...to remind people about today's march against Brexit

[twofingerstoEverything]

...starting at 12 o clock from Pall Mall.

(Piccadilly, Green Park and Charing Cross station are the nearest tubes.)

According to Business Insider, the Brexit vote is costing the Treasury £440 million a week, far more than the UK ever contributed to the EU budget.
uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-dividend-leave-vote-wipes-440-million-a-week-from-economy-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

So a brief summary of events since the Brexit bill went through just a few days ago:

1)Boris Johnson has been ‘overheard’ by 2 MEPs saying ‘f**k business’
2)Three Companies (German/French) have threatened to leave the U.K.
3)The EBA (European Banking Agency) says banking not ready
4)CER (Centre for European reform) is now telling us how much Brexit is costing and that this wouldn’t be the case if we remained. This from their website

The Centre for European Reform is an award winning independent think-tank devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European but not uncritical

I wonder what tomorrow will bring?

you just seem to be jumping to project fear the conclusion that will best support your desire to stop Brexit.

Say Daily Mail readers, Sheila and Derek, 68, from Braintree.

Why would you believe what business, higher education, civil service, bank of england, scientist have to say, when you've got Boris, Davis and Jacob Rees Mogg on your side? We're safe in their hands.

The EU are not bullies, they are simply applying the rules. Really?
I voted remain but the conduct of the leaders of the EU have made me reconsider.

That's a rather subjective interpretation time4chocolate. It may only be 3 businesses so far who've put their heads above the parapet, but they are three huge employers and investors in UK manufacturing. Airbus alone directly employs 14,000 people, with an additional 100,000 whose work depends on Airbus. They contribute £3.8bn a year to the UK economy. And there are other manufacturers who are still operating here, but have chosen not to launch new projects here, eg Land Rover are going to build their latest model in Slovakia.

Brexit is not about a huge, sudden shock to the economy (although if we go for the cliff-edge, it could be). It's about a gradual, irreversible decline. The economy hasn't collapsed, but it is barely growing, in contrast to the global and European economies. We were the fastest growing economy in the EU before the referendum, now we are the slowest.

City banks are not shutting up shop and moving overseas altogether, but they are quietly opening up European subsidiaries and reducing some operations here. The city will remain a financial centre, just with a smaller proportion of the work.

For the last decade or so, the UK has been increasingly reliant on inward investment to boost our GDP. That has already slowed. As a single nation, we have less to offer other countries in a trade deal than we do as part of the EU as we are a much smaller market. All we can offer is the opportunity to have fewer regulations, which will largely be a reduction in standards, which is why the only interest we've had is from the US agro-industry which has its chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef shut out of the EU market, or US private healthcare firms sniffing around the NHS.

The economic decline could mostly be halted if we stick within the EEA/customs union. Otherwise, the only way we can become competitive is to go for the Rees-Mogg dream of a low-regulation, Singapore style economy. And those regulations which will be eroded will be our workers' rights, food safety standards, environmental regulation etc. We are not rich in natural resources and we're too small to operate as a manufacturer outside of a regional production chain.

The EU are not bullies, they are simply applying the rules.

Exactly. The EU is a rules-based institution, which is why you can't cherry-pick parts of it. Everything is set out in treaties and regulations. Maybe it's difficult to understand from a British viewpoint as we have no written constitution.

Did anyone watch the documentary last night on the US embassy in the UK?

Very interesting views about brexit, well worth a watch.

What was the general view siwel?

Investment in the UK car industry has slumped by half:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44609003

General view was after conducting investigations the UK is fearful of getting a crap deal and therefore this is the perfect time for the US to get a favourable trade deal with the UK and cement the so called special relationship.

They did say they need to pressure the UK government to get a free skies agreement otherwise American wealth will be hit and they won't react nicely to losing billions of dollars.

What a pointless waste of time. If people felt so strongly they would have voted in

Sorry sporadic posting as am at work:

Childrenofthesun - I do take on board your points, I am not completely close minded on this whole thing (some may disagree). But there needs to be a balance in what is being reported for headlines and what the reality is. Banks are continuing to invest in the City with their building projects, I have always said I believe we will retain passporting (with some additional rules) because it’s not beneficial in either direction for it not too. Factories will continue here, they won’t be leaving lock stock and barrel. I would however expect companies, be it banks or factories or whatever to cover for either eventuality, they would be mad not too.

The EU is a rules-based institution, which is why you can't cherry-pick parts of it

But they do when it suits them, you just need to look how the EU have dealt with the Ireland/Apple digital tax rebate (changing the tax rule by the back door) or the appointment of Martin Selmayr.

The EU is a rules-based institution, which is why you can't cherry-pick parts of it
But they do when it suits them, you just need to look how the EU have dealt with the Ireland/Apple digital tax rebate (changing the tax rule by the back door) or the appointment of Martin Selmayr

Really? the EU referred this issue to the ECJ, they made the decisions.

Personally i believe we should all pay tax, failure to do so gives us an NHS that is towards the bottom of international league tables, this means less scanners and less Dr's/Nurses than any other industrialised country, with shitte outcomes for us all.
Apple makes shed loads of money and should nt be allowed to move it around in Europe to limit its tax liabilities, shows that the EU is more agile than some think.

Jasjas1973 - I fully agree with your first paragraph.

Yes, Apple make large profits to which probably most of us in some way have contributed too. As far as I am aware they haven’t moved their money around

Oops not sure how that happened

...... Europe. They took advantage of the beneficial tax arrangements in Ireland which are considerably lower than France and Germany whose rate is over 25%. Each country sets its rates and a country’s tax isn’t or shouldn’t be, in the jurisdiction of the EU/ECJ.
The EU does not have a direct role in raising taxes or setting tax rates. The amount of tax you pay is decided by your government, not the EU. The EU's role is to oversee national tax rules
Who benefits the most if all 27 countries were to have the same tax arrangements? Certainly not the smaller countries (in my view)

Which Countries have been more adversely affected by the immigration issue?

Another example, look at the Beef for Cars deal with Mercour, who benefits the most from that, certainly not Ireland.

It’s just stripping away from the smaller countries to gain for the bigger ones (in my view)

Also look out for the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base coming to a country near you (and hopefully not us).

Exactly. The EU is a rules-based institution

Oh please Merkel has run the EU for the past decade, until now when her power is crumbling and other leaders are saying NO to her. What did the EU do when Merkel abandoned the rules and invited millions of immigrants into the EU? Nothing.

Most countries in the world would say they follow a rules based system, it doesn't make it true.

What did the EU do when Merkel abandoned the rules and invited millions of immigrants into the EU? Nothing.

What rules are supposed to have
been broken? The EU cannot turn away asylum seekers as a matter of international law.

Would anyone really want to turn away refugees and return them to face war and starvation with their children? Is that a viable alternative way to deal with the refugee crisis?

What kind of nation wants turns away survivors seeking refuge? One to be proud of?

By Merkel’s own admission she vastly underestimated the numbers and it was completely ill thought out. If there is one single act likely to change the face of Europe for the worst and sow division between EU member countries then that is it.

What kind of nation wants turns away survivors seeking refuge? One to be proud of?

I can think of several now.

When I studied the Second World War as a dc I was struck by the desperate efforts of people to escape Europe and the adverts they placed in newspapers offering themselves as help so they could get sponsored and enter the UK. As a dc I couldn't understand why more wasn't done to help. As an adult I can see how the daily mail et al could easily set the tone about swarms of people exaggerating their trauma when we already have it so hard. It isn't very difficult to tap into a nation's basic fears.

If my history serves me correctly there was a massive humanitarian effort to help desperate people during WWII. The difference there being it was better planned and thought through. Provisions and homes were made available and it was reasonably well organised, all things considered, and it was a joint effort across large parts of Europe. This situation is the polar opposite. This was one person making an individual decision which has gone on to affect pretty much a whole continent. The idea was admirable but the application not.

We also turned away thousands of people that subsequently died in the gas chambers, time. This often gets forgotten in Britain’s WWII story.

The kindertransports saved an estimated 10000 children- only those under 17 were allowed to come of course - eventually 6 million Jews were sent to the gas chambers - 1.5 millionchildren.
Still, history is now being rewritten so that there were massive humanitarian efforts to help the Jewish people. Well planned and thought through?
I see.

Still considerably more planned than now.

So working on the assumption you have a greater historical knowledge than me and in light of the above stats you clearly didn’t think the Country did enough during WWII, can I ask how many Syrian refugees have you taken in? what humanitarian efforts are you doing to help the current situation?

While Mrs Merkel's plans over the last years may have been put into effect by the EU she cannot declare it to happen by herself. She put forward well reasoned arguments why they would be good actions to tale and ALL 27 VOTED to enact them.
She also did not 'invite' Millions into Europe. I think she will have said that Germany would look after those that arrived there. Again a bit of a mistake but at the time most did not know the real scale of the problem. Germany had recently been through reunification which was a massively expensive exercise but with that experience she knew that a fair number of immigrants can be integrated. IIRC the total was about a million and a half coming into Europe as a whole, so not 'Millions'.
Around 20 Million Russians died as a result of Stalin's policies in WW2. Many just froze to death.

tale should be take of course.