Brexit consequences

[Spinflight]

Can't find the old one, despite a search. Hence a year on...

I started it to compare the doom and gloom predictions from people who should know better, especially the treasury, to actual observable facts.

Thus far the treasury predicted our borrowing costs would soar by over 130 points. In fact they're down about 100.

No trade deals possible before (I forget the date they said, was far in the future though) compared to actual negotiations beginning with the USA later this month with the president firmly behind them. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, South Korea and several others I've forgotten have shown a great desire for a deal quickly.

Ftse 100 and 250 are well up, just shy of 7500.

Best of all from a macro economic perspective is inflation touching 3%. When you are £1800 billion in debt rating that away with inflation is far preferable to actually paying it off.

Growth has dropped a bit, though nowhere near the instant recession that was predicted. Bit early to say though this is likely due to the referendum.

External investment is actually nicely up, with several major companies announcing various large commitments.

Things could be rosier, though it would be a struggle to describe them generally as bad, quite contrary to 'informed' opinions. Even the oecd recently ate their pre referendum words.

The countries with very high regulation regarding labour etc... are also the ones that fare the best when there is a crisis. They have handled the last crisis much much better than the uk BECAUSE these tight regulations meant they couldn't just made people redundant and favour shareholders vs employees.
There are the same countries where the redistribution of wealth is better than the uk, where since the crisis and the Tories, we've seen a stagnation and/or reduction of wagesnin real turn whilst the wealth of the country was still going up. So in effect what we have seen is a crisis where most of the population did loose out but the wealthiest people put even more money in their bank account. Nice isn't it?

The bottom line is that full on capitalism (which really is about ensuring that the top 1% of the population is getting richer and richer) doesntnwork for the population. It doesn't bring the increase in wealth that we were told would happen.
Whereas more protective system allow for some protection for the workers. It allows to protect the environment (wo which we will just NOT be able to live). It protects the weaker members of the society (e.g. Newborn babies who are born with serious ill health. Or disabled people etc etc).
Something we haven't seen in the uk for the last 7years since 30.000 people who died because of the changes in benefits system an dthe NHS. See also the fact that life expectancy has stopped increasing, unlike other European countries.

So yes less regulation means more profit for the people who have the money. And maybe some of the people who do earn good money. For the others, the experience in the uk is showing that it is all negative I'm afraid. And that's WITH the protection of thenEU. I'm not sure I was to think how it will be wo it.

Well, you've not answered many of my questions but:

I don't think we should pay £100 billion. I think we should pay something. It is a negotiation, and £100 billion is the EU's starting point. What we actually pay will depend on Davis' skills as a master negotiator. Hopefully, he and the rest of the Brexit team can conduct themselves in a mature manner fitting of someone representing Britain. Stupid comments coming out from the Brexit team about "whistling" are not going to improve our chances of a good deal whatsoever. They may, however, make Johnson etc look tough to some members of the electorate which is in my opinion the real reason for some of the needlessly antagonistic language coming from the UK team - its individual ambition before the long term good of the UK.

Good points MyPepper, and it also makes sense for countries within a trading block like the EU to have some minimum standards in common on regulations and rights. It helps to prevent the different countries involved undercutting each other in a race to the bottom, imo.

Mypepper, you do realise that the vast majority of what you say, ONLY thrived because of EU policy? We are where we are regards wealth inequality, because of EU policy, not despite it. Using a term Thea correctly uses regularly, the EU is a ponzi scheme. She is absolutely correct. You pay the 20% vat, on absolutely everything, and they get to send Anabelle on an erasmus scheme, buy a few des res properties in various european locations, staff their businesses with an endless supply of low skilled cheap labour, use zero hours contracts to guarantee that endless supply of low skilled labour etc etc etc You know, EU employment law now backs the likes of Michael Oleary forcing a Pilot who lives in Dublin to move to Lithuania with no compensation whatsoever and on lower pay. If he refuses hes legally sacked.

It is an utter fallacy, that today, you have some overarching 'protection' from the EU. If you want to watch this in action, in real time, watch Macron and France over the next 2 years. Hes about to attempt to slaughter the french (already low paid) working masses at the altar of the bankers bonuses. Why? Because the 'socialism' you appear to confuse for EU 'policy' is an anathema to them.

Its basically been an assett stripping exercise, the only future for the EU model being further expansion to asset strip new members.

"Pathetically offering voters a non-existent ‘Soft’ Brexit rather than STAND on de-railing the Brexit, process, UK opposition excuses for national ‘leaders-of-men’ who scurry around Brussels plotting against the government - and are even telling well read financial/business media that ‘Brexit CAN BE STOPPED’, are representing the EU, not this country."

This with knobs on. Absolutely.

"thea we have contractual obligations to the EU, of course we have to pay."

Name one? And when youve identified one for us, can you let Brussels know as theyre actually struggling with this.

"You pay the 20% vat, on absolutely everything"
Do you?
I don't.
"Why? Because the 'socialism' you appear to confuse for EU 'policy' is an anathema to them"

I absolutely agree that confusing the EU with socialism is a mistake, but I don't think MyPepper was doing this in her post.
As I've said before on this thread, Brexit sceptics come from across the political spectrum. We are not all socialists (although I am sure some are).

Ghost

You say the following;

”Thea the UK is currently worst performing economy in Eurozone and has slowest growth of G7 countries. I'd worry about that over unemployment figures in Europe”

Are you aware that that the European Central bank for three years now, has been pumping ‘emergency’ liquidity INTO the Eurozone mainly via three years of asset purchases (member country bond buy backs), negative interest rates and cheap loans – when the Uk’s similar bond buying or Quantitative Easing was last used around 2012, I think around the time Italy was going into its 3rd recession – when we just had the huge GDP slump/recession 2008/2009.

If Eurozone growth can only come from central bank printing a few trillion of Euros, and giving away cheap loans, I would not be bragging about that rather pathetic government bought growth, I’d be pooping myself what will have when the European Central Bank has to REVERSE the process still going on, taking trillions of cash OUT of the system.

Ghost

You say the following;

”Some appalling employment practices have been exposed in this country in recent years. Food bank use has rocketed since 2010. The Tories have continually pushed back their target for clearing the deficit.”

Re UK Food Banks, rocketing from 2010, could that possibly be the result of the 2008/9 economic recession in the UK on some other party’s watch, losing over 5% of GDP (only got back a few years ago) which was more than most EU countries, and hundreds of thousands of non protected Private Sector jobs – and for some reason, Food Banks weren’t mentioned/advertised so much at unemployment centres under the last government.

But again, lets compare that with the ‘land of milk and honey’ Eurozone and similar sized economies:

In Italy, 15 million people out of a population of 60 million now live in some form of deprivation, including over 8 million in a condition of serious economic hardship. In France, millions of long-term unemployed and young people especially those without qualifications face little prospect of employment.

As to the Conservatives ‘pushing back the clearing of deficit’ they inherited about 3 x the size of socialist France in 2010, well that was mainly as taking a few million out of taxes, boosting employment by 3 million helping companies etc slowed the deficit reduction down – and do you see socialist parties complaining, who have opposed every deficit spending cut to date, who only mention it when pathetically politicking?

Where did you think all our employment opportunities came from, the previous government sitting clueless with their thumbs-up-bums, singing 'Things can only get better'?

I am confused. Are the socialists within the EU fucking it all up, or is socialism an anathema to the EU?

QuentinSummers

"thea we have contractual obligations to the EU, of course we have to pay." and "I'm embarrassed of how badly the UK is behaving."

Why be embarrassed for a UK who acknowledges that we have commitments to the EU that we will have to pay for, and then there will be assets that we will be able to deduct.

Barnier a few weeks ago was at a press conference I saw, and a reporter asked him for the breakdown of this Euro 60-100 billion bill we are apparently in the frame for, and he said 'he hadn't seen one'.

So what is the basis for this huge sum of money we can better spend at home?

So far from being embarrassed at the UK's position, why are you not spitting out rage at an EU obviously trying to take the piss out of us?

i am hearing France is particularly in the 'damage the UK' camp, via their attempts to get the City and other companies over there, plus stiffing us for extortionate amounts f money - even mentioning a refund from the EU 'Thatcher Rebate' she negotiated around 1984 - that in todays money would be well over £100 billion apparently.

Whatever, people who support the blind paying the EU of of a huge and non itemised bill, are neither being UK tax payer fair, or even 'British'.

Squishy

Maybe look at this in a less labelled way, in your opinion, are the Social Chapter and other tight anti business labour laws holding back Eurozone employment, and if not, what is?

7 years of failed austerity has contributed to the rise in food banks.

Yep, austerity has failed big time.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-government-fails-to-deliver-savings-disability-living-allowance-personal-independent-payments-a7712476.html

Leaving the EU will make British people poorer. Since the referendum people are worse off due to the collapse of the pound.

Those championing Brexit, the likes of Rees-Mogg and Farage will not come to the rescue of the poor and marginalised.

Capitalism breeds inequality in every country, which is why we have disparity in wealth whether it is the UK or Italy. Brexit puts Brits at the mercy of a small band of elites who will prosper whilst the majority suffer. How ironic.

anti business labour laws

You mean laws that protect workers? Who is Brexit for the benefit of again?

Ghost

"You mean laws that protect workers? Who is Brexit for the benefit of again?"

I'll reiterate who these labour laws obviously benefits again;

"The EMPLOYMENT priority is to defend the already protected at the expense of the rising number of excluded".

Hmmm.. I got that wrong, as didn't see 'Brexit', I meant the EU protected.

Europe's inability to create jobs for existing member nations citizens, and new members to come, is why 'Free Movement of Workers' within the Single Market - was not working for UK workers - as what were the figures in the decade to 2010, between 85 to 90 odd % of those gaining employment here, were not born in this country.

Now I'm the first to say that there are other domestic reasons why UK workers may not have gained work vs new citizens from the EU and beyond, but the negative consequences on jobs, homes, services - is why they voted to leave.

Bonfire of regulations, we can all be poorer and have less rights together. True equality.

Thea, unemployment in the UK is relatively low. After brexit there will be staff shortages in some sectors;

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40354331

Housing problems are a mix of high prices, buy to letters, a poor rental sector and lack of social housing. A toxic legacy for Thatcher's home owning democracy.

Ghost

"7 years of failed austerity has contributed to the rise in food banks."

In 2001 the UK government was spending over £400 billion a year that had been the 'norm' for years, then by 2007/8 over £618 billion a year – mainly supported by the tax proceeds of increased bank lending, more taxes and speculation – and went that financial bubble burst, with the effects of the recession, all of a sudden in 2010 the UK was spending over £153 billion more than we earned as a country.

So if a fool of a socialist government has hiked government spending including benefits/welfare by 25% (more than anywhere else in Europe) and built up other huge State ‘fixed’ commitments on extra government borrowing, extra taxes on the masses and the tax proceeds of speculation – and those taxes disappear as fast as they arrived, but the extra taxes and fixed costs remain – so I would firstly disagree with your opening argument, as cutting back to earlier government spending levels due to reckless incompetence, is NOT called ‘austerity’,

In seven years while paying down £153 Labour budget deficit to the current £47 billion, while investing in infrastructure, giving tax cuts to companies and citizens, creating over 3 million jobs, and getting the finances/waste of virtually every government department under control that were not fit for purpose in 2010 - is not a FAILURE in the real world.

What do the Italians have in the way of Food Banks, or do they starve?

P.S. The UK already pays £48 billion a year out of annual budgets servicing government bond borrowing funding our debts, that really could be better spent across departments - how much more interest does the non getting finances in order camp want to waste GROWING back their fat State?

Capitalism Thea and in this country neo liberalism have created the problems you speak of. In the 80's deregulation, globalisation, the sell off on public assets, 3.5 milllion on the dole, 15% interest rates. In the 1990's another house price crash.

The brexiteers claim to hate capitalism because of globalisation and the banks, yet they hate socialism too. So what is brexit to be if not one or the other? And has anybody told the free market, globalisation loving Tories what the plan is?

Brexiteers claim to be concerned about the plight of poor, unemployed europeans but at the same time hope to strike trade deals with poor countries outside the EU.

tbf, Ghost there are a range of different political opinions among the Brexiteers. Some "Lexiteers" claim it was all about the plight of the poor, others claim that we had to leave so we could free ourselves from "red tape", and "anti business labour laws" and slash taxes. What I don't understand, is why there isn't more discussion between leavers about what brexit really means. Because it is clear to me that they do not share the same vision of Brexit, yet each is convinced that their vision is the one that will be realised.

Thea
It is hard to move away from labels, when you keep applying them (wrongly, imo) to everything and everyone.

I think there is a balance to be struck between encouraging business, and protecting the rights of workers. I am not a socialist, no matter what you might think, but I do not agree with unregulated capitalism either. This is because I believe that without protections and regulations in place, too much power rests with businesses and the wealthy, and not enough with employees and the poor. With nothing to redress this imbalance, money attracts power and power attracts money, so the gaps widen and inequality gets worse. Its a positive feedback loop.

With respect to the defecit, I agree that it needs to be reduced and even agree, to some extent, that SOME level of austerity should have been imposed. However, I completely disagree with the extent of austerity. It would have been more prudent to cut the deficit more slowly, over a longer period of time. Yes, this means more total interest is paid, but it lessens the shock to the economy, and would enable our public services to keep functioning.

Trying to cut too hard, too fast is self defeating:
-The long term costs of some of the spending cuts will be higher than the money saved in the short term.
-False economies occur when cost cutting in one department cause expensive problems to pop up in another.
-Strains upon public services are absorbed, for a while by staff working unsustainably long hours for free, before things eventually tip into "unexpected" crisis.
-Essential workers remain untrained, skills remain undeveloped, buildings remain un-maintained, and people quit.
-Expensive locums and agency staff etc are brought in to ease staffing crises which could be averted if wages were high enough to attract and retain staff.

The Conservatives have gone way beyond cutting the fat, and are hacking into muscle and bone.

Can you explain about the cuts please.

Our debt is growning according to most. so we don't have the money to pay for things, so the only thing we can do is make cuts. Or do we just keep it all the same and keep borrowing more and more to pay for things?

We are having to pay for schooling and hospitals and all the other things for people who are not from the UK, but have come to the UK, so the money we do have to use is used for more people at less per head, So just how do you solve this?

Also more paperwork needed equals less doers and more reporters....

mummmy, before we start reducing the debt we have to reduce the deficit. I think I have explained in my above post why attempting to reduce the deficit too fast will be counter productive. Remember, it is not just affected by the money going out, but also by the money coming in. Imagine that, hypothetically we reduced our deficit to £0 next year by stopping spending on almost everything (welfare, pensions, NHS, schools, the military, councils, police, infrastructure, business stimulus, prisons, the judicial system, the civil service, promoting the UK internationally, and government itself). This would not just be shit for close to absolutely everyone, it would completely stall the economy, and the following year we would have even less to spend, as hardly any tax would be coming in. So how do we repay the debt then?

I am not quibbling about the necessity of cutting the deficit, I am disagreeing with the way it is being done, and I think it is too short-termist.

Often, when talking about the deficit and austerity comparisons are made to how we would manage the budget of an individual household. This comparison is deeply problematic on many levels, but even if were to accept it I would explore the analogy like this: You work full time, but you have more money going out than coming in and you need to reduce your debt. Obviously, you will cut back on your spending, so no holidays, no take-aways, maybe look into selling your house and buying a flat etc. But you wouldn't stop paying for your bus pass, if you need it to get to work. You wouldn't remove your children from nursery, if this meant you were unable to work. How can you start paying back your debts if you have no job? If your roof started leaking, you wouldn't not pay to have it fixed for £600, if neglecting it would allow thousands of pounds worth of damage to your largest asset.

"We are having to pay for schooling and hospitals and all the other things for people who are not from the UK, but have come to the UK.."

Most of these people are paying tax into the system too (and boosting the economy in other ways), or (in the case of those in schools) will be paying tax into the system when you and I have retired.