Brexit discussion thread II

steddyeddy

Boris Johnson says that the EU has a legal responsibility to forge a trade deal with the UK. It's interesting that Boris, one of the chief patrons of Brexit, stated during the campaign that the EU would rush to do a trade deal with the UK. Now his stance is changed and he's citing legal requirement. Does Boris have a point?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/boris-johnson-says-eu-has-legal-duty-to-discuss-future-trade-relations

jm08

steddyeddy wrote: »

Boris Johnson says that the EU has a legal responsibility to forge a trade deal with the UK. It's interesting that Boris, one of the chief patrons of Brexit, stated during the campaign that the EU would rush to do a trade deal with the UK. Now his stance is changed and he's citing legal requirement. Does Boris have a point?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/boris-johnson-says-eu-has-legal-duty-to-discuss-future-trade-relations

Here is the opposite argument which is in brief, Article 50 is about leaving the EU, Article 218 is about negotiating trade agreements with a third party.

http://www.politico.eu/article/forget-article-50-heres-article-218/

blanch152

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. 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

Quite a muddled post.

On the one hand, you are saying that wages will rise to counter the effects of the devaluation in sterling. On the other you are saying that wages will be lower relative to other currencies.

The two statements contradict each other.

What is becoming clear is that Brexit will make the ordinary person in Britain much worse off.

LeinsterDub

steddyeddy wrote: »

Boris Johnson says that the EU has a legal responsibility to forge a trade deal with the UK. It's interesting that Boris, one of the chief patrons of Brexit, stated during the campaign that the EU would rush to do a trade deal with the UK. Now his stance is changed and he's citing legal requirement. Does Boris have a point?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/boris-johnson-says-eu-has-legal-duty-to-discuss-future-trade-relations

His argument is the EU must discuss trade. Even if he is correct it doesn't say when the discussions should occur or what the discussion should entail. The EU has already discussed trade and said we'll not be discussing it further till our 3 issues are resolved.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

His argument is the EU must discuss trade. Even if he is correct it doesn't say when the discussions should occur or what the discussion should entail. The EU has already discussed trade and said we'll not be discussing it further till our 3 issues are resolved.

Correct. The outcome of the UK's departure negotiations do not dictate the outcome of its negotiations on future relations.

Parts of these processes may may happen concurrently but they are seperate processes.

It doesn't greatly matter that some posters here haven't grasped this, but it will be a problem if the UK doesn't.

Gerry T

blanch152 wrote:

On the one hand, you are saying that wages will rise to counter the effects of the devaluation in sterling. On the other you are saying that wages will be lower relative to other currencies.

It's not contradictory, if stg falls by 20% and wages rise by 8%, then wages increase but relative to other countries the UK person is earning 12% (some very rough maths and % used are only to describe the thinking). Coupled to this if the UK person likes a BMW, because Stg has tanked then person, even after a wage increase sees a 12% price increase before any duties/tariffs are added.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

Boris Johnson says that the EU has a legal responsibility to forge a trade deal with the UK. It's interesting that Boris, one of the chief patrons of Brexit, stated during the campaign that the EU would rush to do a trade deal with the UK. Now his stance is changed and he's citing legal requirement. Does Boris have a point?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/boris-johnson-says-eu-has-legal-duty-to-discuss-future-trade-relations

Boris says a lot of things. Technically speaking there is a counter argument that the UK is only in the WTO because of the EU.


However, the UK will still be in the WTO after Brexit.

It's just that there may be yet another divorce bill :rolleyes:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-wto/eu-and-britain-to-present-post-brexit-plan-on-wto-membership-idUSKBN1A21AF

The European Union and Britain plan to put forward a joint proposal for reform of the terms of their World Trade Organization (WTO) membership in September or October, an EU source said on Monday, as London negotiates to leave the EU.

The two sides are also discussing sharing liabilities from trade disputes including WTO litigation over Airbus (AIR.PA) subsidies in a long-running case with the United States, the EU source said.

First Up

I enjoyed this. Nice to see someone is voicing anger at this idiocy;

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-british-jobs-david-davis-divorce-bill-spanish-pensioners-immigrants-a7934881.html

The success of the Brexit negotiations show that we're finally getting our country back
Proper British jobs such as knight, chimney sweep, coming 26th in Eurovision and weeing in a foreign fountain will be reserved for BRITISH workers

Nody

First Up wrote: »

I enjoyed this. Nice to see someone is voicing anger at this idiocy;

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-british-jobs-david-davis-divorce-bill-spanish-pensioners-immigrants-a7934881.html

The success of the Brexit negotiations show that we're finally getting our country back
Proper British jobs such as knight, chimney sweep, coming 26th in Eurovision and weeing in a foreign fountain will be reserved for BRITISH workers

I think this part makes me smile the most as it's so damn true...

For example, the nurses have gone several years without a rise, because of a pay cap imposed by Bulgarians. The Prime Minister tried her best to give them more money, but Bulgarians took her guinea pig hostage and threatened to squirt carpet cleaner in its eye unless she kept them poor, so what could she do?

The staff at McDonalds went on strike this week against dreadful pay, because Ronald McDonald is a Romanian – the tight-fisted foreign clown, coming over here and setting up burger chains that pay £7 an hour. Luckily, once we’re out of the EU, we’ll rely on investment from America, where I’m sure their burger chains treat staff with far more kindness.

steddyeddy

Nody wrote: »

I think this part makes me smile the most as it's so damn true...

Exactly. Nurse pay rises have been debated in Parliament over the last few years. The Tories and DUP blocked the pay rises in a recent vote (after the 1 billion bribe). Despite this Tory voters blame immigrants.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Exactly. Nurse pay rises have been debated in Parliament over the last few years. The Tories and DUP blocked the pay rises in a recent vote (after the 1 billion bribe). Despite this Tory voters blame immigrants.

do they, could you provide evidence to support this? I would have thought it was UKIP voters who blame immigrants, most of whom seemed to swing back to labour at the last election.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

do they, could you provide evidence to support this? I would have thought it was UKIP voters who blame immigrants, most of whom seemed to swing back to labour at the last election.

Blaming immigrants isn't a one party phenomenon, I think there are many people in all parties that believe a lot of the problems are caused by mass immigration. I think both Labour and the Conservatives picked up votes in the past election, it wasn't just Labour that had their share increase by the UKIP vote. UKIP saw their vote fall from 3.8m to 600K, give or take a few votes. That is a 3.2m drop, and the conservatives picked up 2.3m votes. So you could argue that the majority of UKIP support could have gone to the Tories and not Labour.

Or can I ask you to supply evidence that most of the UKIP vote went to Labour?

Sand

View wrote: »

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.

They might. They might not. Brexit was a very definite rejection of mass immigration. The Tories will certainly *want* to repeat the errors of the 1960s and 1970s and introduce 'guest-workers' from the former Empire to supply cheap labour, but the voter pressure from the right and the left is intensely hostile to that sort of policy.

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.

Those two points highlight what I am saying. The economic and political conditions have been engineered so that the performance of the poor and the very wealthy are disconnected. When times are good, the wealthy do well. When times are bad, the wealthy do well. In either scenario, the poor face stagnant wages and declining wealth.

If all the wealth generated by an economy is being diverted to a tiny elite, then the overall economic performance stops being a motivating factor for those who don't share in it. As it is, Brexit seems to have sparked a decline in property prices - terrible news if you are wealthy enough to have a portfolio of properties. Not so bad if property declines to the point where it is affordable for the poor again.

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

Well, I'm just saying the Black Death probably had worse press than Brexit, but it still turned out positive for the survivors.

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.

I think the ruling classes have taken their eye of the ball and started believing their own press. I think the lower classes saw an opportunity to kick sand into the elites faces, with minimal cost to themselves.

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.

Yes, as above I think the Tories will *want* to throw open the doors once more. But I think the public mood will prevent them from doing so.

Water John

It's very foolish for the elite to leave the general workers and unemployed with no, skin in the game. That really what looks as the problem and yet so many voted Tory.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Well, I'm just saying the Black Death probably had worse press than Brexit, but it still turned out positive for the survivors.

Right but you're talking about a world of autocratic monarchs whereas modern Europe consists of market-driven social democracies.

Sand wrote: »

I think the ruling classes have taken their eye of the ball and started believing their own press. I think the lower classes saw an opportunity to kick sand into the elites faces, with minimal cost to themselves.

But it's the lower classes who will suffer most. Even though farmers voted for Brexit, fruit farmers will now struggle to employ seasonal labour to have their produce picked. Car workers in places like Sunderland might find their jobs at risk depending on how the EU-UK talks pan out. The UK isn't the manufacturing hub it once was so risking it's link with the most lucrative market in the world is an extremely dangerous risk to take.

Sand wrote: »

Yes, as above I think the Tories will *want* to throw open the doors once more. But I think the public mood will prevent them from doing so.

Some of them might want to but given the prevalence of the anti-immigration arguments, it'll be impossible.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

do they, could you provide evidence to support this? I would have thought it was UKIP voters who blame immigrants, most of whom seemed to swing back to labour at the last election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

Also the Home office blocked 9 studies which disputed the effect of immigration on wages. Also the leaked document on post-Brexit immigration strategy.

The Tories have essentially replaced UKIP as an anti-immigration, fairy tail economics and Brexit party. I mean they're in league with the DUP, a anti-Catholic, anti-ethnic (as Sammy Wilson put it) and loyalist party.

You don't seem to see the connections with Tories and anti-immigration, but you seem to equate Labour with UKIP. Do you really think that Labour's policies on immigration are closer to UKIP than the Torie's are? Which party caused Brexit?

Capt'n Midnight

Sand wrote: »

Those two points highlight what I am saying. The economic and political conditions have been engineered so that the performance of the poor and the very wealthy are disconnected. When times are good, the wealthy do well. When times are bad, the wealthy do well. In either scenario, the poor face stagnant wages and declining wealth.

UK’s economic model is broken, says Archbishop of Canterbury

It said the situation had worsened in recent years as workers struggled to make ends meet after the longest period of earnings stagnation for 150 years.

Sand wrote: »

Well, I'm just saying the Black Death probably had worse press than Brexit, but it still turned out positive for the survivors.

Like I already pointed out , it's different now

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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.

Also I'd argue that the redistribution of wealth after the Black Death was mainly to close relatives rather than up the social scale. The redistribution of wealth during and since the recession has been one way, the rich have gotten richer and those in debt have become more indebted.

blinding

I came across this rather good speech from Nigel Farage and will leave it here for you perusal at your leisure .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCyN-ZhYOcQ

Water John

Will look at that.
There seems to be a concerted campaign, behind the scenes to force the 2nd referendum.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/09/eu-immigration-offer-brexit-reversal-adonis

This grouping may actually form the majority in Parliament.
Combine this with Blair's actions and statements.

This is about reaching beyond Party, to all those in favour of EU.

steddyeddy

Water John wrote: »

Will look at that.
There seems to be a concerted campaign, behind the scenes to force the 2nd referendum.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/09/eu-immigration-offer-brexit-reversal-adonis

This grouping may actually form the majority in Parliament.
Combine this with Blair's actions and statements.

This is about reaching beyond Party, to all those in favour of EU.

Adonis states that a reversal can only happen if the UK will be allowed to remain in the single market while controlling immigration. Why should the UK have special status?

jm08

steddyeddy wrote: »

Adonis states that a reversal can only happen if the UK will be allowed to remain in the single market while controlling immigration. Why should the UK have special status?

Not going to happen because that would entail a change to the Lisbon Treaty and would need the approval of all EU countries. I seem to recall reading that when Cameron was doing his negotiations prior to referendum with the EU commission, they were open to some concessions about FoM, but that would have required going to all the EU-27 and would have taken about 2 or 3 years to do. What Cameron should have done was said that if FoM was not curtailed within 5 years (or something like that), he was going to have a referendum on EU membership.

Meanwhile, the French really have a few bees in their bonet!

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-tax-digital/france-germany-italy-spain-seek-tax-on-digital-giants-revenues-idUKKCN1BK0IF

They urged the Commission to come up with a solution creating an “equalisation tax” on turnover that would bring taxation to the level of corporate tax in the country where the revenue was earned.
“The amounts raised would aim to reflect some of what these companies should be paying in terms of corporate tax,” the ministers said in the letter, first reported on by the Financial Times.

Charles Babbage

jm08 wrote: »

Not going to happen because that would entail a change to the Lisbon Treaty and would need the approval of all EU countries. I seem to recall reading that when Cameron was doing his negotiations prior to referendum with the EU commission, they were open to some concessions about FoM, but that would have required going to all the EU-27 and would have taken about 2 or 3 years to do. What Cameron should have done was said that if FoM was not curtailed within 5 years (or something like that), he was going to have a referendum on EU membership.

There are various measures already in use in the EU to reigster newcomers and restrict welfare benefits. The UK could introduce these without a referendum, they just weren't bothered before the referendum. A further measure would have been to introduce EU funding for infrastructural investment where there had been migration from other EU countries. This might extend schools or hospitals, Ireland would be benefit from this too. The UK did not suggest this either, as even if the EU paid half the Tories did not want to pay the other half.

Meanwhile, the French really have a few bees in their bonet!
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu...-idUKKCN1BK0IF

Ireland should propose that the EU get x% of corporation tax and so regulate the exemptions and so on.

Jim2007

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

However, the UK will still be in the WTO after Brexit.

The U.K. needs to apply for full membership and according to Davis that apply will seek to obtain the same status as they have now in terms of their share of quotes etc in the EU trade deals etc..

If there is no exit deal I doubt that will happen anytime soon as it is unlikely the 27 will all agree to the trade schedules etc...

solodeogloria

Gerry T wrote: »

It's not contradictory, if stg falls by 20% and wages rise by 8%, then wages increase but relative to other countries the UK person is earning 12% (some very rough maths and % used are only to describe the thinking). Coupled to this if the UK person likes a BMW, because Stg has tanked then person, even after a wage increase sees a 12% price increase before any duties/tariffs are added.

Good morning!

Exactly. You also have to bear in mind that Sterling inflation only has an impact on certain types of expenditure also. Mainly products and services that have a dependency on purchases in other currencies somewhere in the supply chain.

For example, if you have a mortgage issued in Sterling on a fixed rate then you will be able to still pay that on the same salary because it won't be subject to currency risk. It does mean however, that if you wanted to sell your home and move to another country that you would feel the pinch, because the relative price of your property has fallen in comparison to other countries. If you're not bothered about that then that's not an issue. Food and services and a lot of other categories on the other hand will rise.

I've got a feeling that you'll see an increase in wages this year purely by virtue of inflation. It remains to be seen if the fall in immigration will have an impact also. As Gerry has said here, I don't think the wage increase will fully compensate for the fall in sterling, but something has got to give. Of course wage inflation will also potentially knock costs down the consumer in other ways thus triggering another cycle of this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

In what world where there is so many unknowns do you see employers granting widespread wage increases.

Im intrigued

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've got a feeling that you'll see an increase in wages this year purely by virtue of inflation.

Inflation doesn't cause wage increases. Inflation causes erosion of living standards, and then workers demand wage increases.

But if trade, turnover, profits and tax take are down, there won't be any money for wage increases. And in the current uncertainty, where the possibility of a cliff-edge Hard Brexit is still hovering, it'd be a brave employer who would bet trade, turnover, profits or tax takes are about to go up.

solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Inflation doesn't cause wage increases. Inflation causes erosion of living standards, and then workers demand wage increases.

But if trade, turnover, profits and tax take are down, there won't be any money for wage increases. And in the current uncertainty, where the possibility of a cliff-edge Hard Brexit is still hovering, it'd be a brave employer who would bet trade, turnover, profits or tax takes are about to go up.

Good morning!

I disagree with your assumption. You've stopped too soon.

Inflation does cause an erosion of living standards initially. This is what we've seen throughout 2017. But costs on individuals can only go up so much before people put pressure on employers to raise wages. The idea that inflation only changes the price of everything else apart from the price of labour is absurd.

You also have to bear in mind, particularly for multinationals, relative labour costs have lowered significantly in the last year and a half. Therefore there is significant buffer to increase wages without too much harm on their bottom line. They have already had a significant cost saving since the vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Jim2007 wrote: »

The U.K. needs to apply for full membership and according to Davis that apply will seek to obtain the same status as they have now in terms of their share of quotes etc in the EU trade deals etc..

If there is no exit deal I doubt that will happen anytime soon as it is unlikely the 27 will all agree to the trade schedules etc...

The EU is splitting it's WTO membership.

Which is a whole different level of influence to the UK trying to join the WTO on it's own.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Exactly. You also have to bear in mind that Sterling inflation only has an impact on certain types of expenditure also. Mainly products and services that have a dependency on purchases in other currencies somewhere in the supply chain.
...
Food and services and a lot of other categories on the other hand will rise.

I've got a feeling that you'll see an increase in wages this year purely by virtue of inflation

Food , energy and imports have gone up.

The have-not's are getting deeper in debt.

Car sales have fallen. Scrapage deals mean that profit per car has fallen too.

Yes there is full employment but this is the longest period of wage stagnation in the last 150 years. In real terms people are loosing 3% a year. Work out how much spending money you have after the bills, and then take 3% of your wage off that.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

But costs on individuals can only go up so much before people put pressure on employers to raise wages.

Pressure, yes. But it won't magically produce either the cash or the willingness from employers to raise wages.

We are not just talking about inflation due to Sterling dropping to parity with the Euro. There will be inflation due to actual increases in costs due to barriers to trade.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I disagree with your assumption. You've stopped too soon.

Inflation does cause an erosion of living standards initially. This is what we've seen throughout 2017. But costs on individuals can only go up so much before people put pressure on employers to raise wages. The idea that inflation only changes the price of everything else apart from the price of labour is absurd.

You also have to bear in mind, particularly for multinationals, relative labour costs have lowered significantly in the last year and a half. Therefore there is significant buffer to increase wages without too much harm on their bottom line. They have already had a significant cost saving since the vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're muddling things up again. How can labour costs drop if inflation is happening.

In simpler terms, how can something cost less (labour costs) if everything costs more?

Leonard Hofstadter

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're muddling things up again. How can labour costs drop if inflation is happening.

In simpler terms, how can something cost less (labour costs) if everything costs more?

If you're a multinational and your headquarters are outside the UK then the drop in the value of sterling will more than compensate for say a 3% wage increase. So, in terms of another currency, the cost of labour in the UK is lower than it is before the referendum.

But of course most multinationals have complex supply chains which criss cross many EU countries so in sterling terms the cost of importing has skyrocketed since the referendum because of the same fall in the value of the pound so yes overall there probably isn't much of a difference or it's probably a bit dearer (hence why the latest figures show that exports to non EU countries are down despite the decrease in the value of sterling) unless you're sourcing pretty much everything from the UK - but even then if those suppliers have to source things from Eurozone countries then their costs will have risen, too.

steddyeddy

captainspeed wrote: »

If you're a multinational and your headquarters are outside the UK then the drop in the value of sterling will more than compensate for say a 3% wage increase. So, in terms of another currency, the cost of labour in the UK is lower than it is before the referendum.

But of course most multinationals have complex supply chains which criss cross many EU countries so in sterling terms the cost of importing has skyrocketed since the referendum because of the same fall in the value of the pound so yes overall there probably isn't much of a difference or it's probably a bit dearer (hence why the latest figures show that exports to non EU countries are down despite the decrease in the value of sterling) unless you're sourcing pretty much everything from the UK - but even then if those suppliers have to source things from Eurozone countries then their costs will have risen, too.

Yes there might be a momentary drop in cost as Sterling is devalued, but that's offset by the increased cost of importing and the increase in prices for domestic products.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

captainspeed wrote: »

If you're a multinational and your headquarters are outside the UK then the drop in the value of sterling will more than compensate for say a 3% wage increase. So, in terms of another currency, the cost of labour in the UK is lower than it is before the referendum.

But of course most multinationals have complex supply chains which criss cross many EU countries so in sterling terms the cost of importing has skyrocketed since the referendum because of the same fall in the value of the pound so yes overall there probably isn't much of a difference or it's probably a bit dearer (hence why the latest figures show that exports to non EU countries are down despite the decrease in the value of sterling) unless you're sourcing pretty much everything from the UK - but even then if those suppliers have to source things from Eurozone countries then their costs will have risen, too.

Thank you for explaining this so well. Currency risk isn't just something that impacts FX traders on Wall Street or in the City, it's something that has an impact on all of our lives.

There's definitely an impact on costs for businesses, but it depends on the type of businesses. I suspect that most multinationals have reserves in other currencies or could bill a subsidiary in another country in order to offset currency risks. (I suspect the more savvy in terms of finance would have been making good use of things like currency options in the aftermath of the referendum to insulate some of this risk also).

The point is that given the sharp decline of sterling, there is scope for wage increases without all that much impact on the bottom line of the business. The logical consequence of inflation is an increase in wages at the end of it.

There is no reason why the cost of employment shouldn't rise as a result of inflation in the wider economy. Companies may choose to absorb this or pass it on in prices thus producing more inflation and thus producing the same cycle again.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes there might be a momentary drop in cost as Sterling is devalued, but that's offset by the increased cost of importing and the increase in prices for domestic products.

I don't think it is fully. See what I've said about about multinationals in particular.
EDIT: In a mundane example, at our firm the decrease in Sterling was beneficial as we were able to get more funding for our Christmas party as budgets were expressed in another currency!

It's worth re-emphasising that not all expenditure is subject to this inflation. Loans issued in sterling are not subject to inflation provided they are at a fixed amount with a fixed rate of interest. This is why I made the comment about fixed term mortgages earlier.

It's certainly true that energy prices (unless you agreed a fixed term tariff prior to the referendum, there is good competition in the UK energy market too if you use the right tools), water rates, and food, and other forms of expenditure increase. I suspect commuters will start noticing their season tickets get hiked in January also.

There's no point stating that inflation isn't going to have an impact, but the logical end of this is that wages will rise or recruitment will be a lot harder.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-manifesto-lest-theresa-may-immigration-foreign-spouses-threshold-a7742791.html

Also the Home office blocked 9 studies which disputed the effect of immigration on wages. Also the leaked document on post-Brexit immigration strategy.

The Tories have essentially replaced UKIP as an anti-immigration, fairy tail economics and Brexit party. I mean they're in league with the DUP, a anti-Catholic, anti-ethnic (as Sammy Wilson put it) and loyalist party.

You don't seem to see the connections with Tories and anti-immigration, but you seem to equate Labour with UKIP. Do you really think that Labour's policies on immigration are closer to UKIP than the Torie's are? Which party caused Brexit?

that's nice and all, but what does any of that have to do with nurses pay?

You seem to have a talent for making one plus one equal anything you want as long as you can blame the Torres.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Exactly. You also have to bear in mind that Sterling inflation only has an impact on certain types of expenditure also. Mainly products and services that have a dependency on purchases in other currencies somewhere in the supply chain.

So basically everything thing? Where do you think the majority of the UK's energy comes from?

ThisRegard

Sunday Express today telling it like it is

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/906635566871187456

listermint

As stated already I don't see where companies are going to start increasing wages there is too much uncertainty.

https://www.ft.com/content/d16bb47c-93ba-11e7-bdfa-eda243196c2c

“The rising upfront cost of doing business in the UK, the uncertainty around Brexit, and the constraints created by skills gaps and shoddy infrastructure collectively outweigh any benefit arising from the recent depreciation of sterling,” said Adam Marshall, director-general of the British Chamber of Commerce . “A cheaper currency does not automatically mean an export boom, no matter how some politicians and commentators will it to happen.”

LeinsterDub

ThisRegard wrote: »

Sunday Express today telling it like it is

They don't seem to realise this isn't debate club at Oxford. There is no moderator. There is no judging panel. The EU could lose every debate and out of sheer pig headedness say we still aren't offering you a deal. It's about compromise not winning.

Leonard Hofstadter

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They don't seem to realise this isn't debate club at Oxford. There is no moderator. There is no judging panel. The EU could lose every debate and out of sheer pig headedness say we still aren't offering you a deal. It's about compromise not winning.

QFT. As I've said many times before, I want a good deal for the UK (it is also in Ireland's interest that there is one), and of course there are some things Britain has to offer the EU, it's not all one way traffic, but it's impossible to get that with the way the British Government is carrying on. The delusion is ridiculous and the electorate still believe that there is going to be a land of milk and honey.

They're doing everything they possibly can to NOT get a good deal for themselves.

I've gone from thinking 'ah sure it will be grand' to 'I hope they're only saying this stuff to win elections' to anger to despair, and at this stage, as much and all as I've enjoyed the nearly 5 years in the UK, and as much and all as I've got time for most Brits, I honestly think the best thing for me (and any other immigrant there) to do now is get out and go home; those of us who follow these things can see the train wreck that is coming and it's best to get out while there are still lifeboats on the sinking ship that is Brexit rather than leaving it too late.

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They don't seem to realise this isn't debate club at Oxford. There is no moderator. There is no judging panel. The EU could lose every debate and out of sheer pig headedness say we still aren't offering you a deal. It's about compromise not winning.

I actually went and read through the article and it's yet another setup piece for the Brexit payment basically.

It starts as usual with explaining how brilliant all the UK negotiators really are and how EU servants are in awe of them before spending 3/4 of the article talking about how UK will not pay the 90 billion requested. The fact EU has not even given a number and want to discuss calculation methods is not relevant of course and now somehow the 90 billion is suddenly a "fact". Instead the main Tory politicians get to all stand in line and state how that is unacceptable and will never be paid no matter what; 90 billion is far to much. It's all to set the tone of how brilliant UK got the bill down from 90 billion to what ever end number (except the 90 billion number never existed outside the UK papers imagination) so they can feel national pride and accept it when voted through parliament. So standard outright lying on behalf of Brexit to sell in the end result; exactly what you should expect from them seeing who owns it.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Pressure, yes. But it won't magically produce either the cash or the willingness from employers to raise wages.

It could also be yet another reason for increasing or establishing facilities within the EU.... There seems to be an assumption on the BREXIT side the firms are captive to the U.K. They are not.

Water John

Express readers live in an alternate, parallel universe.

The Rape of Lucretia

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They don't seem to realise this isn't debate club at Oxford. There is no moderator. There is no judging panel. The EU could lose every debate and out of sheer pig headedness say we still aren't offering you a deal. It's about compromise not winning.

Surely it is about winning - the EU must abslutely ensure that the UK is worse off post Brexit (as they should be since they are resigning their benefits of being in the club, but also, pour encourager les autres), and that the damage to the EU is slight enough for EUans to not notice it.
The UK is trying to negotiate a position where it is better off outside EU.

The two outcomes are incompatible. The EU has the upper hand fundamentally, and seems to be playing their hand better. And so will likely, indeed, win.

Most of the UK will understand that leaving itself is losing, and not getting the EU to pay the bill is to be expected. Some will portray it as the EU 'punishing' the UK - but their opinion is worthless.

flutered

got a family member with a fancy job in the city, the oh is looking for an irish passport, also the kids are in the process of gettin one

joeysoap

I drive a fair bit in NI, and because of the fall in sterling I think NI petrol prices are now lower then ours, which wasn't the case a year ago. Saw pumps today at £118.8.

Also I notice some UK suppliers are reducing the size of their products in order to keep the price the same as before. Are we, in Ireland the losers as they still charge the same price now for less product?

Puzzled.

Water John

If sterling falls against the dollar, it drives up oil prices. If the euro travels the same path, it will drive up oil prices. Oil traded in dollars.

joeysoap

flutered wrote: »

got a family member with a fancy job in the city, the oh is looking for an irish passport, also the kids are in the process of gettin one

I understand UK nationals reasons for applying for Irish passports,

I don't understand our reason for issuing them.

If half the UK carry EU passports why would they bother wanting to remain?

Gerry T

The actions of multinationals within the UK is complicated, their overriding goal is to satisfy shareholders and secondly market opinions of their business.
For a US company the weakening Stg causes a problem. Revenues have fallen 10% due to currency exchange and could fall by a further 5 to 10% if Stg continues to weaken as I think it will.
Turnover and profitability are two key metrics for multinationals, as turnover is having an artifical fall due to currency exchange these multinationals will guard against any profit erosion.
There are threats in supply chain if material outside the UK is required, and threats in Sales where EU customers source alternative suppliers due to a potential future cost increase through tariff or duty charge post brexit.
This leaves a large piece of the equation, these multinationals will aggressively fight wage inflation to quench any further threat of erosion to their profitability. Ironically brexit will feed into these multinational companies hands by removing employee protection that people have under EU law, my opinion is the UK will no maintain current levels of protection to employees.
There will be a demand in labour post brexit and the solution will be the UK will let people in to satisfy that need. So people will move to the UK from Europe and further afield. I don't see wage inflation due to a supply/demand imbalance, I do see a rise in cost of goods as the pound weakens, the average "man" in the UK IMHO will be far worse of in 5 yrs post brexit.
With time 10 to 20 yrs the UK might bounce back to being a super power. But then so might Poland, neither is really likely.

The Rape of Lucretia

joeysoap wrote: »

I drive a fair bit in NI, and because of the fall in sterling I think NI petrol prices are now lower then ours, which wasn't the case a year ago. Saw pumps today at £118.8.

Also I notice some UK suppliers are reducing the size of their products in order to keep the price the same as before. Are we, in Ireland the losers as they still charge the same price now for less product?

Puzzled.

Its only a short term thing until their inflation picks up the currency fall. But definitely great value to be had shopping in the north at the moment, particularly for items that dont change as quickly as petrol. Clothing in the likes of M&S for example is truly 15%ish cheaper than down here at the moment.