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.

TheaSaurass ...as I say re the EU, businesses can compete DESPITE a government, not BECAUSE of a government.

You firmly believe that access to a huge market has been detrimental to British business. Why?

If it is possible for business to thrive despite the EU, then why Brexit?

Surely it should have been possible to thumb a nose and forge ahead, taking advantage of the nice big market next door, regardless of government?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/12/uk-gdp-research-and-development-innovation-productivity
Why not increase the NI charge to companies? How else are vital services to be provided? By raiding offshore tax havens?
UK business is not investing in R&D.

What is the future of British pharma in a post-Brexit world?

What is the future of the marriage of academia and business in a post Brexit Britain where forriners with PhDs are not really sure of their welcome?

Meanwhile, American companies that must fund health insurance for their employees, and provide other elements of remuneration packages in order to be competitive in the recruitment area like 401K and other plans, invest much more.
www.aip.org/fyi/2016/us-rd-spending-all-time-high-federal-share-reaches-record-low
According to new estimates from the National Science Foundation’s National Center for Science and Engineering, total spending on R&D reached $499 billion last year, buoyed by record levels of business spending. If confirmed, this will represent the largest amount the U.S. or any nation has ever spent on R&D in a single year. It is one of a number of indicators that the U.S. remains the international leader in science and technology even as China poses a challenge to U.S. dominance in the field.

Of total U.S. R&D in 2015, businesses funded $355 billion, or 69 percent, continuing a long-term trend of private enterprise financing an increasingly large majority of R&D nationwide. The federal government, the second-largest funder of U.S. R&D, sponsored an estimated $113 billion, or 23 percent of the total.

Project fear?

www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-4720736/Recession-looming-households-feel-heat.html

Everyone in Brussels is still giddy over the EU blue eyed boy Macron, he is absolutely 1000% behind TTIP.

Along with his proposed cuts of 120,000 civil servants a move that should be a good thing with the multiple tiers of local governance bureucracy in France, but as we know the reality being its the bloke on the bottom rung of the ladder, the grass verge cutter, who will go.

Hes committed to cut public spending by €60bn. While promising more deregulation of the labour market, he will cut corporation tax from 33 per cent to 25 per cent and actively promotes trade deals like TTIP and Ceta.

This is the EUs blue eyed boy. A child of the EU globalist corporate dream, educated through the elite system, who then cut his teeth in banking, before joining senior civil service. Hes never been elected to anything ever before in his life. Its all very giddy, and despite what the world is telling you, hes a massive risk to Europe.
Glossing over the Head of the French Armed Forces resigning this week is a huge mistake. This was a massive statement. The MSM wish to paint it as some small spat between 'egos', I can assure you, the Head of the French Army, doesnt act out of personal 'ego'. With Marine Le Pen pulling more votes in France than the Tories did here in the UK, nothing has gone away. Nothing has been 'fixed'. The EU is still a highly flammable tinder box, and Macron in his blind desire to believe Brussels as the 'one true way', has foolishly ignored what the Brexit vote should have told him.

"What is the future of British pharma in a post-Brexit world? "

Math, heres Forbes. The impact will be negligible.

www.forbes.com/global2000/list/#tab:overall

"Surely going to be an ope ended business alternative issue with the likes of France and Italy for years to come."

Theyre going broader than that Thea, e-residency anyone?

Thea, I'll assume you are being deliberately obtuse. The fact that you've worked out how to underline words makes me think you're probably not the complete imbecile you comment would otherwise suggest.

Mathanxiety

You quoted my ” as I say re the EU, businesses can compete DESPITE a government, not BECAUSE of a government.”

And then jumped to “You firmly believe that access to a huge market has been detrimental to British business. Why?”

Please keep my comment in context, I had just mentioned that from 1997 to 2010, the UK had seen Manufacturing as a share of our economy fall from 20-odd% to around 11% (when total manufacturing jobs fell from over 4 million to over 2 million), and more than half of that was BEFORE the 2008/9 UK recession, and so in theory at the height of the newly founded Eurozone.

So I was stating, that whether looking at the business negative UK governments policies at the time, or being members of the EU – it did a fat lot of good to those businesses/jobs that went boobs up - and so businesses survive despite governmance

And so businesses needing to concentrate on paying for R&D, their markets, and the conditions of their market place, often have the headwinds OF governance, where tax policies here, or restrictive labour laws in the EU that rarely mean they can take a chance on hiring, because if business does not pick up, or even slumps, they cannot shed staff without a length process – as evidenced by their unemployment rates over twice ours, and half their youth that is employed, on Temp contracts, a problem that GREW from the early 2000s.

Of course access for UK companies to the EU (whose member states individually are just as ‘huge’ as the EU sum) has been good, but how mainland Europe complacent did that make the UK, how much better would it have been if excluding Germany, STRONGER Eurozone growth and employment, would have created more demand for our products?

As to ‘Why Brexit’; why on earth would you think that ‘the people’ that voted for Brexit had business in mind when voting?

The majority would have voted to Leave because they believed for them, in the UK and their everyday lives, our EU membership was not working for THEM – and when their concerns fell on Brussels fat bureaucratic ears, when pre Referendum Cameron asked for at least some break in the ‘Free movement of people’ rules, and they declined as they can't mess with the rules – they realised that Brussels didn’t give a flying feck about them, all they cared about was the federal POLITICAL ‘project’ and so sacrifices had to be made.

Europe is only growing now as a few Trillion Euros have been pumped in, with negative interest loans, with more to come until a decade after the financial crash began, Europe can grow without the 'emergency money' we stopped drawing on in 2012, when Europe was slumping, and Italy going into its THIRD recession since 2007.

Why, if Europe only needs to be 'a big market' for prosperity?

CarolinesBeanies -
Not sure exactly what link you thought you were bringing to my attention, but that one is a list of the world's biggest public companies.

How will British pharma go about hiring foreign talent when Theresa May's foreigner-free England gets up and running?

TheaSaurass -
And yet many other European economies did very well at the same time that Britain's was going down the toilet. Germany forged ahead...
How weird. They must have benefited from both government policies and membership of the EU. Or maybe businesses elsewhere are simply better run.

As to how difficult it is to shed workers elsewhere and the impact of that on business - do you welcome a climate in the UK where no employment security exists and where businesses will be able to increase productivity by lowering wages, increasing hours and worsening conditions for employees?

Do you ever read accounts of zero hours contracts in the UK?

Is English your first language?
It is really difficult to understand what you are attempting to say.
What is 'governmance'?

‘Governmance’ definition; An infatuation between two cabinet ministers, silly.

mathsanxiety

Getting shitty because you don’t like someones answer, is not ‘British’, and yes English is my first language, and my knowledge of UK Zero Hours Contracts is that they started in the late 1990’s, there seems no record (I could find) of the numbers of UK citizens on them before May 2010, but funny old world, it became a big ‘social’ issue from June 2010.

I also know that of the estimated 900,000 plus UK Zero Hour contracts out there, some citizens are on more than one, and since ‘exclusivity’ tying a worker to one company was reformed by this government, and the fact that MANY UK citizens on various levels of pay WANT the flexibility of Zero Hours – not the fat hand of goverment. ideologically cancelling them’

Now compare UK Zero Hours, with a Eurozone trending growth for Temp employment over the SAME time period;

”The New World of Work: recovery driven by rise in temp jobs”
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2171222-31e4-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html

”They call it the “precariat”. In a continent known for strong employee protections, more than half of the eurozone’s young workers are in temporary jobs, churning from one short lived contract to the next.”

”In France, permanent jobs account for just 16 per cent of new contracts, down from a quarter in 2000. In Spain, almost seven in 10 young workers are on temporary contracts. The share of the eurozone’s 15 to 24-year-old workers who are temps is the highest on record, at 52.4 per cent.”

”A deep fracture has emerged in Spain, France, Italy and Portugal over the past 20 years, with an older generation of highly protected permanent employees on one side and a younger generation forced to settle for insecure jobs on the other. That is one reason why youth unemployment surged when the crisis hit.”

“The rules for open-ended contracts in Europe are considered too stringent by employers and they sidestep those regulations by creating non-regular jobs,”

Discuss.

^"And yet many other European economies did very well at the same time that Britain's was going down the toilet. Germany forged ahead...
How weird. They must have benefited from both government policies and membership of the EU. Or maybe businesses elsewhere are simply better run."^

Bank lending is key to bringing a country powering out of any economic recession, especially one that started via a financial recession.

So we are agreed Europe did better than us in those early years, because they didn’t have a numpty of a government through banking deregulation, encouraging a bank lending splurge from the late 1990s, and so screwing up some bank balance sheets so much, the UK government (and no one else in Europe I saw) had to part nationalise them in 2008, so it didn’t bring down our whole banking system.

I am not getting shitty. Your written English is hard to follow. It's difficult to figure out what your subjects and objects are. You string together a series of clauses with no subject.

You boast of UK employment figures as if they are composed of different types of employment relationships from those in Spain or France. Why do you think they are fine and dandy in the UK and a terrible thing in France and Spain?

When several people have commented on your "word soup", maybe instead of telling them they're being shitty, you should take a look at your writing style, or check your prose before posting it. It can be impossible to understand some of your paragraphs.

Anyway, IMF downgrades UK growth forecast...

"Bank lending is key to bringing a country powering out of any economic recession, especially one that started via a financial recession."

Ergo austerity (thanks Tories) was a mistake from the beginning...

Massive Bond Trading Venue chooses Amsterdam as it's European base

Deficit climbs as Government borrowing increases under a (whisper it) Tory government...

I have come to the conclusion that is not worthwhile to debate with zealots, but - as a factual contribution to the general debate - I would say that the big difference between a UK zero hours contract, and a French temporary contract, is that the latter confers quite significant employment rights including free or nearly free access to an employment tribunal in case of dispute, an absolute right to a fixed number of hours per week, a right to know when those hours will be worked, a right to refuse excessive overtime, a right to be laid off only in strictly controlled circumstances, and a right to a permanent contract if the employee is not formally notified of the end of the temporary term or its renewal, and paid a bonus of 10% of all salaries earned for the duration of the contract.

So comparing the UK precariat and the French precariat is not necessarily appropriate, because French temp contract workers enjoy rights that many permanent UK workers can only dream of. These rights are enforceable because everyone can access the employment tribunal process (although in practice if you have a good case and union support, sensible employers usually settle first).

It's certainly not ideal for so few young people to land permanent contracts, and the French pie is sliced in favour of 50 something workers esp in the public sector or with union muscle in much the same way as the UK pie is split in favour of pensioners and those with housing assets. Nevertheless, it remains the case that even temporary low-paid workers enjoy better employment protections in France than do many permanent employees in the UK.

I can't speak for the other countries mentioned because I am not personally familiar with the detail of employment rights there, but I think we can take it for granted that Thea is not either, and is just wordsalading about stuff from a position of non-expertise.

Mistigri

So many words…so little actually said about the employment number and short termism PROBLEMS within the Eurozone.

The EU “zealots” are those that ignore the many failings of the EU and say ‘we JUST have to remain members, not those saying looking at the facts, on balance the UK is better off out.

The problems with EU employment law is legendary, yet you keep lecturing me on what I DON’T know on doing business in the EU, strange or just tricksy?

As I write there are government bureaucrats in Germany, France and Italy, trying to work out how to accommodate a relatively small portion of the ‘hire and fire’ City investment banks employees, within their employment laws – I wonder how long it will be before other industries within those countries insist on the same government treatment – making the relatively small portion of the investment banks staff/revenue they gain, a not-before-time EU employment reform ‘Pandora’s Box’.

Read a new short Bloomberg article about the problems of employment in France, and what Macron has to change e.g. why so many French private sector companies have 49 employees, that many in the UK ASPIRE to, despite the French results and efforts to REFORM, before them.

“Macron’s Uphill Battle Against France’s labour Law(s)”

In short, In both Italy and France, the priority is to defend the already protected at the expense of the rising number of excluded – which both explains the high unemployment rates in those countries – and those earlier huge and rising Temp workers in the Eurozone, you and others either defend, or ridiculously compare them to our numbers on Zero Contracts.

CardinalSin

From your strange ‘one liners’ that mean very little ‘to the price of eggs’, I chose the following;

^"Bank lending is key to bringing a country powering out of any economic recession, especially one that started via a financial recession."”

Ergo austerity (thanks Tories) was a mistake from the beginning...

May I suggest you read others posts explaining ‘stuff’ before making such misinformed statements, as without the banks lending, it is up to the government to reflate the economy, and having massively increased the size of UK State SPENDING from 2001 to 2008/10, on the increased taxes on companies, citizens, and the proceeds of speculative debt, sand - the £153 billion 2010 annual budget deficit from a budget SURPLUS in 2001 - was the result of that bigger State incompetence.

Labour, or you it appears, never understood that by draining the businesses and citizens, all with much larger debt on their balance sheets, BEFORE the recession, meant they were not only in a bad shape, they needed government help – but the government with 65 million citizens did NOTHING for them – unless they worked FOR the government, or had increased benefits/welfare at an increased rate over a decade, unprecedented in the rest of Europe.

Socialist France had about a third of our annual budget deficit/overspend in 2010, which just shows how unbalanced we had become towards the State spending, and so had to be corrected asap, while boosting the businesses and other non government citizen workers with tax cuts, and State pension increases for pensioners, that Labour forgot.

so little actually said about the employment number and short termism PROBLEMS within the Eurozone

I could write a lot about employment issues in France, because (a) I'm an economist and (b) I actually live and work in France . But it would be off-topic and a waste of my time (I'm not being paid by the word for this).

The point I addressed was a specific one raised above about the "precariat"; my post was not about employment generally.

If you want to discuss employment more generally, then perhaps productivity would be a good place to start. Why is private sector productivity so much higher in big eurozone economies like France and Germany than in the UK. How will brexit help or harm productivity?

a budget SURPLUS in 2001

A surplus after four years of Labour government, hmm ... anyone would think that the Blair government knew how to run an economy.

I don't think you understand the difference between deficit and debt.

Math, "How will British pharma go about hiring foreign talent when Theresa May's foreigner-free England gets up and running?"

Because this is a/utter remainer "foreigner free" cock and bull and b/exactly as they always have done.

Deciding that removal of FOM makes all 'foreigners' banned from the UK is as ridiculous as squishys persistant, all trade will be illegal. All Uk citizens will be banned from the Eu etc etc etc. Its remainer rubbish.

Recruitment and placement of valued staff will run exactly as it always has and still does now. Guaranteed employment roles, hotel accomodation, housing assistance for relocation, bridging loans, assistance with childrens school relocation, etc etc etc. Everything 'valued' employees received for decades before, during, and after the EU ever exists.

What you and most of the remain fanatics try to conflate, is the FOM of the unemployed, the low skilled, the desperate. Norman Tebbit allegedly told the unemployed to get on their bikes, back in the 1980s. The EU told a continent to use their own shoe leather, pay for their own train fares and mass migrate to find work. In one fell swoop, the cost to business in securing a 'local' workforce, was paid for by the needy, not business.

The needy travel at their own expense, live 10 to a room, struggle with language and all for a promise of possibly minimum wage on a short hours contract. Its never ceased to amaze me that remainers have no issue whatsoever with eu migrants living under motorway underpasses, with no promise of work or home to live in.

British Pharma will be absolutely unaffected, and theyll be paying just as many housing bridging loans for 'valued' employees to globally relocate then, as they are now.

...."is as ridiculous as squishys persistant, all trade will be illegal."

Steady on there caroline! At no point have I said this, let alone persistently!
You can't accuse others of spreading untruths in the very same post that you make (very easy to disprove) stuff up. It weakens your whole argument.

Personally, I am not convinced that immigration will fall by all that much. Either highly skilled or the low skilled. Others may disagree with me, I know and only time will tell. In fact, the only way I can see NET migration falling by much post Brexit is in a worst case economic scenario, and that won't be because of the government "controlling" it, it will be because the UK becomes a much less attractive place to live and work. Migration from Britain would also have an impact on those figures, of course.
I hope that this won't happen.
The exchange rate will have some effect, but I suspect it will mainly affect seasonal/temporary workers rather than those who settle for longer.