Brexit Discussion Thread.

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's the only arbiter that counts.

It's the only arbiter that counts short term. In the longer term...not necessarily.

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's the only arbiter that counts short term. In the longer term...not necessarily.

I can't see what picking a loser achieves.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I can't see what picking a loser achieves.

Again, depends on your definition of 'winning' and 'losing'. A nonprofit company that makes a scientific breakthrough and decides to share it without making money off it would do more for the future than an energy company involved in pollution but paying the fines and still making profit ever would.

[Webbo]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Again, depends on your definition of 'winning' and 'losing'. A nonprofit company that makes a scientific breakthrough and decides to share it without making money off it would do more for the future than an energy company involved in pollution but paying the fines and still making profit ever would.

We're not talking about investing in universities and research grants, we're talking about the govt giving money to industries and particular companies. If those companies/industries were viable they wouldn't need help. By giving money to some companies but not others you distort the market.

 

Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook didn't need govt money to be a success.

[Facecloth]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're not talking about investing in universities and research grants, we're talking about the govt giving money to industries and particular companies. If those companies/industries were viable they wouldn't need help. By giving money to some companies but not others you distort the market.

 

Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook didn't need govt money to be a success.

Probably helps that they're not paying the government what they owe them in tax  

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We're not talking about investing in universities and research grants, we're talking about the govt giving money to industries and particular companies. If those companies/industries were viable they wouldn't need help. By giving money to some companies but not others you distort the market.

 

Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook didn't need govt money to be a success.

 

Yeah, I see your point - corporate welfare isn't a good idea (you can add SpaceX to that list too, though they have contracts with governments for services now). 

 

I just take issue with the idea that a business has to be materially profitable to have a positive influence on the future.

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

What was your opinion of the UK joining the single currency when it was introduced Alf?

 

To be honest, at the time I don't think I had a firm opinion. I was busy doing stuff like setting up self-employed, buying a house, getting married, having a kid - and getting pissed too much.

I wasn't paying too much attention to football, never mind politics. 

 

Now, I'm glad we didn't join. EMU/Eurozone seems to operate like too much of a straitjacket, artificially benefiting the more developed nations like Germany and not helping the less developed to grow and compete.

I'm no expert on economics, but it seems like there hadn't been enough convergence between different parts of Europe for that to work well without putting fiscal policy (tax and spend) much more on an EU level - and doing more redistribution from the richer nations to the poorer. There wouldn't have been political support for that, so they fell between 2 stools - and Southern Europe, in particular, lost out.. It then got even worse when there was less money around after the 2008 crash.

 

The EU had done a great job helping under-developed European nations to stabilise and converge (to the benefit of the whole continent), until EMU/Eurozone was fully launched....prematurely and in a way that isn't working very well. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to reform it.

 

Of course, we have one man to thank for avoiding joining the Euro.....not only was he the man who "saved the world" after the crash, but he saved us from the Euro when Blair wanted to join....step forward, Gordon Brown! 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, Webbo said:

That stance assumes that the govt can pick winners and knows where to invest our money. The truth is that  not only will the govt  pick the wrong horse but in doing so it'll hold back the real potential winner. The best way to promote new industries and technologies is the make it as easy as you can for everyone and get out of the way.

 

It doesn't assume that - some return to the 1970s.

 

There is plenty of other stuff that central and local govt can do:

- use the tax/regulation systems to encourage longer-term investment beneficial to development, not short-term profits from mergers/acquisitions, back-office cuts etc.

- use tax incentives to encourage firms to establish apprenticeships in innovative fields or to spend on R&D;

- use bank regulation to encourage banks to lend to new firms the banks deem viable; 

- facilitate stronger ties between higher education and new industries;

- use planning law / local govt funding so that local govt sets up more business/industrial hubs and fewer shopping centres;

- offer low-interest loans to well-managed start-ups with a decent prospect of success (not subsidies to outdated, loss-making industries)

- more involvement of banks & workers/union reps on company boards as in Germany....where industry is fairly successful

 

A small example: Ireland now has a global reputation for I.T. and many global I.T. firms set up there. That's partly because of the low corporation tax, the English language & access to EU markets, but most research suggests that Ireland's reputation for good education/training in I.T. is part of the reason.

 

Over the past 38 years, the UK has had the most free-market governments in Europe, yet we excel in very few cutting-edge fields. Why is that? Why are there no British equivalents of Facebook, Amazon, Google or whatever? Why do we have low productivity, an industrial sector that is tiny compared to the Germans and an economy heavily dependent on retail spending and private debt?

 

If we're into a "private good, public bad, free market good, public spending bad" argument, why not eliminate all public spending on health and education, too. We'd presumably end up with much better hospitals and schools. Maybe it would work for the army and police, too?

 

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It doesn't assume that - some return to the 1970s.

 

There is plenty of other stuff that central and local govt can do:

- use the tax/regulation systems to encourage 

- use tax incentives to encourage firms to establish apprenticeships in innovative fields or to spend on R&D;

- use bank regulation to encourage banks to lend to new firms the banks deem viable; 

- facilitate stronger ties between higher education and new industries;

- use planning law / local govt funding so that local govt sets up more business/industrial hubs and fewer shopping centres;

- offer low-interest loans to well-managed start-ups with a decent prospect of success (not subsidies to outdated, loss-making industries)

 

A small example: Ireland now has a global reputation for I.T. and many global I.T. firms set up there. That's partly because of the low corporation tax, the English language & access to EU markets, but most research suggests that Ireland's reputation for good education/training in I.T. is part of the reason.

 

Over the past 38 years, the UK has had the most free-market governments in Europe, yet we excel in very few cutting-edge fields. Why is that? Why are there no British equivalents of Facebook, Amazon, Google or whatever? Why do we have low productivity, an industrial sector that is tiny compared to the Germans and an economy heavily dependent on retail spending and private debt?

 

If we're into a "private good, public bad, free market good, public spending bad" argument, why not eliminate all public spending on health and education, too. We'd presumably end up with much better hospitals and schools. Maybe it would work for the army and police, too?

 

You said;

Quote

I can't see any such govt on the horizon. I reckon with the Tories we're more likely to get more of the same: low tax, low pay, low investment, low productivity, high debt, high consumption (apart from finance & a few other sectors).

If you really want a low tax regime, like in Ireland then we 're on the same side.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

You said;

If you really want a low tax regime, like in Ireland then we 're on the same side.

 

I was highlighting Irish investment in education/training. Glad to hear that you've joined the red side. 

[Webbo]

As for the low productivity, as it said in that Guardian article;

 

Quote

Similarly, free movement of labour has allowed employers to meet extra demand by taking on more staff at the minimum wage or just above, rather than by investing. That helps explain why employment is at record levels, but productivity has been feeble.

Which is a what a few of us have been saying all along.

[Sharpe's Fox]

35 minutes ago, Webbo said:

As for the low productivity, as it said in that Guardian article;

 

Which is a what a few of us have been saying all along.

Except the Tory government won't be embarking on a campaign to lower immigration because they know the low productivity service based economy that has been established since the eighties relies on low wages to keep it afloat. David Davies in a way admitted this on Monday night. There is no magic bullet to lower immigration when the economy relies on it, as @Alf Bentley has said you need a high wage workforce with a good skills base as well as a thriving industrial strategy to be able to tap into that. Only then will the immigration numbers start to decrease since employers will have less of a use for them. Interestingly this is the policy of John McDonnell but i won't press that too much.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Except the Tory government won't be embarking on a campaign to lower immigration because they know the low productivity service based economy that has been established since the eighties relies on low wages to keep it afloat. David Davies in a way admitted this on Monday night. There is no magic bullet to lower immigration when the economy relies on it, as Alf has said you need a high wage workforce with a good skills base and a thriving industrial strategy to be able to tap into that. Only then will the immigration numbers start to decrease since employers will have less of a use for them. Interestingly this is the policy of John McDonnell but i won't press that too much.

We'll see. We don't know what we're going to have to agree to to get a deal.Politically they'll have to cut some immigration.

 

The same argument exists for the skill shortage. Why give a school leaver an apprenticeship when you can employ a trained man for minimum wage?

[Carl the Llama]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It doesn't assume that - some return to the 1970s.

 

There is plenty of other stuff that central and local govt can do:

- use the tax/regulation systems to encourage 

- use tax incentives to encourage firms to establish apprenticeships in innovative fields or to spend on R&D;

- use bank regulation to encourage banks to lend to new firms the banks deem viable; 

- facilitate stronger ties between higher education and new industries;

- use planning law / local govt funding so that local govt sets up more business/industrial hubs and fewer shopping centres;

- offer low-interest loans to well-managed start-ups with a decent prospect of success (not subsidies to outdated, loss-making industries)

 

A small example: Ireland now has a global reputation for I.T. and many global I.T. firms set up there. That's partly because of the low corporation tax, the English language & access to EU markets, but most research suggests that Ireland's reputation for good education/training in I.T. is part of the reason.

 

Over the past 38 years, the UK has had the most free-market governments in Europe, yet we excel in very few cutting-edge fields. Why is that? Why are there no British equivalents of Facebook, Amazon, Google or whatever? Why do we have low productivity, an industrial sector that is tiny compared to the Germans and an economy heavily dependent on retail spending and private debt?

 

If we're into a "private good, public bad, free market good, public spending bad" argument, why not eliminate all public spending on health and education, too. We'd presumably end up with much better hospitals and schools. Maybe it would work for the army and police, too?

 

Looks like you've been well and truly sucked back in again

 

I reckon the reason we don't have any British Facebooks or Amazons is because simply having the American population with all of its active internet users as their initial captive audience meant they were easily able to outgrow and outmuscle any similar entities from any other online nation in the world pretty much by default, only really having to worry about similar ventures from within their own borders competing for the same captive audience or foreign government censorship which is why, unless I'm mistaken (which is highly possible) only really China and Russia have similarly successful global corporations in the social media and online retailing industries.

 

That said, when it comes to cutting-edge fields some might scoff at this but the Brits have always been pretty well represented in the Video Game industry:  Bullfrog; Codemasters; Rockstar; Criterion; Sensible; Lionhead; Rare... I'm sure the list goes on.  We're not too shabby aerospace manufacturers either. I do take your general point though.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Just now, Webbo said:

We'll see. We don't know what we're going to have to agree to to get a deal.Politically they'll have to cut some immigration.

 

The same argument exists for the skill shortage. Why give a school leaver an apprenticeship when you can employ a trained man for minimum wage?

Politically the Tories have been getting away with murder since they won their majority.

 

Of course the question you ask is symptomatic of the free markets the economy relies on. There is also a difference between a decent apprentice and a semi-skilled immigrant. Firstly the apprentice won't require an adult wage, housing, much healthcare etc. He'll just need government support to fund his vocational education. Secondly he will be trained to work with processes and plant the company only uses in the specialist industry envisaged, while any skills an immigrant has will be based on standardised materials and processes as well as outdated or possibly no accepted codes of practice or industry standard. I think we've all seen a dodgy Pole doing a bodge job before for half the price.

 

This also throws into the equation some things you might feel are political anathemas. One getting these industries up and running requires state investment in both lending or nationalisation of industry and our creaking infrastructure. Two creating a high skill educated workforce creates an organised workforce therefore emporowing trade unions. Swings and roundabouts i suppose.

[Strokes]

I'd rather be in a labour government outside of the EU than a Tory one in it. It's not like the tories have a huge majority, if they mess up, they can and will be voted out.

[Webbo]

28 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Politically the Tories have been getting away with murder since they won their majority.

 

Of course the question you ask is symptomatic of the free markets the economy relies on. There is also a difference between a decent apprentice and a semi-skilled immigrant. Firstly the apprentice won't require an adult wage, housing, much healthcare etc. He'll just need government support to fund his vocational education. Secondly he will be trained to work with processes and plant the company only uses in the specialist industry envisaged, while any skills an immigrant has will be based on standardised materials and processes as well as outdated or possibly no accepted codes of practice or industry standard. I think we've all seen a dodgy Pole doing a bodge job before for half the price.

 

This also throws into the equation some things you might feel are political anathemas. One getting these industries up and running requires state investment in both lending or nationalisation of industry and our creaking infrastructure. Two creating a high skill educated workforce creates an organised workforce therefore emporowing trade unions. Swings and roundabouts i suppose.

But an apprentice can't do as much as a qualified person and if you have to pay them while they're at college 13 weeks a year you're losing again.

 

27 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I'd rather be in a labour government outside of the EU than a Tory one in it. It's not like the tories have a huge majority, if they mess up, they can and will be voted out.

Steady on.

 

 Getting out is the main thing, who we vote for after that is up to us.It's inevitable we'll have another Labour govt eventually.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Just now, Webbo said:

But an apprentice can't do as much as a qualified person and if you have to pay them while they're at college 13 weeks a year you're losing again.

Depends what your getting out of them in a year or two. It's interesting that @Carl the Llama mentioned aerospace earlier. What I think he broadly means is Rolls Royce which is currently held up as industry best practice for incorporating apprenticeships into a work force. In that example the young people applying are doing so over degree's from good red brick universities. Maybe this argues that its easier to train a bright, indigenous 18 year old a high tech mechanical process than an immigrant with a poor grasp of English. But I'll reiterate that won't happen with a government with the current economic strategy, its needs one that'll invest in industry and nationalise if need be.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Depends what your getting out of them in a year or two. It's interesting that @Carl the Llama mentioned aerospace earlier. What I think he broadly means is Rolls Royce which is currently held up as industry best practice for incorporating apprenticeships into a work force. In that example the young people applying are doing so over degree's from good red brick universities. Maybe this argues that its easier to train a bright, indigenous 18 year old a high tech mechanical process than an immigrant with a poor grasp of English. But I'll reiterate that won't happen with a government with the current economic strategy, its needs one that'll invest in industry and nationalise if need be.

BAE too, a company who rather incidentally have had their perfectly sensible workmanlike acronym ruined by social media linguistics.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Depends what your getting out of them in a year or two. It's interesting that @Carl the Llama mentioned aerospace earlier. What I think he broadly means is Rolls Royce which is currently held up as industry best practice for incorporating apprenticeships into a work force. In that example the young people applying are doing so over degree's from good red brick universities. Maybe this argues that its easier to train a bright, indigenous 18 year old a high tech mechanical process than an immigrant with a poor grasp of English. But I'll reiterate that won't happen with a government with the current economic strategy, its needs one that'll invest in industry and nationalise if need be.

The Beauty of leaving the EU is we can now nationalise things if that is what the elected government chooses. I'm all for investing in industry and infrastructure, I don't think it needs nationalising. I agree with a lot of the sentiment above about adopting good apprenticeship schemes that are backing by business and incentivised as such. It's an excellent opportunity for this country to reinstate manufacturing as the core of its economy and we should throw as much into it as we can.

[Alf Bentley]

13 hours ago, Strokes said:

The Beauty of leaving the EU is we can now nationalise things if that is what the elected government chooses. I'm all for investing in industry and infrastructure, I don't think it needs nationalising. I agree with a lot of the sentiment above about adopting good apprenticeship schemes that are backing by business and incentivised as such. It's an excellent opportunity for this country to reinstate manufacturing as the core of its economy and we should throw as much into it as we can.

 

It's true that such options (if preferred) open up with Brexit. But any EU-UK trade deal might complicate that. It sounds as if the EU want the UK to sign up to rules on government aid and competition law as part of any trade deal.

Of course, the UK might be able to negotiate a compromise on that but the UK might have to do without an EU-UK trade deal if it wants the option for extensive government support for industry. That presumably wouldn't affect infrastructure or education/training so much.

 

Gibraltar....

Am I missing something or is this largely a furore over very little?

- The EU has no role in deciding the sovereignty of Gibraltar and isn't intervening in that

- The Brexit divorce deal is subject to qualified majority voting on the EU side, so Spain couldn't veto that, unless it had the support of 2-3 large/middling countries or about 5 small countries

- Any EU-UK trade deal is subject to veto by any EU nation and even some regions, so Spain could veto that already....but surely wouldn't, over Gibraltar as Spain must be one of the countries to whose economy the UK makes the largest contribution?

 

So, the only new situation is that Spain and the other 26 EU nations could agree an EU-UK trade but Spain could insist that it didn't apply to Gibraltar. Even then, if the UK didn't like it, it wouldn't have to sign the deal....and if the rest of the EU wanted the deal, they'd surely be exerting some pressure on Spain (and the UK) to compromise? Am I missing something?

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It's true that such options (if preferred) open up with Brexit. But any EU-UK trade deal might complicate that. It sounds as if the EU want the UK to sign up to rules on government aid and competition law as part of any trade deal.

Of course, the UK might be able to negotiate a compromise on that but the UK might have to do without an EU-UK trade deal if it wants the option for extensive government support for industry. That presumably wouldn't affect infrastructure or education/training so much.

No it was just an example of things that could be done outside of the EU not my wish, I'd choose a FTA over it but not over the education/training (which wouldn't come into play anyway)

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Gibraltar....

Am I missing something or is this largely a furore over very little?

- The EU has no role in deciding the sovereignty of Gibraltar and isn't intervening in that

- The Brexit divorce deal is subject to qualified majority voting on the EU side, so Spain couldn't veto that, unless it had the support of 2-3 large/middling countries or about 5 small countries

- Any EU-UK trade deal is subject to veto by any EU nation and even some regions, so Spain could veto that already....but surely wouldn't, over Gibraltar as Spain must be one of the countries to whose economy the UK makes the largest contribution?

 

So, the only new situation is that Spain and the other 26 EU nations could agree an EU-UK trade but Spain could insist that it didn't apply to Gibraltar. Even then, if the UK didn't like it, it wouldn't have to sign the deal....and if the rest of the EU wanted the deal, they'd surely be exerting some pressure on Spain (and the UK) to compromise? Am I missing something?

That's pretty much how I view this. I'm not sure why there is a reaction over it, seems to be the normal thing to do these days, vent extreme emotions over trivial things.

[leicsmac]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/now-sovereign-nation-must-bring-back-imperial-units/

 

Why don't we just use parsecs for everything to simplify stuff? That way the local pub is only a few femtoparsecs away, right? Or moles for measuring mass and weight? Much simpler!

 

 

[bovril]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/now-sovereign-nation-must-bring-back-imperial-units/

 

Why don't we just use parsecs for everything to simplify stuff? That way the local pub is only a few femtoparsecs away, right? Or moles for measuring mass and weight? Much simpler!

 

 

I honestly don't know how much a pound and an ounce is. Pint is fine. But I doubt many people of my age work out stuff in pounds and ounces.

[Buce]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/01/now-sovereign-nation-must-bring-back-imperial-units/

 

Why don't we just use parsecs for everything to simplify stuff? That way the local pub is only a few femtoparsecs away, right? Or moles for measuring mass and weight? Much simpler!

 

 

 

Yeah, none of this base ten nonsense - let's get back to measuring things in relation to dead monarch's limbs etc.