewhere, is a statement of fact. Just look at all the out sourcing etc, and companies using automation to replace people.

Also, for some multinationals, even if they are paying more, the employees maybe cheaper, due to the sterling taking a swan dive. Having said that, the UK imports a lot of food, goods etc, which have been slowly going up, and higher pay maybe eaten up by higher prices. Taking things in isolation is a bad idea.

jm08 · 08-09-2017 6:35pm

My theory is that they are going to pursue the American model by keeping wages low (the excuse will be Brexit and the evil EU), to make ends meet, people will have to hold down 2 or 3 jobs. Low skilled British people are stuck in the UK as well - they won't be able to up sticks and head to another country (unless somewhere like Australia/New Zealand who probably wouldn't have them anyway).

Zubeneschamali · 08-09-2017 6:35pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's got sod all to do with worker's wages.

In fairness, Corbyn's idea seems to be get out from under the Corporatist EU, beat the Tories and then Workers Socialist Party time!!!!

So not all the hostility to the EU comes from racist posh boys in the Tory party.

Water John · 08-09-2017 6:51pm

What if Corbyn isn't the one to win, or have all the answers, but it's the Tory posh boys???
Tough on the lower paid and the multiple jobs to made ends meet. The US is not the model. Sorta more comfortable in the EU. Not perfect but gives most a resaonably good lifestyle.
If it was all about wage suppression, then Germany would have tanked a long time ago.

Zubeneschamali · 08-09-2017 7:31pm

Water John wrote: »

What if Corbyn isn't the one to win, or have all the answers, but it's the Tory posh boys???

It's a 2 party system, Labour would win eventually.

He may even have been thinking that the brexit omnishambles and associated recession will bring the Tories down. It is working, too.

ancapailldorcha · 08-09-2017 8:40pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fairness, Corbyn's idea seems to be get out from under the Corporatist EU, beat the Tories and then Workers Socialist Party time!!!!

So not all the hostility to the EU comes from racist posh boys in the Tory party.

I never claimed that the right had a monopoly and hostility to the EU. Some of the daftest comments I've heard on the subject have come from the left. I went to see Yanis Varoufakis speak once and a woman asked him, "How can we escape this totalitarian German dictatorship?" I mean, even if you would agree with that assessment of the EU, surely you'd at least have an issue with the fact that a referendum was imminent on that very subject which would enable voters to have the UK leave said dictatorship.

Given the conduct of the Conservative party of late, a Corbyn-led government might not be such a fantasy.

marcus001 · 08-09-2017 8:48pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's got sod all to do with worker's wages. If it was, you'd have the Brexiteer brigade call for strengthening trade unions, putting workers on company boards and building houses to relieve the pressure on incomes imposed by high rents. But it wasn't. It was just sophistry deployed to get the working classes to vote the right way. Now that they have, nobody cares.

To be fair most of the prominent politicians who were anti-Brexit and pro-trade union (Ehm, Corbyn) didn't have the balls to actually join the Brexiteer camp, meaning that the left faction of the Brexiteers was fairly quiet throughout the campaign.

It was left to the Conservatives and Ukippers in the Brexit camp to actually take up the left wing arguments in favour of Brexit because Corbyn was busy playing party politics. They obviously did so insincerely, but they are still real arguments all the same.

Sand · 08-09-2017 9:49pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd have thought you were a leaver.

Oh yeah, I'd say plenty of people thought that wages would increase after Brexit. Various think tanks had the negative impact on low paid workers' wages at very low levels FWIW. Factor in that Theresa May might have suppressed 9 reports on the subject and I'm inclined to discount this argument.

I highly doubt that the likes of Johnson, Gove, Banks and Farage care one whit whether or not cleaners and bar staff get a pay rise or not once they crossed "Leave" in June 2016.

In fairness, Brexit hasn't happened yet so its far too early to say what the impact will be on wages. But simple economics would state that if there is less supply of labour from the EU, all other things being equal the wages for labour in the UK goes up. The Black Death doesnt get a lot of good press, but it was fantastic for the lucky surviving peasants who could charge far more for their labour than previously.

It may actually happen that the UK economically declines overall with the highly qualified and educated and rich having less opportunity and UK corporations losing investment and markets, but the lower classes still overall benefiting from increased wages from an inability to ship in cheap low skilled labour from Southern or Eastern Europe. Certainly, I cant blame lower classes from trying something different given the message from centre left (and centre right parties) for decades now has been that stagnant wages and their relative decline is inevitable, the way of the world and they just have to get over it. Why would *anyone* accept that message?

Of course, that assumes the Tories pursue policies that deliberately or otherwise permit such an outcome. Its entirely possible that the Tories throw open the door to further mass migration and cheap labour from the rest of the world instead of the EU.

wes wrote: »

The English working class are going to be hit hardest by Brexit. By you logic Brexit supporters hate them and want to see them suffer then.

Well, in fairness the people most put out by Brexit are the well educated, service industry, high earning types. A lad on a council estate who has no skills, no qualifications and no job is really no worse off if UK banks lose EU passporting rights. He isnt a shareholder and he would never be able to get a job there. And in a fight over declining resources, the unemployed have more votes than bankers.

He might even end up slightly better off if UK employers are forced to increase wages to attract UK labour to low/no skilled jobs they used to recruit for from the rest of the EU.

Your jumping to all kind of conclusions imo, and reading into things. I am personally all for making more money, but at the same time, I understand that companies are more than happy to move, if employees wages end up being to high. This is the reality of things.

Ignoring that if wages go up too much, that some companies may decide to go elsewhere, is a statement of fact. Just look at all the out sourcing etc, and companies using automation to replace people.

The UK (and the 'Anglo-Saxon' West in a general sense) has chosen deliberate policies whereby out sourcing is a viable option. It permits supply to be based in cheap, lowly regulated foreign countries whilst permitting the same firms to meet demand in their market. So the companies get the best of both worlds. First world demand for goods and services produced by their capital, whilst labour is forced into a tooth and nail fight to the death with third world workers for who can do it for cheapest.

This isnt 'the way of the world' in the same way as gravity. Its a deliberately engineered and chosen outcome of political choices. Different choices can be made.

And as above if the centre left (and centre right) cant come up with a better answer to fears over stagnant wages and growing economic insecurity then the far left and the far right will fight it out over their ashes. So try harder.

listermint · 08-09-2017 10:00pm

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, Brexit hasn't happened yet so its far too early to say what the impact will be on wages. But simple economics would state that if there is less supply of labour from the EU, all other things being equal the wages for labour in the UK goes up. The Black Death doesnt get a lot of good press, but it was fantastic for the lucky surviving peasants who could charge far more for their labour than previously.

It may actually happen that the UK economically declines overall with the highly qualified and educated and rich having less opportunity and UK corporations losing investment and markets, but the lower classes still overall benefiting from increased wages from an inability to ship in cheap low skilled labour from Southern or Eastern Europe. Certainly, I cant blame lower classes from trying something different given the message from centre left (and centre right parties) for decades now has been that stagnant wages and their relative decline is inevitable, the way of the world and they just have to get over it. Why would *anyone* accept that message?

Of course, that assumes the Tories pursue policies that deliberately or otherwise permit such an outcome. Its entirely possible that the Tories throw open the door to further mass migration and cheap labour from the rest of the world instead of the EU.

Well, in fairness the people most put out by Brexit are the well educated, service industry, high earning types. A lad on a council estate who has no skills, no qualifications and no job is really no worse off if UK banks lose EU passporting rights. He isnt a shareholder and he would never be able to get a job there. And in a fight over declining resources, the unemployed have more votes than bankers.

He might even end up slightly better off if UK employers are forced to increase wages to attract UK labour to low/no skilled jobs they used to recruit for from the rest of the EU.

The UK (and the 'Anglo-Saxon' West in a general sense) has chosen deliberate policies whereby out sourcing is a viable option. It permits supply to be based in cheap, lowly regulated foreign countries whilst permitting the same firms to meet demand in their market. So the companies get the best of both worlds. First world demand for goods and services produced by their capital, whilst labour is forced into a tooth and nail fight to the death with third world workers for who can do it for cheapest.

This isnt 'the way of the world' in the same way as gravity. Its a deliberately engineered and chosen outcome of political choices. Different choices can be made.

And as above if the centre left (and centre right) cant come up with a better answer to fears over stagnant wages and growing economic insecurity then the far left and the far right will fight it out over their ashes. So try harder.

There is no chance of wages going up post Brexit.

The economy will be in a depression, saying wages will go up because so called cheap labour will not be as common is complete nonsense. I'm fact it belongs in a children's fairy tale book its so far fetched.

It has already been demonstrated that cheap labour isn't a problem in the UK.

I still don't understand how this is propagated. Actually I do.... To push an agenda

Sand · 08-09-2017 10:08pm

listermint wrote: »

There is no chance of wages going up post Brexit.

The economy will be in a depression, saying wages will go up because so called cheap labour will not be as common is complete nonsense. I'm fact it belongs in a children's fairy tale book its so far fetched.

It has already been demonstrated that cheap labour isn't a problem in the UK.

I still don't understand how this is propagated. Actually I do.... To push an agenda

That's a lot of assertions with no evidence. I think its unlikely the Tories are going to convert to social democracy, but its not an absolutely impossibility that UK wages for low skilled workers will never increase. I would ask two questions in response. Whats my agenda? And why are McDonald's staff striking in the UK if cheap labour isnt a problem for them?

listermint · 08-09-2017 10:11pm

Sand wrote: »

That's a lot of assertions with no evidence. I would ask two questions in response. Whats my agenda? And why are McDonald's staff striking in the UK if cheap labour isnt a problem for them?

There is a minimum wage in the UK. Are you seriously blaming' foreigners' for that!

The government sets the minimum McDonald's can set what it wants

Your post is so full of wrong I don't know where to start.

Sand · 08-09-2017 10:21pm

listermint wrote: »

There is a minimum wage in the UK. Are you seriously blaming' foreigners' for that!

The government sets the minimum McDonald's can set what it wants

Your post is so full of wrong I don't know where to start.

There's a lot of heat in your posts so far, not a lot of light. Still no evidence for any of your assertions. If your message of hope to the low/no skilled is minimum wage laws, then consider them underwhelmed.

For the record, you are attacking the wrong person. I believe Brexit is an act of incredibly stupid self harm for the UK *overall*. However, I can understand and see how people would see an advantage for them *personally* in reducing competition for themselves. Serve in heaven, or rule in hell. Many will choose the latter, consciously or otherwise. I see Brexit as an outcome of wealth being increasingly accrued by the wealthiest while the lower orders are increasingly alienated from the wider economy. As above - why should the guy on a council estate give a damn if a UK bank loses EU passporting rights? Why should he vote for a political message that throws him to the cold winds of global competition whilst maintaining monopolies for special interests? Why should he care if Nick from London has to queue for longer on weekend breaks to Milan or Tomas from Paris cant commute easily to his job in London? These are not rhetorical questions on my part. I am not a ideological socialist by any stretch of the imagination but I cant come up with a valid answer to those questions. All the money can flow away from the majority of people, but they still keep their votes and they can and will kick back. Brexit is one of those outcomes.

I get you are angry and lashing out. But anger is not a plan.

View · 08-09-2017 10:37pm

Sand wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd have thought you were a leaver.

Oh yeah, I'd say plenty of people thought that wages would increase after Brexit. Various think tanks had the negative impact on low paid workers' wages at very low levels FWIW. Factor in that Theresa May might have suppressed 9 reports on the subject and I'm inclined to discount this argument.

I highly doubt that the likes of Johnson, Gove, Banks and Farage care one whit whether or not cleaners and bar staff get a pay rise or not once they crossed "Leave" in June 2016.

In fairness, Brexit hasn't happened yet so its far too early to say what the impact will be on wages. But simple economics would state that if there is less supply of labour from the EU, all other things being equal the wages for labour in the UK goes up.

No, they won't. The UK will just admit more non-EU immigrants instead. The average Brexiter just has a hang-up about EU immigrants, the much larger numbers of non-EU that arrive every year aren't an issue they get upset about at all.

Sand wrote: »

Well, in fairness the people most put out by Brexit are the well educated, service industry, high earning types. A lad on a council estate who has no skills, no qualifications and no job is really no worse off if UK banks lose EU passporting rights. He isnt a shareholder and he would never be able to get a job there. And in a fight over declining resources, the unemployed have more votes than bankers.

If there is less money flowing into high earning industries and their workers, then it also doesn't flow into government coffers. That means less money to fund benefits and local services for the "lad on the Council estate".

And in a case of "declining resources", the poor end up worse off. The average banker came out of our bailout period far better off than the people at the bottom.

Water John · 09-09-2017 9:45am

Writing on the new 3rd bridge on the Forth, Ian Jack, who grew up there, juxtapositions the fact that the first two were British designed and built with the following;

The new bridge has a tiny British input: a few box girders from Cleveland Bridge, a safety monitoring system from the Arup Group, and 16% of the building work by Morrison Construction. The main designers are American, Danish, Dutch, Swedish and German. The main contractors are American, German and Spanish. The steel comes from China, the concrete from Germany, and the cable stays from Switzerland.

Now Germany and Switzerland are not cheap economies. Can anyone put their finger on the reason for the British decline in design and manufacturing?
Not to derail the thread, but it's not the EU's fault. Have people being looking in the wrong place to put the blame?

Obvious Otter · 09-09-2017 10:23am

There is no decline in British manufacturing. They have seen the highest demand in over 30 years over the past few months.

The Scottish can't just decide to prioritise British contractors as that would be a breach of EU law. This bridge appears to be well under budget too.

British manufucating isn't built around steel and concrete anymore but that doesn't mean it's on its knees either.

Water John · 09-09-2017 10:36am

With for example their great experience in steel, they should have evolved and not shut down. Steel Cables from Switzerland???

murphaph · 09-09-2017 10:37am

Water John wrote: »

With for example their great experience in steel, they should have evolved and not shut down. Steel Cables from Switzerland???

For all the cable cars probably.

Indeed, it was a Brit named Bessemer who invented modern steel production. His process is still used today.

The decline in manufacturing in the mother country of the industrial revolution is really very sad.

solodeogloria · 09-09-2017 11:32am

Water John wrote: »

With for example their great experience in steel, they should have evolved and not shut down. Steel Cables from Switzerland???

Good morning!

Tata in Port Talbot have returned to profitability largely down to the devaluation of Sterling. Scunthorpe has also seen a return to profitability. Arguably the Brexit vote has been good for the steel industry. That's of course debatable but nonetheless it's worth saying that the situation is actually much improved.

On the wage increase thing. I don't know why some people were getting so energised about this on the thread. It's a logical consequence of inflation. Wages are the same. Currency falls. Price of goods and services increases. Something's got to give. Is there any surprise why the cost of employment would increase in this environment after wages have decreased on relative terms with other currencies? I'm sure many people will be asking for a raise this year. Nobody can blame them.

The idea that multinationals will leave for this reason ignores the fact that sterling has fallen. On relative terms to other currencies wages will still be lower than they were last year.

It isn't remarkable. I don't think it's just because of less migration however.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL-- · 09-09-2017 11:41am

Would have to agree - any wage inflation is mainly due to overall inflation.

Nate

ancapailldorcha · 09-09-2017 11:47am

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, Brexit hasn't happened yet so its far too early to say what the impact will be on wages. But simple economics would state that if there is less supply of labour from the EU, all other things being equal the wages for labour in the UK goes up. The Black Death doesnt get a lot of good press, but it was fantastic for the lucky surviving peasants who could charge far more for their labour than previously.

The Black Death occurred in the middle of the fourteenth century, well before minimum wages, trade unions, the industrial revolution, etc... Not sure that it is a fair comparison. If the same thing happened today, markets would shrink drastically

Sand wrote: »

It may actually happen that the UK economically declines overall with the highly qualified and educated and rich having less opportunity and UK corporations losing investment and markets, but the lower classes still overall benefiting from increased wages from an inability to ship in cheap low skilled labour from Southern or Eastern Europe. Certainly, I cant blame lower classes from trying something different given the message from centre left (and centre right parties) for decades now has been that stagnant wages and their relative decline is inevitable, the way of the world and they just have to get over it. Why would *anyone* accept that message?

I blamed the lower classes at the time but I've come to sympathise that some people have genuine claims of being "left behind". Stagnant wages aren't a uniquely British phenomenon and are largely due to poor growth in productivity. I think certain individuals saw an opportunity to sell a pup.

Sand wrote: »

Of course, that assumes the Tories pursue policies that deliberately or otherwise permit such an outcome. Its entirely possible that the Tories throw open the door to further mass migration and cheap labour from the rest of the world instead of the EU.

I disagree. Theresa May couldn't even give a pro-remain speech without dragging up the old "tens of thousands" trope. The British right is fanatical about cutting immigration. I believe in free movement but I also think the state should be investing in more housing and services so that the economy grows properly and fairly instead of just causing house prices to swell.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-09-2017 11:55am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Black Death occurred in the middle of the fourteenth century, well before minimum wages, trade unions, the industrial revolution, etc... Not sure that it is a fair comparison. If the same thing happened today, markets would shrink drastically.

People got rich after the Black Death. Same amount of assets spread over fewer people and also fewer people so there was a labour shortage so wages went up.

If EU immigrants go home this may happen, except nowadays assets can be moved or liquidised and moved. And jobs can move too. So if there is a labour shortage then a lot of service industries can simply divert phone calls and emails to a different centre.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-09-2017 12:17pm

Good Article on why there will be a hard border and customs on UK - EU goods movements.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/0909/903432-brexit-connelly/

Also why the special deals with Switzerland won't apply to the UK
A - Switzerland was converging to EFTA/EU membership and so the deal was only supposed to be a temporary stepping stone on the way to a more inclusive one.

B - Switzerland takes on a huge raft of EU regulations and is committed to taking on more.

C - Yes Switzerland has lots of agreements with the EU, but it's not pick and choose. The EU has made it very clear they are a package deal, especially the bit about free movement which is anathema to the UK.

D - The UK imports 40% of it's food so huge volumes of cheap food and live animals etc. imported directly from outside the EU that may no longer be up to EU standards so there is a risk of re-exporting.
For Switzerland the risk is a lot lower because you'd have to fly the stuff in to bypass the external EU controls.

E - If if you meat the above hurdles then the UK will have to impose EU Official Controls Regulation on all food and animal imports in every third party deal they do with other countries. No chlorinated chicken, no GMO, no hormones, antibiotics in beef.
One of the reasons these rules were brought in was because of stuff like the UK's problems with Foot and Mouth.

"The conditions are," one senior official told RTÉ News, "that Switzerland has signed up to taking over the entire EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary acquis [body of law] and to update it on a regular basis. This happens a lot. It is updated on an almost weekly basis because you have new hygiene standards in stables or whatever."
...
"The risk of live animals flying in to Switzerland and being re-exported into an EU member state is not exactly the same,"
...
If the Commission decides that Switzerland has blatantly violated one of these agreements then they all fall. One example was the Swiss referendum that ended free movement of EU citizens: the EU froze a range of bilateral agreements until Bern amended its legislation to permit free movement.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-09-2017 12:24pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's a 2 party system, Labour would win eventually.

Yes but in many UK elections it's winning by default when the other party has become unelectable.

And short of a Brexit miracle or Labour shooting themselves in the foot, the Tories are going to have to do a lot of work to be guaranteed of winning the next election. They might try another round of sell offs, but people have been dipping into savings recently so that may not work either.

jm08 · 09-09-2017 12:40pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Tata in Port Talbot have returned to profitability largely down to the devaluation of Sterling. Scunthorpe has also seen a return to profitability.

Nothing to do with the devaluation of Sterling. Tata sold Scunthorpe for £1 last year. Its losses were about 0.5 bn and its had 1,000 redundancies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/02/tatas-1-sale-scunthorpe-plant-drives-steel-giant-deeper-red/

The big problem with Tata is the pensions problem which maybe resolved now and lead the way to a merger with Krupps.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/tata-steel-gets-regulatory-approval-for-uk-pension-deal-1.3183687

Capt'n Midnight · 09-09-2017 12:43pm

Three more articles to look at.

Immigration paper leak.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/05/leaked-document-reveals-uk-brexit-plan-to-deter-eu-immigrants
Too many factions in the UK jostling so it's hard to say where the leak came from or more importantly why. Are they testing the water to see how hard they could go with the EU ? , is it dis-information ?

And yes there are "typos" so it could probably be traced back , but any top level person worth their salt would know that.

Commentary
https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/09/06/what-the-immigration-proposal-leak-tells-us/

Bonus
Detailed overview of how we got here - some nice observations. Including
http://news.sky.com/story/amp/sky-views-the-next-three-months-are-totally-unpredictable-11019976

No European prime minister or president is even going to lose an election because of Michel Barnier's Brexit negotiations. Botched Brexit positioning could not just lose an election for Britain's two main parliament parties. It could still conceivably destroy either - or both.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments