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 European Medicines Agency being in London is the reason why many pharmaceutical companies choose to locate their European headquarters in the UK.

It is highly unlikely that the UK can keep the medical authority. When the European Medicines Agency goes, the pharmaceutical companies will follow. The departure may not be overnight but the pharmaceutical industry in the UK will be in terminal decline.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to Thea, because it's obvious she doesn't understand a thing.

"foreigner free" is obviously not what is actually going to happen, but the fact that "foreigners" are being made unwelcome (and I've met more than a few myself, and have given references for others who have made their lives here but have found it difficult to prove what the government insists on for them to remain here) is beyond doubt and is already splitting families and making other families suffer from not knowing their families' futures.

And Abi enunciates far better than I the serious problem in the Pharma industry. Anyone denying that, unfortunately, is, frankly, telling lies.

And, of course, shrinkflation is a thing...

But, of course, that doesn't count because it wasn't forecast in "project fear", but merely a consequence of the Brexit vote.

I agree with a PP, in that it's like arguing with the very religious. They may be talking complete bollocks, but they have heard the word of Farage god and no amount of logic or reason is going to persuade them otherwise.

Carolinesbeanies -
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.

So what was Indian PM Narendra Modi's attitude towards UK immigration policy when Theresa May met him a while back?

What is the inclusion of foreign students in immigration quotas all about?
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/world/europe/uk-britain-india-theresa-may-narendra-modi.html
Mrs. May, under pressure at home to reduce immigration, has resisted calls to liberalize the visa system. The policy has had a chilling effect with student visas issued to Indians falling to 11,864 in 2015, from 68,238 in 2010, according to official figures.

In a move aimed at reducing immigration, the British government last week also introduced visa restrictions that would raise the salary threshold for foreign companies that want to transfer workers to Britain. The restriction has alarmed executives at Indian information technology companies, who say workers need to be able to spend months in Britain when working on projects
This was even before Brexit. TM's assurances, if any, will be taken with a nice big shovelful of salt thanks to her record as Home Secretary.

And if you think you can try to deport the low-skilled of one nation while simultaneously asserting that the better educated are welcome, think again, especially when a state like India has had a long and very fraught history as a part of the British Empire.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-says-india-has-to-take-back-its-nationals-from-britain-before-it-is-given-more-visas-a7402511.html
As if no British riff raff ever set foot in India...
As if the British of Imperial days ever objected to low-skilled Indian labour when it could be exploited in India, to make British people rich, or sent to fight under British colours.

Apart altogether from the very well publicised xenophobia* there is Brexit itself and its fallout and what it does to businesses hoping to gain access to the EU by locating in the UK, and to those exporting to the UK:
Meanwhile, Indian industry has warned that trade between Britain and India could suffer a “double blow” as a result of the Brexit vote. Speaking to The Guardian ahead of Mrs. May’s visit to India, Alwyn Didar Singh, the head of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, warned that exports from India to Britain were being hit by the significant fall in the pound that followed the vote to leave the European Union.

He also said the vote posed a challenge for some of the 800 Indian businesses operating in Britain, which viewed the country as a gateway to the bloc.
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/world/europe/uk-britain-india-theresa-may-narendra-modi.html

www.businessinsider.com/india-threatens-to-derail-a-brexit-trade-deal-over-immigration-article-50-india-trade-deal2016-11
The sticking point on immigration in any deal between the UK and India is something that has been raised previously. Last month, Sir Thomas Harris — a trade expert, who was once the British ambassador to Korea, and is former vice chairman of emerging markets-focused bank Standard Chartered — told a conference in London that Britain will really struggle to do a deal with the likes of India.

During his appearance at the Brexit and Global Expansion Summit, Harris said:

"What’s the single biggest Indian demand for their trade deals? The single biggest demand is reciprocal access in the EU markets for a very significantly enhanced Mode 4 arrangement. That is for greater access for skilled and technical staff from India."

He also used the example of the EU's attempts to strike a trade deal with India to show just how hard each individual trade deal will be, saying:

"Some Brexiteers suggest that we can do deals with major Commonwealth countries like India. What they fail to understand is that the EU has been in negotiations with India for the last eight years, and has failed to conclude a deal. And what were the sticking points in those negotiations?

"The sticking points were over trade in services — in accountancy, banking, insurance, and legal services — where the UK was the primary EU demandeur. The Indians were not prepared to table a serious offer on trade in services.

"For the life of me, I cannot see why the Indians would be prepared to offer concessions in services in bilateral talks [with the UK] which they were not prepared to offer in return for access to the EU as a whole."

*Xenophobia - how happy would you be to move your family to a place where the ordinary racist on the bus/train/street/schoolyard has no problem conflating net contributors to the economy with low skilled/unemployed immigrants?

...Discuss with reference to the pharmaceutical industry.

Throw in the removal of the European Medicines Agency from the UK.

Brexit: UK 'overwhelmingly reliant' on EU vets and abattoir workers

Didn't anyone consider anything before putting this referendum to an ill-informed public?

twofingerstoeverything

^"Didn't anyone consider anything before putting this referendum to an ill-informed public?"

Conservatives giving UK Referendums to let 'the people' decide, when Labour promises one before signing the Lisbon Treaty ratifying (in Dec 2007) the UK in the EU - so the alternative is broken promises and 'government knows best'?

If the last government through the 2000s hadn't dumbed down UK education, and left UK workers bribed by higher benefits (so 'didn't pay them to work') on the UK unemployment scrap heap - including over 900,000 unemployed 16-24 year old workers by 2010 - the UK wouldn't have been so reliant on non UK citizen workers.

As evidenced by the fact that of all the jobs 'created' by Labour through the 2000s, depending on what report you read, between 85% and 93% of the successful applicants were not born in the UK.

And you blame THE PUBLIC for being 'ill-informed', rather than an incompetent government that hardly did a thing right other than throw money at (unreformed) services?

Mistigri

Regarding your post
“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.”

I don’t think you can read, having lamely attempted to (read then) answer my factual explanation of ‘events’ on this boards post ‘did Labour f* up the economy’ – in that the Conservative’s had taken the fiscal responsibility to balance the UK tax receipt/spending books after the early 2000’s recession – and Labour PROMISED to adopt the Conservatives previous Budgets spending plans, for Labour’s first parliament.

Why?

Labour promised businesses and the electorate pre 1997 general election to do that, as even after 18-years out of power, everyone remembered the economic, fiscal and social pigs ear Labour left in 1979, that (similar to 2010) needed drastic actions afterwards, by the Conservatives, to fix – that they then blame for making ideological cuts, from their ideological need to grow the State more than the private sector can support..

I suspect the selling by Labour/Brown of around 40% of the UK’s internationally relative small Gold Reserves before 2000 that no UK government had done before since god knows when, helped, as god knows where the money went.

And you blame THE PUBLIC for being 'ill-informed', rather than an incompetent government that hardly did a thing right other than throw money at (unreformed) services?
Er, no. I was not 'blaming' the public for being ill-informed. Just stating an opinion that they were, which is barely surprising given the complexities of Brexit and the paucity of reliable information about it both pre and post-referendum.

Once again, Thea, your blind prejudice is showing.

You said;

"Didn't anyone consider anything before putting this referendum to an ill-informed public?"

My "blind prejudice" and a political party giving the people their direct democratic right to decide their future, and not a failure of the previous government's policies/deaf to complaints - or the Remain campaign with so little to factually work with other than cleaner air, no European wars, and its such a big 'club' it JUST HAS to be a success - despite the evidence to the contrary??

My "blind prejudice" and a political party giving the people their direct democratic right to decide their future, and not a failure of the previous government's policies/deaf to complaints - or the Remain campaign with so little to factually work with other than cleaner air, no European wars, and its such a big 'club' it JUST HAS to be a success - despite the evidence to the contrary??

Word soup again.

Only to the EU 'land of milk and honey' stunted.

Hopefully you prefer those (clearer) onions in my 'soup'.

So, Thea, therefore you agree that the public was ill-informed when it voted for Brexit!

Well, we got there in the end...

Only to the EU 'land of milk and honey' stunted.

Yet more gobbledegook. You really must try harder if you want people to understand your propoganda argument.

Definition of a sentence:
A sentence is a group of words that are put together to mean something. A sentence is the basic unit of language which expresses a complete thought. It does this by following the grammatical rules of syntax. For example: 'Angela is the most beautiful of the class.' A complete sentence has at least a subject and a main verb to state (declare) a complete thought. A subject is the noun that is doing the main verb. The main verb is the verb that the subject is doing.

HTH.

(Waits for Thea to blame poor sentence structure on something Labour did or didn't do two decades ago...)

Recruitment and placement of valued staff will run exactly as it always has and still does now.

But it increasingly doesn't, because out here in the real world it has become more and more difficult to bring employees into thr UK from non-EU countries. Companies do of course continue to recruit senior employees from abroad, and they will do so after brexit for the right person, but some jobs have already moved (for eg, my employer has moved a R&D operation to Asia because of the difficulty of employing Asian scientists in the UK - we are talking PhDs here not new graduates.)

Word soup again.

Reads like a right wing version of the Sokal hoax.

Anyway, back to Brexit consequences. An article on chickens and farming, by long-time Brexit campaigner Richart North. This seems to be an area of professional expertise for him, so his views should carry additional weight.

eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86551

Chicken 'soup'?

The UK is talking to America about all sorts of ex-EU stuff, and as a huge food producer, there will be opportunities for us all to get as fat as them.

Whether disinfected (lol) chickens, labelled as so, and 20% cheaper come into the UK, its a problem at least 2-3 years away. Chill.

(Or won't pro EU 'propaganda' wait?)

Yeah, the right time to get concerned about something is after it has already happened, by which point it is too late to do anything about it...

Thanks to being reliant on the EU 9and their policies), the UK has slowly become less Food Production self sufficient, and now we produce around 65% of our own food.

Maybe if those 'giblets' in Brussels would have put mutually beneficial Trade nearer the front of the Brexit Negotiations schedule, not at the back, maybe the UK wouldn't even need to talk about food imports at this time.

Sooner than later, all Eurozone businesses will understand as our citizens did, that Brussels is all about politics, and they don't give a chicken s**t about their 'welfare'.

Gosh thea you really don't get it do you? The whole point of the EU is it enables compromise and things to be done for the greater good of the whole EU. Hence animal welfare standards, environmental protection etc etc. Of course these things cost.
It stops individual countries exhausting supplies for their short term benefit. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
The recent re-establishment of North Sea cod as a sustainable population is a really good example of the positive impact EU policy can have. Although some fishermen bitch about EU rules they would be a lot worse off if there were no fish left.

Supermarkets here in the UK will resemble those in the US.
These will be full to the brim with junk food, frozen food, etc.
Fresh food will become so expensive that it will practically disappear from the shelves in many supermarkets.

The over fishing problem in North Sea cod arose during the 1980s and 1990s after the UK joined the EU. Norway and Denmark are the other main custodians. Norway is not in the EU and Greenland left due to issues with fishing rights.