Southbank is right on one thing, Brexit has been great for jobs.
Specifically, the 1000s of jobs moved from London to Dublin by Barclays and JP Morgan, and the 1000s of jobs in the local economy that will be created due to the influx of highly skilled workers.
More people on the dole, more homeless, more people forced to use foodbanks in London though. Worth it to support the undemocratic and illegal Leave and pro-Putin campaign, eh Southbank?
You know we have virtually full employment, right? And highest wages ever? Do you get your news from Charles Dickens novels?
The average real wage is lower now than it was ten years ago
"Following the recession in 2008, average wages fell almost consistently in real terms until mid-2014. From 2014 to 2016, inflation was low and wages increased, though they’re still not back to their pre-recession levels".
Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.
What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,
The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.
And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).
But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
Many thanks for the links. The first thing to say is that Osborne and the Standard will run another poll next week and the week after etc. As will other participants. And secondly, one of the polls indicates that 40% of the respondants were yet to see any detail on the agreement. How these patterns develop over time will impact the choices made by the various groupings in Parliament.
Also it should be noted that the odds on a 2019 General election dropped again yesterday - they've now gone from 15/8 to 6/4 to 5/4 over a two day period.
As you state, the result of a "People's Vote" is not a foregone conclusion. Nor is it clear the precise path to arrive at an actual vote before we leave towards the end of March. What is clear is that May is not getting "booted" and some actually admire her staying power. This doesn't change the fact that the polls clearly show that she leads a party that supports Leave 70:30 and opposes a "People's Vote" by a similar margin. Therefore her position is naturally that it's her deal or "no deal" and she sees her mandate to manage the leaving process.
Suffice it to say that Lib Dem and Labour voters have a similar 70:30 polling profile but this time in favour of both a second vote and also of Remain.
Journalists analysing the Parliamentary arithmetic confirm that the deal won't pass at this point but the numbers behind the likes of Soubry and Clarke are not immense. The question is then how we might proceed to a second vote on the deal or a "people's vote". Not clear as this probably has to be a motion put in place by the Government which, combined with the points above, means that there probably has to be a change in Government.
Perhaps now people might see the logic of the Labour policy supported unanimously at their conference. After all the composite process was managed by Sir Keir Starmer who is somewhat over qualified to put together an effective strategy: First call for an election / change the government, then manage Brexit, possibly through a People's Vote. And at all times support a Customs Union whether that's within the EU or outside in a BINO style deal.
The overwhelming majority of the electorate support remaining in the Customs Union. Leaving the CU was never on the Leave prospectus and today that is their biggest weakness. For there are three million manufacturing jobs and most of these jobs happen to be in the very areas which were mis-sold the Unicorns and shiny red busses back n 2016. A brief glance at the geographical distribution on the polls you share shows a very, very different picture to 2016. This initial poll indicates a massive shift from the 2016 58:42 landslide for leave in the regions to a 46% Remain plays 38% No deal Brexit. A word of caution for it would be premature to draw conclusions from one set of polls plus there is not a clear comparison on the geography. And this is not like for like as it's Remain vs No deal. Elsewhere on the web there are polls broken down by county and there has been a swing to Remain in most locations.
What is highlighted is that "no deal" doesn't fly with the public nor does leaving the CU. And those three million manufaturing jobs have friends and family across a wide range of marginals. Now perhaps we see why Labour have supported a permanent CU arrangement. And why May has suddenly shifted to a CU position. Rees Mogg and the rest might feel comfortable playing fast and loose with manufacturing but not May and Hammond who are looking at both the budget and the prospects for the next election. Overall the agreement has started with only a one in six or 16% approval compared to no deal or Remain. Where these numbers go next week is critical.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
As well as @randy andy’s links above Private Eye, in particular, have constant stories on the pair and their financial shenanigans. The fact that Leadsom has reached the level of Cabinet Minister shows just how low the bar is currently.
tbf Private Eye having been exposing Cabinet Ministers since the 1960's. Plus ca change.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
Apologies it was a late night quick post. A lengthy email apparently went out to all party members that was all about hardening Labour's position around remain, another vote, a soft Brexit. I haven't seen it (not a party member) but wondered if anybody else has.
Just catching up on this thread so apologies if somebody has updated from this morning.
Someone posted it in full if you look back at this mornings posts.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
In my conversations with City people they are not in general bothered either way. Money is the most fungible thing and does not generally get affected much by borders. Some of them certainly see opportunities outside EU regulation. It is manufacturing, which represents about 10% of our economy, which is jumping up and down the most.
You see, here are another two of the traps Leave voters found themselves falling into. The first goes like this:
1. I know some people who work in industry "x" (in this case, in the finance industry) who don't see Brexit as a problem.
2. Certainly industry "x" will be better placed than industry "y" (in this case, manufacturing).
3. This must mean that industry "x" will be better off once we leave; and we don't have to worry about industry "y"
And this gets repeated, with industry "x" and industry "y" being swapped, depending on the topic. The trap gets exacerbated when voter "a" doesn't fully appreciate the nonsense he's saying and passes it on to a credulous voter "b", who passes it on starting with something like, "my mate, who knows people in [industry "x"] said, we'll be better off after Brexit..."
And the second trap is conflating the health of an industry with the economic health of the country. Here's an obvious example: it's clear that hedge funds, traders, insurance brokers, the reinsurance market, traders, financial advisers and many, many more will benefit greatly from the economic fluxes that take place leading up to and (let's hope it doesn't go this far) immediately after. A lot of people are going to be making a lot of money. The problem is, many more of them than previously will be doing so from Paris, Frankfurt, Dublin and elsewhere, rather than the City. Swelling our competitors' coffers; providing diminishing returns for our Treasury.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
In my conversations with City people they are not in general bothered either way. Money is the most fungible thing and does not generally get affected much by borders. Some of them certainly see opportunities outside EU regulation. It is manufacturing, which represents about 10% of our economy, which is jumping up and down the most.
You see, here are another two of the traps Leave voters found themselves falling into. The first goes like this:
1. I know some people who work in industry "x" (in this case, in the finance industry) who don't see Brexit as a problem.
2. Certainly industry "x" will be better placed than industry "y" (in this case, manufacturing).
3. This must mean that industry "x" will be better off once we leave; and we don't have to worry about industry "y"
And this gets repeated, with industry "x" and industry "y" being swapped, depending on the topic. The trap gets exacerbated when voter "a" doesn't fully appreciate the nonsense he's saying and passes it on to a credulous voter "b", who passes it on starting with something like, "my mate, who knows people in [industry "x"] said, we'll be better off after Brexit..."
And the second trap is conflating the health of an industry with the economic health of the country. Here's an obvious example: it's clear that hedge funds, traders, insurance brokers, the reinsurance market, traders, financial advisers and many, many more will benefit greatly from the economic fluxes that take place leading up to and (let's hope it doesn't go this far) immediately after. A lot of people are going to be making a lot of money. The problem is, many more of them than previously will be doing so from Paris, Frankfurt, Dublin and elsewhere, rather than the City. Swelling our competitors' coffers; providing diminishing returns for our Treasury.
I was not trying to make a point about whether Brexit is good for the economy or not, just observations on what is happening based on experience. I also know several medium sized financial organisations who have bought tiny organisations of half a dozen people in Dublin and are going to call it their head office. I also know from a city recruiter that City people have been taking knowledge of German off their cvs so they do not get picked to move. Only personal experiences of course and may mean nothing.
Southbank is right on one thing, Brexit has been great for jobs.
Specifically, the 1000s of jobs moved from London to Dublin by Barclays and JP Morgan, and the 1000s of jobs in the local economy that will be created due to the influx of highly skilled workers.
More people on the dole, more homeless, more people forced to use foodbanks in London though. Worth it to support the undemocratic and illegal Leave and pro-Putin campaign, eh Southbank?
You know we have virtually full employment, right? And highest wages ever? Do you get your news from Charles Dickens novels?
Liar.
Full employment - includes those currently appealing UC (where cases face up to 9 months to appeal) & those on zero hours contracts who want full time work but are actually working less than 16 paid hours a week. Hundreds of thousands of Britons are being defined out of unemployment to suit far-right politicians.
Highest wages ever - total lie. Factor in inflation and the British haven't been worse off compared to the actual cost of living for decades.
Here are the facts, you liar. Homelesness is rising. Food bank usage is rising. Poverty is rising. All thanks to the far right politicians and criminals you support. You are a liar and your false claims are easily exposed.
Fiiish you weren't missed and it would be good if you disappeared again with your insulting inflammatory posts. I just hope no one is foolish enough to sink to your levels. Very sad.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
Don't need to sign in to see the ft article I don't think, I could see it and have never had an ft account.
Also the city is a vast segment, just because one small part can see money to be made, doesn't mean it's true for all. The Swiss for example have a very specific deal to ensure their financial sector works within the EU and they had to become part of Schengen as part of that deal, we're going to have to accept something many Brexiters want to give our financial sector the access they currently enjoy.
Southbank is right on one thing, Brexit has been great for jobs.
Specifically, the 1000s of jobs moved from London to Dublin by Barclays and JP Morgan, and the 1000s of jobs in the local economy that will be created due to the influx of highly skilled workers.
More people on the dole, more homeless, more people forced to use foodbanks in London though. Worth it to support the undemocratic and illegal Leave and pro-Putin campaign, eh Southbank?
You know we have virtually full employment, right? And highest wages ever? Do you get your news from Charles Dickens novels?
The average real wage is lower now than it was ten years ago
"Following the recession in 2008, average wages fell almost consistently in real terms until mid-2014. From 2014 to 2016, inflation was low and wages increased, though they’re still not back to their pre-recession levels".
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
As well as @randy andy’s links above Private Eye, in particular, have constant stories on the pair and their financial shenanigans. The fact that Leadsom has reached the level of Cabinet Minister shows just how low the bar is currently.
tbf Private Eye having been exposing Cabinet Ministers since the 1960's. Plus ca change.
I think the possibility of an election is not as remote as some fellow lifers think. We are no where near the end of this saga, merely as others have said at he end of the beginning, politically anything could happen from a no deal through to a no Brexit. A peoples vote is not necessarily more likely than another election or a change of PM.
I have thought for some time that the way to defeat Brexit is to get the Brexiteers to stop it, are we getting closer to that?
I think the possibility of an election is not as remote as some fellow lifers think. We are no where near the end of this saga, merely as others have said at he end of the beginning, politically anything could happen from a no deal through to a no Brexit. A peoples vote is not necessarily more likely than another election or a change of PM.
I have thought for some time that the way to defeat Brexit is to get the Brexiteers to stop it, are we getting closer to that?
Has that been Theresa May's strategy all along.
The problem with this is it would mean the Conservatives would be gambling with being in government with three plus years of this parliament still to run. I just can’t see it.
I think the possibility of an election is not as remote as some fellow lifers think. We are no where near the end of this saga, merely as others have said at he end of the beginning, politically anything could happen from a no deal through to a no Brexit. A peoples vote is not necessarily more likely than another election or a change of PM.
I have thought for some time that the way to defeat Brexit is to get the Brexiteers to stop it, are we getting closer to that?
Has that been Theresa May's strategy all along.
The problem with this is it would mean the Conservatives would be gambling with being in government with three plus years of this parliament still to run. I just can’t see it.
But if the party splits and the DUP eff off it might be out of their hands.
FWIW I still think May has a chance of getting her deal through the commons.
So do I.
If the ERG don't get their 48 letters by Monday (the waiverers will have spent the weekend consulting in their constituencies and taking calls from whips) then it's not going to happen and then the natural tendency will be to rally around the leader.
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
And can you please remove the flag the troll gave me an hour ago ? Cheers.
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
And can you please remove the flag the troll gave me an hour ago ? Cheers.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
Don't need to sign in to see the ft article I don't think, I could see it and have never had an ft account.
Also the city is a vast segment, just because one small part can see money to be made, doesn't mean it's true for all. The Swiss for example have a very specific deal to ensure their financial sector works within the EU and they had to become part of Schengen as part of that deal, we're going to have to accept something many Brexiters want to give our financial sector the access they currently enjoy.
So Mr Randy , you still haven't explained how the Guardian article proves JRM and Leadsom, will profit financially from Brexit.
Once again for clarity, I'm not disputing your assertion, or trying to be awkward. It's just that the Guardian article provides no evidence to me. Yes they have overseas/offshore business, but that in itself doesn't prove they stand to profit. I'm quite sure someone can explain, I'm just wanting to understand these "assertions".
I've deleted those posts containing or quoting unparliamentary language. Can we try and keep a bit of control over what we're saying please. If you want to challenge people's "facts" that's absolutely fine, but I think we should be sporting enough to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not deliberately lying.
And can you please remove the flag the troll gave me an hour ag,o ? Cheers.
FWIW I still think May has a chance of getting her deal through the commons.
I agree SHG, particularly if they change some of the 7 page ‘political intent’ wording. The ERG and co. are in severe danger of shooting themselves in the foot and their credibility with the public is nowhere near as high as they would like to believe it is.
I would still put her chance of getting the deal through the commons at less than 50%. She may well get the public on her side but I still can’t see how she’ll get the numbers. Maybe the DUP will have a change of heart but I can’t see the JRM crowd changing their minds. That would leave her relying on some Labour centrists and/or some SNP votes - at this stage it doesn’t seem likely but maybe it could change.
Can’t see there being a further referendum and, even less probably a general election so, when push comes to shove, how many MPs will vote this down preferring a no deal WTO Brexit?
Maybe the sentiment, come the vote, will be ‘we are where we are and this is better than no deal. Besides which it’s only a placeholder for the full EU trade deal’.
My ideal would be another vote but, failing that, I’d go along with this hopefully paving the way for a Norway style agreement. Wouldn’t please the hard brexiteers but how many of them truly are there? Certainly less than 52% and probably (and importantly) less than 50%.
I think there is a lot more honour in resigning if you don't think you can support the deal, than to do what Andrea Leadsom is doing now, ie gathering together some other, less-than-gruntled ministers and cobbling together a version two, while, at the same time, nominally agreeing with the original proposed agreement.
If you sit in Cabinet and agree with it, fine. If you sit in Cabinet and don't agree with it, then argue your case in Cabinet. If you still don't get your way, then do the right thing and resign. Don't nod your agreement and then scuttle off with your other, put out friends, and hope to re-write a 500-page, two-years-in-the-making agreement and pretend that has any semblance of credence, authority or weight.
What good does a newly-drafted agreement do? We will have version 1 which the Government and the EU approve and version two which they don't.
Stupid woman.
Ledsome, like Mogg, is more interested in looking after the interests of her extended family’s hedge funds and ‘oversea’s investments’. Doesn’t give a shit about the country as a whole.
I have no reason to say this is untrue, but can anyone show me that JRM and Leadsom, would be better off financially if we Brexit. I've heard it said many times, but that is all.
Thanks for taking the trouble, but I didn't view the ft article, as I don't want an account.
The Guardian article I read, but even as an ex Financial Adviser, I'm not sure what that article proves re JRM and Leadsom. It may very well be that they will profit financially from a Brexit, but can you explain how ?
I also wonder why the "City" desperately wants to remain if they can make so much money from Brexit ?
Genuine questions.
In my conversations with City people they are not in general bothered either way. Money is the most fungible thing and does not generally get affected much by borders. Some of them certainly see opportunities outside EU regulation. It is manufacturing, which represents about 10% of our economy, which is jumping up and down the most.
You see, here are another two of the traps Leave voters found themselves falling into. The first goes like this:
1. I know some people who work in industry "x" (in this case, in the finance industry) who don't see Brexit as a problem.
2. Certainly industry "x" will be better placed than industry "y" (in this case, manufacturing).
3. This must mean that industry "x" will be better off once we leave; and we don't have to worry about industry "y"
And this gets repeated, with industry "x" and industry "y" being swapped, depending on the topic. The trap gets exacerbated when voter "a" doesn't fully appreciate the nonsense he's saying and passes it on to a credulous voter "b", who passes it on starting with something like, "my mate, who knows people in [industry "x"] said, we'll be better off after Brexit..."
And the second trap is conflating the health of an industry with the economic health of the country. Here's an obvious example: it's clear that hedge funds, traders, insurance brokers, the reinsurance market, traders, financial advisers and many, many more will benefit greatly from the economic fluxes that take place leading up to and (let's hope it doesn't go this far) immediately after. A lot of people are going to be making a lot of money. The problem is, many more of them than previously will be doing so from Paris, Frankfurt, Dublin and elsewhere, rather than the City. Swelling our competitors' coffers; providing diminishing returns for our Treasury.
I was not trying to make a point about whether Brexit is good for the economy or not, just observations on what is happening based on experience. I also know several medium sized financial organisations who have bought tiny organisations of half a dozen people in Dublin and are going to call it their head office. I also know from a city recruiter that City people have been taking knowledge of German off their cvs so they do not get picked to move. Only personal experiences of course and may mean nothing.
"Several medium sized financial organisation who have bought tiny organisation of half a dozen people in Dublin and are going to call it their head office". Sadly, I think this is going to be an not-uncommon situation, enabling businesses to write profits into whichever is the lowest-tax haven, with the UK competing for businesses with a race-to-the-bottom on tax.
Again, a lovely anecdote about people changing paperwork to make it harder for them to move from London to Frankfurt. I salute your use of irony.
Comments
"Following the recession in 2008, average wages fell almost consistently in real terms until mid-2014. From 2014 to 2016, inflation was low and wages increased, though they’re still not back to their pre-recession levels".
https://fullfact.org/economy/how-have-wages-changed/
Also it should be noted that the odds on a 2019 General election dropped again yesterday - they've now gone from 15/8 to 6/4 to 5/4 over a two day period.
As you state, the result of a "People's Vote" is not a foregone conclusion. Nor is it clear the precise path to arrive at an actual vote before we leave towards the end of March. What is clear is that May is not getting "booted" and some actually admire her staying power. This doesn't change the fact that the polls clearly show that she leads a party that supports Leave 70:30 and opposes a "People's Vote" by a similar margin. Therefore her position is naturally that it's her deal or "no deal" and she sees her mandate to manage the leaving process.
Suffice it to say that Lib Dem and Labour voters have a similar 70:30 polling profile but this time in favour of both a second vote and also of Remain.
Journalists analysing the Parliamentary arithmetic confirm that the deal won't pass at this point but the numbers behind the likes of Soubry and Clarke are not immense. The question is then how we might proceed to a second vote on the deal or a "people's vote". Not clear as this probably has to be a motion put in place by the Government which, combined with the points above, means that there probably has to be a change in Government.
Perhaps now people might see the logic of the Labour policy supported unanimously at their conference. After all the composite process was managed by Sir Keir Starmer who is somewhat over qualified to put together an effective strategy: First call for an election / change the government, then manage Brexit, possibly through a People's Vote. And at all times support a Customs Union whether that's within the EU or outside in a BINO style deal.
The overwhelming majority of the electorate support remaining in the Customs Union. Leaving the CU was never on the Leave prospectus and today that is their biggest weakness. For there are three million manufacturing jobs and most of these jobs happen to be in the very areas which were mis-sold the Unicorns and shiny red busses back n 2016. A brief glance at the geographical distribution on the polls you share shows a very, very different picture to 2016. This initial poll indicates a massive shift from the 2016 58:42 landslide for leave in the regions to a 46% Remain plays 38% No deal Brexit. A word of caution for it would be premature to draw conclusions from one set of polls plus there is not a clear comparison on the geography. And this is not like for like as it's Remain vs No deal. Elsewhere on the web there are polls broken down by county and there has been a swing to Remain in most locations.
What is highlighted is that "no deal" doesn't fly with the public nor does leaving the CU. And those three million manufaturing jobs have friends and family across a wide range of marginals. Now perhaps we see why Labour have supported a permanent CU arrangement. And why May has suddenly shifted to a CU position. Rees Mogg and the rest might feel comfortable playing fast and loose with manufacturing but not May and Hammond who are looking at both the budget and the prospects for the next election. Overall the agreement has started with only a one in six or 16% approval compared to no deal or Remain. Where these numbers go next week is critical.
Let's see where we are at the end of the month.
Plus ca change.
1. I know some people who work in industry "x" (in this case, in the finance industry) who don't see Brexit as a problem.
2. Certainly industry "x" will be better placed than industry "y" (in this case, manufacturing).
3. This must mean that industry "x" will be better off once we leave; and we don't have to worry about industry "y"
And this gets repeated, with industry "x" and industry "y" being swapped, depending on the topic. The trap gets exacerbated when voter "a" doesn't fully appreciate the nonsense he's saying and passes it on to a credulous voter "b", who passes it on starting with something like, "my mate, who knows people in [industry "x"] said, we'll be better off after Brexit..."
And the second trap is conflating the health of an industry with the economic health of the country. Here's an obvious example: it's clear that hedge funds, traders, insurance brokers, the reinsurance market, traders, financial advisers and many, many more will benefit greatly from the economic fluxes that take place leading up to and (let's hope it doesn't go this far) immediately after. A lot of people are going to be making a lot of money. The problem is, many more of them than previously will be doing so from Paris, Frankfurt, Dublin and elsewhere, rather than the City. Swelling our competitors' coffers; providing diminishing returns for our Treasury.
I also know several medium sized financial organisations who have bought tiny organisations of half a dozen people in Dublin and are going to call it their head office.
I also know from a city recruiter that City people have been taking knowledge of German off their cvs so they do not get picked to move.
Only personal experiences of course and may mean nothing.
I just hope no one is foolish enough to sink to your levels. Very sad.
Also the city is a vast segment, just because one small part can see money to be made, doesn't mean it's true for all. The Swiss for example have a very specific deal to ensure their financial sector works within the EU and they had to become part of Schengen as part of that deal, we're going to have to accept something many Brexiters want to give our financial sector the access they currently enjoy.
I have thought for some time that the way to defeat Brexit is to get the Brexiteers to stop it, are we getting closer to that?
Has that been Theresa May's strategy all along.
Les hope.
If the ERG don't get their 48 letters by Monday (the waiverers will have spent the weekend consulting in their constituencies and taking calls from whips) then it's not going to happen and then the natural tendency will be to rally around the leader.
But it will be close.
Did you join the Prague protests?
(I saw the headings and thought you'd been upsetting loads of people)
;-)
Once again for clarity, I'm not disputing your assertion, or trying to be awkward.
It's just that the Guardian article provides no evidence to me.
Yes they have overseas/offshore business, but that in itself doesn't prove they stand to profit.
I'm quite sure someone can explain, I'm just wanting to understand these "assertions".
I would still put her chance of getting the deal through the commons at less than 50%. She may well get the public on her side but I still can’t see how she’ll get the numbers. Maybe the DUP will have a change of heart but I can’t see the JRM crowd changing their minds. That would leave her relying on some Labour centrists and/or some SNP votes - at this stage it doesn’t seem likely but maybe it could change.
Can’t see there being a further referendum and, even less probably a general election so, when push comes to shove, how many MPs will vote this down preferring a no deal WTO Brexit?
Maybe the sentiment, come the vote, will be ‘we are where we are and this is better than no deal. Besides which it’s only a placeholder for the full EU trade deal’.
My ideal would be another vote but, failing that, I’d go along with this hopefully paving the way for a Norway style agreement. Wouldn’t please the hard brexiteers but how many of them truly are there? Certainly less than 52% and probably (and importantly) less than 50%.
Again, a lovely anecdote about people changing paperwork to make it harder for them to move from London to Frankfurt. I salute your use of irony.