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.

Your summary was incorrect.

The burden of proof is on you sore arse, which laws do you not like that the EU has "forced on us" that we voted against?

Eurozone unempoyment rates are little to do with the EU, many of the unemployment rates are within historical norms when you look at the data across 30 and more years.

Italy and Spain both had much lower than their historic rate following the creation of the Euro and both ( not suprisingly) saw massive jumps in the level of unemployment following the 2008 crash.

You are despeartely conflating my love, trying to justify your eroneous decision made for pitiful prejudiced reasons.

BTW smoke and mirrors regarding your tax point, Belgium doesn't tax people working for the UN either. Also taxes from EU staff would count as a subsidy from the EU budget. Its agreed by all the members states.

How are you going to tell the young about how your decisions led to their unemployent in the future?

Please share oh mega sore arse.

As before, it's really hard to follow your poorly informed screeds, but as far as I can discern, you seem to be fixating on low regulations and low taxes as a magic cure-all. You do realize that it was banking deregulation and lax enforcement of what regulations there were that led to the crash in the US that caused the recession, right?

You realise that trickle down economics is a concept that has been scorned for excellent reasons since it made its debut?

On the topic of low regs and lax enforcement...
(1) did you see a report recently on private landlords who have not been declaring income from rental property?

(2) did you notice the Grenfell disaster?

Ah she's a low tax, low regulation person.

Alt Right idiot then.

While the automotive industry is the Czech Republic’s largest industry, other key sectors in the region include machinery, iron and steel production, metallurgy, chemical production, electronics, transport equipment, textiles, glass, ceramics, defence and pharmaceuticals.
And don't forget brewing.

www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/magazine/god-save-the-british-economy.html
Here's a little perspective on that UK unemployment rate that you are so thrilled about:

The United States had already responded [to the crash] with a roughly $800 billion stimulus package. In the spring of 2010, British voters went in another direction. They elected Prime Minister David Cameron, who had promised to reset the economy by severely cutting government spending, which would lead to significant public-sector layoffs. The economy’s only chance to return to long-term growth, Cameron argued, would be a painful, but brief, period of austerity. By shrinking the size of an inefficient government, Cameron explained, the budget would be balanced by 2015 and the private sector could lead the economy to full recovery.

Today these two approaches offer a crucial case study and perhaps a breakthrough in an age-old economic argument of austerity versus stimulus. In the past few years, the United States has experienced a steep downturn followed by a steady (though horrendously slow) upturn. The U.S. unemployment rate, which shot up to 10 percent at the end of 2009 from 4.4 percent in mid-2007, has now dropped steadily to 7.7 percent. It might be a frustrating pace, but it’s enough to persuade most economists that a recovery is under way.

The British economy, however, is profoundly stuck. Between fall 2007 and summer 2009, its unemployment rate jumped to 7.9 percent, from 5.2 percent. Yet in the three and a half years since — even despite the stimulus provided by this summer’s Olympic Games — the number has hovered around 7.9. The overall level of economic activity, real G.D.P., is still below where it was five years ago, too. Historically, it’s almost unimaginable for a major economy to be poorer than it was half a decade ago. (By comparison, the United States has a real G.D.P. that is around a half-trillion dollars more than it was in 2007.) Yet austerity’s advocates continue to argue, as Cameron has, that Britain’s economic stagnation shows that the government is still crowding out private-sector investment. This, they say, is proof that austerity is even more essential than was first realized. Once the debts have been paid off and the euro zone solves its political problems, the thinking goes, the British economy will bounce back quickly...

... an increasing number of global economic policy leaders have turned on austerity. Earlier this year, in a remarkable joint statement, the I.M.F., along with the World Bank, World Trade Organization and eight other major economic institutions, warned that austerity was hurting global growth and raising unemployment. They asked the world’s major economies to embrace stimulus. Over the past few months, the I.M.F. and its deputy director, David Lipton, also have issued several suggestions that the British government soften its austerity program.

Mathsanxiety

The rather pathetic ‘I don’t understand what you just said’ and the regurgitating a whole 2012 NY Times article, shows me that you have NOTHING to offer the debate you began, and I answered.

As back then, even the IMF (before praising Osborne’s policies a few years later) was saying roughly the same, as they had not yet realised that the UK’s government spending splurge from 2001 when the UK’s budget BALANCED, to the projected £167 bil budget deficit by Labour’s then chancellor, was by massively increasing the size of the UK state (including nearly 1 million new employees) via extra company/personal taxes and the new tax proceeds of a Brown financial ‘bubble’ – while our Private Sector had LOST half our manufacturing etc share of the UK economy, and 2 million manufacturing jobs (1 million before 2005) – so that 2010 UK country ‘model’ was UNSUSTAINABLE, and so trying to financially sustain the unsustainable, to a UK economy needing Private Sector (and citizens seeing falls in real earnings from 2008) tax cuts rather than annual increases, in order to grow our way out of trouble, was throwing good money after bad.

Look, the 2000’s fat state UK that saw nearly 4,000 new laws, on top of other Financial Services Authority mainly needless (even Blair challenged) regulation, AND a doubling in page size of the Trollys Tax Guide - in my opinions was a socialist dogs dinner, a sort of mini-EU so I’m not going to justify ANY of those times/policies.

I repeat what I said before on ‘regulation’, it should start by being concise and effective, not some effort by numerous bureaucrats trying to put what new ‘stuff’ they come up with on their Annual Appraisal.

Mentioning the Grenfell disaster is rather lame in a country economic model context, and if memory serves, it was a Blair government decision in the mid 2000s to transfer fire regulation enforcement from the fire department, to local authorities, somewhere within this cluster-fuck of other Labour regulations mentioned above – and while the full report is yet to emerge, my point (to your Grenfell point) is that concise, effective regulation, is far better than the volume of regulation seen spewing from Brussels.

bathildabagshot1

‘Cameron just showboating by taking on the EU to get rejected’ was YOUR point, not mine, so if you can’t prove YOUR gobby point, that’s on you, not me to enlarge upon.

Re your ” Eurozone unempoyment rates are little to do with the EU, many of the unemployment rates are within historical norms when you look at the data across 30 and more years.”

I’ll take your word for that, but that just confirms that a ‘Freedom of Movement’ of citizens to an EU looking to indulge itself on tight labour laws as the expense of the unemployed, is not right for the UK - if we would continually have to take up their unemployed ‘slack’.

A UK getting rid of dumb ‘ologies and other degrees, no good to man or employer beast, and looking to both massively improve our education in the basics and skill up our own population in engineering, sciences etc, rather than rely on the EU (and a global) recruitment ‘pool’ we have come to rely on, by as much as we can – will be our Brexit way forward.

Re your ” Italy and Spain both had much lower than their historic rate following the creation of the Euro and both ( not suprisingly) saw massive jumps in the level of unemployment following the 2008 crash.”

The Italian economy has hardly grown since the Euro and few labour laws were challenged, yet in Spain’s who from 2012 introduced sweeping reforms to liberalize the labour market and reduce the power of unions in collective bargaining – unemployment has fallen much faster, on a journey towards a more UK style of employment.

This F.T. article below and extracts from it, shows the EXTENT of the EU’s problems, that no amount of rude bluster from you can change in the years ahead.

”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 shortlived 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,”

Ah, those pesky 'ologies, also known as training in coherent thought, focus on evidence as a means of formulating an argument, and ability to weigh evidence dispassionately...

Yes, most countries would be better off with re-education camps, to knock the nonsense out of people who hold the quaint notion that clinging to outdated shibboleths (such as those you threw into your garbled 'response' to me) will lead to the same results they led to before.

Your comment that the UK is left to deal with the unemployed of 'the Eurozone' reveals much about your motivation in supporting Leave, and of course your ignorance about how freedom of movement benefits the UK.

My criticism of your writing style is based on the evidence in front of my eyes. Entire paragraphs consist of a single sentence, with no sign of a subject or object, or a point.

...and why can't you understand that the EU isn't a monolithic state? You keep on quoting stats for Italy, France, Portugal, etc, followed by blanket statements with 'therefore the EU is in deep shit' as your conclusion.

Each state is responsible for whatever issues it has with unemployment or social services or education, etc. The issues have an impact on the Euro, but the UK is not in the Eurozone and is not leaving the Eurozone.

It's neither here nor there, but many states in the Eurozone have economies that are performing well.

The Eu is in Deep do do.
I am not a racist. I have may friends from everywhere.
They have a massive hole in their budgets to plug, this isn't a fair tale.
The extra people who have arrived in the last few years are costing a lot of money, and with more to come this will increase this expense even further, this will have to be factored into the EU budgets and while money is going out on this expenditure there is no real return for this.
Once these people where ever they have come from are settle and recorded and added to Unemployment figures in the country they finally reside this will increase the funding need to house and award benefits to these people. Where do you think jobs will be found from them, and as each year they have children and the young need schooling and further education, again increased cost to the host country.
To bring this many people up to a standard of living we are used to is a massive long haul undertaking, so Italy and Greece also Spain as the front line of this will be asking for help, at a time when the Budget will have lost one of the top contributors.

So yes deep deep deep, do do.

Mathsanxiety

…. ’and ANOTHER thing’ ….is the above three post rant your little version of throwing your high educational toys out of the pram? Bless.

Maybe I hit a raw nerve and you have ‘Sociology’ or something similar, and wonder why it doesn’t get you a high skilled job, in an ever higher skilled world, but still have the debt to pay off.

Actually, you come across as a more ‘theology’ type, falling in luv with ‘ideas’, like this big honking Europe, with all the signs that it can all go to hell in a hand cart, but you convince yourself ‘well at least there will be no more European wars’.

While those in the UK were experiencing in their everyday life, in jobs, availability of homes, pressure on public services (as we don’t have to have Freedom of Movement’ to bring in a fucking doctor from some continent or another) that the EU, with THEIR strict rules on ‘what has to be to be in order to be a European MEMBER’, wasn’t working for us.

As for this ‘individual state’ concept within ‘the rules’, when a UK PM pleaded ahead of a Referendum for some ‘slack’ in Freedom of Movement due to the pressures here, how DID that work out???

The EU is worse than a monolithic state, it’s a political club with cruddy members who will not economically change and so ruled by consensus (not what is best for the future growth, prosperity and jobs for 450 million people), that could have several more members (and THEIR needs to travel) in the next 5-years.

And IF it is working so well, why does Germany and France want to lead a more integrated Eurozone to control those within, where ‘satellite’ nation states outside this Eurozone elite will also lose the power of veto – so the EU becomes 30 odd states of ‘gloop’, ruled by Brussels and men who have never run a business, or been elected by any of ‘the citizens’ of those states?

That is what a political project is all about, not a ‘Common Market’ of trade hopefully open to trade across borders outside, the UK thought they joined all those years ago.

The United States of America if memory serves, took about 3 attempts to forge all those very different states into one, under a central government, and that’s what the EU has to do to have a chance of it practically working in the long term – but under which economic ‘model’, the strict anti-inflationary with interest rates where they NEED to be German model, or the soft high protections French and Italian model – well whatever, the UK would have ONE voice but not even one veto, while this political cluster-fuck goes on.

The UK has a domestic chance to democratically change direction every 5-years, but 40-odd years ago we saw a Common Market of several economically mature nations, we now fully understand that is neither what it became and where it is heading, and if its going to be another 40-odd years before we can opt out of a direction we don’t want to go – why after we already voted to Leave, are we in the UK even having this conversation?

Mummmy, we already have the right within the EU to ask people to leave if they are not working, studying or self sufficient. The UK just doesn't bother to do this.

The EU 'rules' and what is practically enforceable, can be very different, so do we know how easy it is?

Marcia, I know we could ask them to leave but don't.
I was more commenting on the cost to the EU of all the people in need ,they have now camping on their soil. These people won't be leaving either however what they will get is their children educated and more of their families arriving, once they are settled, which is going to have to be paid for by the EU.

In the real world, isn't the UK with around 1.9 million queuing for UK social housing and annually have no little control over how many new citizens we get from Europe, the 2nd largest cash contributor to all these refugees in and around the Middle East and North Africa - is that not practical help?

Maybe Ms Sturgeon and Corbyn can 'talk' about filling up all that land in Scotland with them.

Motheroffourdragons
What I said was once we leave and take the money we pay into the EU budget, this will be their concern to finance.
We will finance the people who are in the UK.
So some of the cash we sent to the EU will still be used for to this end.
We still have the overseas amount we had before we left the EU which won't change.
However the EU has rather a lot of NEW arrivals, which is going to cost Billions to home, feed cloth and educate.

MENSAmummy and sorearse really can't get that their reasoning is rap.

Sorearse keeps flagging up sovereign national decisions for leaving the EU ( ever so hilarious) and things that are facutally incorrect.

MENSAmummy thinks there will be some cash left over when the net contribtuon to the EU was something in the region of £7bn, not £18bn and this has already fallen following poorer economic performance this year.

Sorearse then starts with social housing when EU immigrants already do not qualify for social housing until they have been resident for years in the same area, and they do not jump the queue.

Desperation, and massively flawed reasoning from the thick twits.

Bathildabagoshit1

In Social Housing, if the UK was to allow in god knows how many refuges as Mother alluded to, did you think that they would BUY their own homes, or need social housing?

Social Housing allocations in the 2000s were a bit different to now, hence in 2009 Shelter estimated 1.7 million families (5 million citizens including children) need homes.

As was the swing from the State being the main provider of rented accommodation to Private Landlords – helped by Labour’s Brown from 1997 making private pension saving less attractive, and later lowering Capital Gains Tax on assets held over time to a 10% tapered low making BTL more attractive – while providing around half of the social homes, especially council, of the previous administration to 1997.

Yet another case of Labour ‘privatising’ a public service by stealth, but on the main subject of the UK home stock, and the what, 3 millions net of new citizens that came to the UK over the past 18-years as lazy UK governments relying on immigration failed to educate/skill up their own workers - where do YOU think they all live, in TENTS?

Whether they buy, or rent, a UK never knowing from one year to next the NET figure of new citizens, will never be ABLE to get on top of the UK homes shortage, that built up from the early 2000s. IMO

Bathildabaghoshit2

On our EU membership, firstly thank you for confirming that within the EU a country effectively gets ‘penalized for success’, in the size of contributions (are we still a net 2nd behind Germany yet they get the Trade Surplus?) and also receives an annually unknown number of EU citizens, that have to leave their failing EU economies, to move to countries where the jobs are.

So the UK may only currently pay several £billion NET – but does that net figure include an EU politically spending money in the UK the Europhiles would say is better than our government could – but the bill WOULD BE closer to £18 billion a year, without the ‘Thatcher Rebates’ the EU is already claiming back up on two fronts, in hiking up to £££ telephone numbers our Divorce Bill and should we ever REJOIN.

”How much money does Britain currently pay the EU?”

“Britain could stay in EU, but only on poorer terms –Verhofstadt”

”Britain is welcome to change its mind and stay in the European Union, but it should not expect to keep getting its EU budget rebates or complex opt-outs from EU rules, the European Parliament's Brexit coordinator said on Wednesday.”

”The liberal former Belgian prime minister is a proponent of much closer integration with national governments giving up more powers to Brussels. Like many on the continent, he has long criticised Britain's entitlement, negotiated by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, to get about half its EU budget contributions back as a rebate. Britain also enjoys many opt-outs from EU rules, including from ever joining the euro zone.”

Oooops, was that another one of my "sovereign national decisions" that is "factually incorrect"?

Sore Arse, refugees will still come to the UK in or out of the EU, we take less refugees than many other EU countries anyway. Its not an EU issues.

Labour didn't privatise social housing, Thatcher sold it off and didn't allow the councils to replace the stock. Again sore arse, your facts are incorrect. The number of people living in social housing fell in the 1980s not the 2000s

There has been a shortage of homes since the 1980s too, due to the building of new homes being put into the hands of the private contractors, essentially its controled by an oligopoly of big building firms. Who did that? Again facts, which you seem to have a problem with.

As with the UK EU contributions, the agreement is that every country pays a % of GDP into the EU, we didn't pay as much last year as our growth was lower. We are not "penalized for success" every country pays in the same way. Its funny that you make it out like this, you really do have a victim complex.

Germany has the trade surplus because it manufactures products that people want to buy. It has had a trade surplus for decades.

Of course we won't get the same terms if we seek to rejoin the EU.

We talk about the NET budget contribution because only using the Gross figure is dishonest, because the rebates never leave, and there is more money spent in the UK. Like on the shiny new bridge crossing the Wear in Brexiteer Sunderland.

The 'extra people'

Racist much?

You wanted to leave the EU because of that poster, didn't you?

This one:
www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2690914.1466346156!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg
(In case your memory needs jogging, though it seems to have hit its mark and left a lasting impression.)

"Of course we won't get the same terms if we seek to rejoin the EU."

Well as we have officially left (Article 50) the EU, you agree with Verhofstadt, that if we stayed in the EU our annual NET budget would be closer to £18 billion, you said earlier was rubbish.

Do make up your mind.

But like UK Housing, you give it the big 'you are wrong', but add nothing factually like the 2000 Blair sofa government secret policy to increase UK immigration - that was sooo secret, they forgot to build enough homes for them.

Or look at the Report Brown commissioned around 2003 that would have had no idea of the 'secret' earlier policy, or the numbers that were to come, but STILL said the UK had to dramatically increase our home stock when we had the tens of £billions to spend on a fat State;

"The (2004) Barker review: key points."

Dear me to the 'I have the economics brain the size of a planet', if you can only go back and blame Thatcher for Labour's record from 1997, having inherited the fasting growing economy in Europe and an economy light years better than they left it in 1979 - as Clint Eastwood says, 'a person needs to know their (economic) limitations'.

P.S. Taking council/social homes; using Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLC) figures, and using the full 18-year term of the last Conservative government (including a few recessions) but only the first 11-years under Labour (before the worst recession in nearly a century), the Conservatives averaged 50,761 new social housing sector homes a year, while the last Labour government averaged 24,299 per year.

Putting the decline rate in context, the new social housing sector build HIGH was 88,530 new homes in 1980 (around the time ‘Right to Buy’ was a policy) and the LOW was 130 new social homes in 2004 at the height of an immigration boom – no doubt STILL selling off Right to Buy Homes, with a resulting large NET REDUCTION of council housing stock for that year.

But still Thatcher, right?

And Remainers STILL wonder why the 'have nots' and the older voters who can spot an economic record by the political party, voted to Leave, as I reiterate between dumb government elites here and those over in Brussels, it wasn't working FOR THEM.