Look, the Conservative party need all the support they can get. You can't begrudge that!
For sure they need help - perhaps a period in retreat and time to contemplate their life purpose might be of assistance. Ultimately, they've had two years in majority government in the last 20 and really aren't that good at it. Whilst defeat of the WA agreement might precipitate a breakdown, perhaps it's all for the best?
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Because, as anyone with half a brain cell knows, the decision to leave was the most stupid decision of self harm ever made by a democracy. The morons who fell for the lies and disinformation of the Brexit terrorists need to be protected from themselves.
Morons? Charming, as usual! It’s that type of narrative which if there was another vote, would ensure plenty vote leave again.l, just like in the build up to the vote.
Just because the Govt have made a clusterfuck since the vote, does not mean that plenty of people who voted leave did not do so for honourable and justifiable reasons. Intelligent, worldly people from all walks of life voted leave. The numbers make that evidently clear.
So just because someone calls you a moron you would be prepared to vote for something you knew was damaging just to make a point ?
Not me personally, no, but plenty would not appreciate being patronised with such a condesending attitude. Just like in the lead up to the vote.
And lots still won’t see it as necessarily damaging in the long term.
Is long term Jacob Rees-Mogg’s 50 years ? If that’s the case then you have to consider the moron tag as possibly apt ?
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
And to be clear, I think that Brexit could be great for the economy if it forces a shake up in the way it is run-along the lines of the Times article I posted yesterday.
No one's read it. It's behind a paywall. Nevertheless I'd be interested if you post the main points from it that you endorse, since I am curious to find out what concrete political and economic policies you believe in.
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
And to be clear, I think that Brexit could be great for the economy if it forces a shake up in the way it is run-along the lines of the Times article I posted yesterday.
No one's read it. It's behind a paywall. Nevertheless I'd be interested if you post the main points from it that you endorse, since I am curious to find out what concrete political and economic policies you believe in.
By the Remainer economics editor of the Times- productivity remains Britain’s biggest economic challenge. Ironically, on that issue, Brexit may actually help. The economics literature says the exact opposite. It says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But the analysis ignores the power of disruption. Disruption forces change, which orthodox economics celebrates, and Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
Business has grown fat and lazy on cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices. Companies have been paying out record dividends, buying back shares and making only minimal investment for more than a decade. Brexit may have deterred investment in expansion, but it is driving investment in systems and efficiency, which is far more fundamental to productivity than a new warehouse. A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit that it has seconded staff to upgrade suppliers’ technology and management systems because it cannot afford even the slightest delay. This “diffusion” of best practice is now widespread in manufacturing, consultants say. It is important because a failure to diffuse knowledge between companies is a key barrier to higher productivity. Be the Business, an industry-led initiative, was established last year to address that exact challenge. Brexit is giving it a hand.
Now that unemployment is so low and free movement is ending, companies are facing skills shortages. Tighter labour conditions are lifting pay and providing the “impetus for firms to invest in automation to improve productivity”, the Bank of England has observed. Retailers, hit hard by inflation since the referendum, are pouring money into technology. Jobs are being lost, but the industry is creating new, better-paid ones, the British Retail Consortium says.
These are all anecdotes, nothing more because no analysis has been done, but they serve to show that business is responding to Brexit disruption. It is changing in a way that until now it had resisted, and if anything is an enemy of productivity, it is complacency with the status quo.
It’s not only business that faces change. The whole economy will have to adjust after Brexit, the IMF said. Financial services will be the most affected sector in a free trade deal, but the City will remain a global financial centre, just with a little less power. Structural economic changes also would reshuffle Britain’s workforce, with fewer bankers and more engineers as manufacturers gradually bring supply chains onshore.
The IMF concluded that Britain’s labour market was better able to adjust than that of most European countries. Even so, the government would have to invest in retraining and housing to help aid relocation — policies that the country needs regardless of Brexit. The fund also recommended policies to support entrepreneurs, including access to credit. The Bank is already on the case. It is said to be considering plans to relax capital standards for smaller lenders once out of the EU, in a move that could boost small business finance.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course, but no one would ever choose disruption. It is disorientating, a process of painful change that always claims victims. The status quo, protected by entrenched interests, is always preferable. The last time the economy faced an equivalent upheaval was under Margaret Thatcher. It was hard, but Britain did rebuild and was stronger for it. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. But it may also bring rebirth
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Because, as anyone with half a brain cell knows, the decision to leave was the most stupid decision of self harm ever made by a democracy. The morons who fell for the lies and disinformation of the Brexit terrorists need to be protected from themselves.
Morons? Charming, as usual! It’s that type of narrative which if there was another vote, would ensure plenty vote leave again.l, just like in the build up to the vote.
Just because the Govt have made a clusterfuck since the vote, does not mean that plenty of people who voted leave did not do so for honourable and justifiable reasons. Intelligent, worldly people from all walks of life voted leave. The numbers make that evidently clear.
So just because someone calls you a moron you would be prepared to vote for something you knew was damaging just to make a point ?
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
And to be clear, I think that Brexit could be great for the economy if it forces a shake up in the way it is run-along the lines of the Times article I posted yesterday.
No one's read it. It's behind a paywall. Nevertheless I'd be interested if you post the main points from it that you endorse, since I am curious to find out what concrete political and economic policies you believe in.
By the Remainer economics editor of the Times- productivity remains Britain’s biggest economic challenge. Ironically, on that issue, Brexit may actually help. The economics literature says the exact opposite. It says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But the analysis ignores the power of disruption. Disruption forces change, which orthodox economics celebrates, and Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
Business has grown fat and lazy on cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices. Companies have been paying out record dividends, buying back shares and making only minimal investment for more than a decade. Brexit may have deterred investment in expansion, but it is driving investment in systems and efficiency, which is far more fundamental to productivity than a new warehouse. A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit that it has seconded staff to upgrade suppliers’ technology and management systems because it cannot afford even the slightest delay. This “diffusion” of best practice is now widespread in manufacturing, consultants say. It is important because a failure to diffuse knowledge between companies is a key barrier to higher productivity. Be the Business, an industry-led initiative, was established last year to address that exact challenge. Brexit is giving it a hand.
Now that unemployment is so low and free movement is ending, companies are facing skills shortages. Tighter labour conditions are lifting pay and providing the “impetus for firms to invest in automation to improve productivity”, the Bank of England has observed. Retailers, hit hard by inflation since the referendum, are pouring money into technology. Jobs are being lost, but the industry is creating new, better-paid ones, the British Retail Consortium says.
These are all anecdotes, nothing more because no analysis has been done, but they serve to show that business is responding to Brexit disruption. It is changing in a way that until now it had resisted, and if anything is an enemy of productivity, it is complacency with the status quo.
It’s not only business that faces change. The whole economy will have to adjust after Brexit, the IMF said. Financial services will be the most affected sector in a free trade deal, but the City will remain a global financial centre, just with a little less power. Structural economic changes also would reshuffle Britain’s workforce, with fewer bankers and more engineers as manufacturers gradually bring supply chains onshore.
The IMF concluded that Britain’s labour market was better able to adjust than that of most European countries. Even so, the government would have to invest in retraining and housing to help aid relocation — policies that the country needs regardless of Brexit. The fund also recommended policies to support entrepreneurs, including access to credit. The Bank is already on the case. It is said to be considering plans to relax capital standards for smaller lenders once out of the EU, in a move that could boost small business finance.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course, but no one would ever choose disruption. It is disorientating, a process of painful change that always claims victims. The status quo, protected by entrenched interests, is always preferable. The last time the economy faced an equivalent upheaval was under Margaret Thatcher. It was hard, but Britain did rebuild and was stronger for it. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. But it may also bring rebirth
I've highlighted the key words in case anyone has missed them. I suspect that Joseph Schumpeter would be as disgusted as I am at this mangling of his theory.
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
Where we have control over our laws, borders and money-not what is in the current agreement.
Back to square one
Which laws that we currently have that you dislike so much and would not be the same outside of the eu. Name two ?
The nonsense that we cannot bring down immigration under existing laws has been done to death. Roughly half ish of our immigration is from outside the eu.
Last time I looked we were not in the eurozone.
You know all that already but keep rattling out the same old claptrap. The evidence is out there but you ignore it.
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
And to be clear, I think that Brexit could be great for the economy if it forces a shake up in the way it is run-along the lines of the Times article I posted yesterday.
No one's read it. It's behind a paywall. Nevertheless I'd be interested if you post the main points from it that you endorse, since I am curious to find out what concrete political and economic policies you believe in.
By the Remainer economics editor of the Times- productivity remains Britain’s biggest economic challenge. Ironically, on that issue, Brexit may actually help. The economics literature says the exact opposite. It says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But the analysis ignores the power of disruption. Disruption forces change, which orthodox economics celebrates, and Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
Business has grown fat and lazy on cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices. Companies have been paying out record dividends, buying back shares and making only minimal investment for more than a decade. Brexit may have deterred investment in expansion, but it is driving investment in systems and efficiency, which is far more fundamental to productivity than a new warehouse. A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit that it has seconded staff to upgrade suppliers’ technology and management systems because it cannot afford even the slightest delay. This “diffusion” of best practice is now widespread in manufacturing, consultants say. It is important because a failure to diffuse knowledge between companies is a key barrier to higher productivity. Be the Business, an industry-led initiative, was established last year to address that exact challenge. Brexit is giving it a hand.
Now that unemployment is so low and free movement is ending, companies are facing skills shortages. Tighter labour conditions are lifting pay and providing the “impetus for firms to invest in automation to improve productivity”, the Bank of England has observed. Retailers, hit hard by inflation since the referendum, are pouring money into technology. Jobs are being lost, but the industry is creating new, better-paid ones, the British Retail Consortium says.
These are all anecdotes, nothing more because no analysis has been done, but they serve to show that business is responding to Brexit disruption. It is changing in a way that until now it had resisted, and if anything is an enemy of productivity, it is complacency with the status quo.
It’s not only business that faces change. The whole economy will have to adjust after Brexit, the IMF said. Financial services will be the most affected sector in a free trade deal, but the City will remain a global financial centre, just with a little less power. Structural economic changes also would reshuffle Britain’s workforce, with fewer bankers and more engineers as manufacturers gradually bring supply chains onshore.
The IMF concluded that Britain’s labour market was better able to adjust than that of most European countries. Even so, the government would have to invest in retraining and housing to help aid relocation — policies that the country needs regardless of Brexit. The fund also recommended policies to support entrepreneurs, including access to credit. The Bank is already on the case. It is said to be considering plans to relax capital standards for smaller lenders once out of the EU, in a move that could boost small business finance.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course, but no one would ever choose disruption. It is disorientating, a process of painful change that always claims victims. The status quo, protected by entrenched interests, is always preferable. The last time the economy faced an equivalent upheaval was under Margaret Thatcher. It was hard, but Britain did rebuild and was stronger for it. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. But it may also bring rebirth
This is essentially the Broken Window fallacy. Firms are spending money in re-skilling or retooling their business models instead of on investment and innovation.
The idea that firms aren't innovating/modernising due to cheap EU labour is simply untrue. Competition has never been fiercer in most industries and the need to harness technology, automation and e-commerce is keenly felt by all firms. Those who get left behind lose. Look at all the high street failures of firms that refused to modernise.
Was Thatcher good? Well to London and to big business yes. Not to the dozens of towns and cities she decimated by destroying their industry, leaving behind generations of unemployment and poverty. Whilst Thatcher was destroying British industry, Germany was investing in their own industry and now look where we are - we are a net importer of German goods and they have an industry powerhouse thanks to a highly skilled well paid powerhouse, whereas we have pockets of desolation thanks to the "disruptive" policies you are promoting. We don't even have the excuse that half our country spent nearly half a century behind the iron curtain.
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Because the leave referendum result is cancelled out by the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent referendum on it. On those terms the score is 1-1. Trouble is nobody has decided if it is now going to extra time, or a penalty shoot out if a draw after extra time, or straight to penalties, or a golden goal result, or the Duckworth Lewis System, or the Duckworth Lewis Stern System, or the toss of a coin.
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
And to be clear, I think that Brexit could be great for the economy if it forces a shake up in the way it is run-along the lines of the Times article I posted yesterday.
No one's read it. It's behind a paywall. Nevertheless I'd be interested if you post the main points from it that you endorse, since I am curious to find out what concrete political and economic policies you believe in.
By the Remainer economics editor of the Times- productivity remains Britain’s biggest economic challenge. Ironically, on that issue, Brexit may actually help. The economics literature says the exact opposite. It says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But the analysis ignores the power of disruption. Disruption forces change, which orthodox economics celebrates, and Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
Business has grown fat and lazy on cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices. Companies have been paying out record dividends, buying back shares and making only minimal investment for more than a decade. Brexit may have deterred investment in expansion, but it is driving investment in systems and efficiency, which is far more fundamental to productivity than a new warehouse. A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit that it has seconded staff to upgrade suppliers’ technology and management systems because it cannot afford even the slightest delay. This “diffusion” of best practice is now widespread in manufacturing, consultants say. It is important because a failure to diffuse knowledge between companies is a key barrier to higher productivity. Be the Business, an industry-led initiative, was established last year to address that exact challenge. Brexit is giving it a hand.
Now that unemployment is so low and free movement is ending, companies are facing skills shortages. Tighter labour conditions are lifting pay and providing the “impetus for firms to invest in automation to improve productivity”, the Bank of England has observed. Retailers, hit hard by inflation since the referendum, are pouring money into technology. Jobs are being lost, but the industry is creating new, better-paid ones, the British Retail Consortium says.
These are all anecdotes, nothing more because no analysis has been done, but they serve to show that business is responding to Brexit disruption. It is changing in a way that until now it had resisted, and if anything is an enemy of productivity, it is complacency with the status quo.
It’s not only business that faces change. The whole economy will have to adjust after Brexit, the IMF said. Financial services will be the most affected sector in a free trade deal, but the City will remain a global financial centre, just with a little less power. Structural economic changes also would reshuffle Britain’s workforce, with fewer bankers and more engineers as manufacturers gradually bring supply chains onshore.
The IMF concluded that Britain’s labour market was better able to adjust than that of most European countries. Even so, the government would have to invest in retraining and housing to help aid relocation — policies that the country needs regardless of Brexit. The fund also recommended policies to support entrepreneurs, including access to credit. The Bank is already on the case. It is said to be considering plans to relax capital standards for smaller lenders once out of the EU, in a move that could boost small business finance.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course, but no one would ever choose disruption. It is disorientating, a process of painful change that always claims victims. The status quo, protected by entrenched interests, is always preferable. The last time the economy faced an equivalent upheaval was under Margaret Thatcher. It was hard, but Britain did rebuild and was stronger for it. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. But it may also bring rebirth
________________________ Summary
Economics literature says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
In Britain, businesses currently benefit from cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices, which would all be at risk, following Brexit. Companies have been paying out record dividends, which encourages inward investment into UK plc.
A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit: it cannot afford even the slightest delay such as would be commonplace with a no-deal Brexit and likely in any other Brexit scenario.
Right now, unemployment is so low and companies are facing skills shortages that to suggest the economy requires restrictions on immigration make no economic sense.
Retailers have been hit hard by inflation since the referendum and jobs are being lost.
The City will have less power.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course. It is a process of painful change that always claims victims. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. ________________________ This is an article considered to be supportive of the idea of Brexit?
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
And to be clear, I think that Brexit could be great for the economy if it forces a shake up in the way it is run-along the lines of the Times article I posted yesterday.
No one's read it. It's behind a paywall. Nevertheless I'd be interested if you post the main points from it that you endorse, since I am curious to find out what concrete political and economic policies you believe in.
By the Remainer economics editor of the Times- productivity remains Britain’s biggest economic challenge. Ironically, on that issue, Brexit may actually help. The economics literature says the exact opposite. It says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But the analysis ignores the power of disruption. Disruption forces change, which orthodox economics celebrates, and Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
Business has grown fat and lazy on cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices. Companies have been paying out record dividends, buying back shares and making only minimal investment for more than a decade. Brexit may have deterred investment in expansion, but it is driving investment in systems and efficiency, which is far more fundamental to productivity than a new warehouse. A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit that it has seconded staff to upgrade suppliers’ technology and management systems because it cannot afford even the slightest delay. This “diffusion” of best practice is now widespread in manufacturing, consultants say. It is important because a failure to diffuse knowledge between companies is a key barrier to higher productivity. Be the Business, an industry-led initiative, was established last year to address that exact challenge. Brexit is giving it a hand.
Now that unemployment is so low and free movement is ending, companies are facing skills shortages. Tighter labour conditions are lifting pay and providing the “impetus for firms to invest in automation to improve productivity”, the Bank of England has observed. Retailers, hit hard by inflation since the referendum, are pouring money into technology. Jobs are being lost, but the industry is creating new, better-paid ones, the British Retail Consortium says.
These are all anecdotes, nothing more because no analysis has been done, but they serve to show that business is responding to Brexit disruption. It is changing in a way that until now it had resisted, and if anything is an enemy of productivity, it is complacency with the status quo.
It’s not only business that faces change. The whole economy will have to adjust after Brexit, the IMF said. Financial services will be the most affected sector in a free trade deal, but the City will remain a global financial centre, just with a little less power. Structural economic changes also would reshuffle Britain’s workforce, with fewer bankers and more engineers as manufacturers gradually bring supply chains onshore.
The IMF concluded that Britain’s labour market was better able to adjust than that of most European countries. Even so, the government would have to invest in retraining and housing to help aid relocation — policies that the country needs regardless of Brexit. The fund also recommended policies to support entrepreneurs, including access to credit. The Bank is already on the case. It is said to be considering plans to relax capital standards for smaller lenders once out of the EU, in a move that could boost small business finance.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course, but no one would ever choose disruption. It is disorientating, a process of painful change that always claims victims. The status quo, protected by entrenched interests, is always preferable. The last time the economy faced an equivalent upheaval was under Margaret Thatcher. It was hard, but Britain did rebuild and was stronger for it. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. But it may also bring rebirth
________________________ Summary
Economics literature says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
In Britain, businesses currently benefit from cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices, which would all be at risk, following Brexit. Companies have been paying out record dividends, which encourages inward investment into UK plc.
A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit: it cannot afford even the slightest delay such as would be commonplace with a no-deal Brexit and likely in any other Brexit scenario.
Right now, unemployment is so low and companies are facing skills shortages that to suggest the economy requires restrictions on immigration make no economic sense.
Retailers have been hit hard by inflation since the referendum and jobs are being lost.
The City will have less power.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course. It is a process of painful change that always claims victims. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. ________________________ This is an article considered to be supportive of the idea of Brexit?
It is if you don't lift sentences out of context-although it was written by somebody opposed to Brexit.
It basically says that Brexit is going to be a kick in the nuts but sometimes a kick in the nuts gets things moving.
Yes, that is the way capitalism works I am afraid.
I'm not sure that, as a slogan "like a kick in the nuts" is the most wonderful advertisement for the delights of capitalism...
It is worth pointing out, however, that, on most occasions, the result of a kick in the nuts is not actually an improvement - at least, not if it's done properly.
Brext, like walking into a nuclear core unprotected, hoping to gain super powers, but probably just getting a slow painful death from radiation sickness.
It basically says that Brexit is going to be a kick in the nuts but sometimes a kick in the nuts gets things moving.
Yes, that is the way capitalism works I am afraid.
I'm not sure that, as a slogan "like a kick in the nuts" is the most wonderful advertisement for the delights of capitalism...
It is worth pointing out, however, that, on most occasions, the result of a kick in the nuts is not actually an improvement - at least, not if it's done properly.
Capitalism is a pretty brutal system and not one I would choose if there was a better alternative. However, it does through creative destruction stimulate innovation and increased productivity up to a point. Our current stagnant economy needs something to shake it up. This is the point of the article-which nobody has yet engaged with on here.
@stonemuse Remain has to be an option since we are all allowed to change our minds, but what would your alternative proposal to go on the ballot as leave means leave is very undefinable. Are you suggestion in order to not split the leave vote that the option should be around leaving completely with no surrounding agreements in place, what would be your question?
My question would be, we voted to Leave why aren't we leaving.
Back to square one.
The same question leavers have been failing to get an answer to for two plus years. What Brexit exactly did you want ? because we could have Mays Brexit which as a remainer still looks like brexit to me or do you want the fully fledged full metal jacket Brexit where we all kiss our arses goodbye. Apart from the nuttiest of nut jobs nobody wants that.
And to be clear, I think that Brexit could be great for the economy if it forces a shake up in the way it is run-along the lines of the Times article I posted yesterday.
No one's read it. It's behind a paywall. Nevertheless I'd be interested if you post the main points from it that you endorse, since I am curious to find out what concrete political and economic policies you believe in.
By the Remainer economics editor of the Times- productivity remains Britain’s biggest economic challenge. Ironically, on that issue, Brexit may actually help. The economics literature says the exact opposite. It says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But the analysis ignores the power of disruption. Disruption forces change, which orthodox economics celebrates, and Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
Business has grown fat and lazy on cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices. Companies have been paying out record dividends, buying back shares and making only minimal investment for more than a decade. Brexit may have deterred investment in expansion, but it is driving investment in systems and efficiency, which is far more fundamental to productivity than a new warehouse. A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit that it has seconded staff to upgrade suppliers’ technology and management systems because it cannot afford even the slightest delay. This “diffusion” of best practice is now widespread in manufacturing, consultants say. It is important because a failure to diffuse knowledge between companies is a key barrier to higher productivity. Be the Business, an industry-led initiative, was established last year to address that exact challenge. Brexit is giving it a hand.
Now that unemployment is so low and free movement is ending, companies are facing skills shortages. Tighter labour conditions are lifting pay and providing the “impetus for firms to invest in automation to improve productivity”, the Bank of England has observed. Retailers, hit hard by inflation since the referendum, are pouring money into technology. Jobs are being lost, but the industry is creating new, better-paid ones, the British Retail Consortium says.
These are all anecdotes, nothing more because no analysis has been done, but they serve to show that business is responding to Brexit disruption. It is changing in a way that until now it had resisted, and if anything is an enemy of productivity, it is complacency with the status quo.
It’s not only business that faces change. The whole economy will have to adjust after Brexit, the IMF said. Financial services will be the most affected sector in a free trade deal, but the City will remain a global financial centre, just with a little less power. Structural economic changes also would reshuffle Britain’s workforce, with fewer bankers and more engineers as manufacturers gradually bring supply chains onshore.
The IMF concluded that Britain’s labour market was better able to adjust than that of most European countries. Even so, the government would have to invest in retraining and housing to help aid relocation — policies that the country needs regardless of Brexit. The fund also recommended policies to support entrepreneurs, including access to credit. The Bank is already on the case. It is said to be considering plans to relax capital standards for smaller lenders once out of the EU, in a move that could boost small business finance.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course, but no one would ever choose disruption. It is disorientating, a process of painful change that always claims victims. The status quo, protected by entrenched interests, is always preferable. The last time the economy faced an equivalent upheaval was under Margaret Thatcher. It was hard, but Britain did rebuild and was stronger for it. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. But it may also bring rebirth
________________________ Summary
Economics literature says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
In Britain, businesses currently benefit from cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices, which would all be at risk, following Brexit. Companies have been paying out record dividends, which encourages inward investment into UK plc.
A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit: it cannot afford even the slightest delay such as would be commonplace with a no-deal Brexit and likely in any other Brexit scenario.
Right now, unemployment is so low and companies are facing skills shortages that to suggest the economy requires restrictions on immigration make no economic sense.
Retailers have been hit hard by inflation since the referendum and jobs are being lost.
The City will have less power.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course. It is a process of painful change that always claims victims. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. ________________________ This is an article considered to be supportive of the idea of Brexit?
It is if you don't lift sentences out of context-although it was written by somebody opposed to Brexit.
It's an entirely fact-free, data-free, anecdote-laden essay but draws the conclusion that Brexit will be harmful to most industries.
I look forward to seeing bankers retraining as engineers though, as we begin to meet the challenges of the late 18th century.
It basically says that Brexit is going to be a kick in the nuts but sometimes a kick in the nuts gets things moving.
Yes, that is the way capitalism works I am afraid.
I'm not sure that, as a slogan "like a kick in the nuts" is the most wonderful advertisement for the delights of capitalism...
It is worth pointing out, however, that, on most occasions, the result of a kick in the nuts is not actually an improvement - at least, not if it's done properly.
Capitalism is a pretty brutal system and not one I would choose if there was a better alternative. However, it does through creative destruction stimulate innovation and increased productivity up to a point. Our current stagnant economy needs something to shake it up. This is the point of the article-which nobody has yet engaged with on here.
I think I have, but you chose to ignore it. The whole thing about creative destruction is that it is forces from within the system which cause the destruction and open up the space for creativity. It is absolutely not about governments or other outside agencies doing stupid things to give the economy a kick in the nuts.
If you shoot the last five runners to cross the line each lap in a 10,000m race, you are likely to find that 10,000m race winning times become lower and lower. Ergo, shooting athletes makes athletes run faster.
If you drink far too much, you destroy brain cells. If it's the weakest of those brain cells that die, the average brain cell will be stronger. Ergo, drinking alcohol makes you smarter.
Brexit will be harmful to the economy. But, some of the companies that don't go out of business will increase their productivity. Ergo, Brexit will be good for the economy.
It basically says that Brexit is going to be a kick in the nuts but sometimes a kick in the nuts gets things moving.
Yes, that is the way capitalism works I am afraid.
I'm not sure that, as a slogan "like a kick in the nuts" is the most wonderful advertisement for the delights of capitalism...
It is worth pointing out, however, that, on most occasions, the result of a kick in the nuts is not actually an improvement - at least, not if it's done properly.
Capitalism is a pretty brutal system and not one I would choose if there was a better alternative. However, it does through creative destruction stimulate innovation and increased productivity up to a point. Our current stagnant economy needs something to shake it up. This is the point of the article-which nobody has yet engaged with on here.
Blimey everything is getting rather poetic and philosophical here with seemingly opposing concepts being thrown together like 'creative destruction'. Perhaps that's what May has negotiated, 'leaving remaining', or Rabb this morning was about 'loyal treachery' or 'honest duplicity'. Labour policy on Brexit is about 'clear obfuscation'. Perhaps those who advocate brexit are selling 'fragrant chite'.
It basically says that Brexit is going to be a kick in the nuts but sometimes a kick in the nuts gets things moving.
Yes, that is the way capitalism works I am afraid.
I'm not sure that, as a slogan "like a kick in the nuts" is the most wonderful advertisement for the delights of capitalism...
It is worth pointing out, however, that, on most occasions, the result of a kick in the nuts is not actually an improvement - at least, not if it's done properly.
Capitalism is a pretty brutal system and not one I would choose if there was a better alternative. However, it does through creative destruction stimulate innovation and increased productivity up to a point. Our current stagnant economy needs something to shake it up. This is the point of the article-which nobody has yet engaged with on here.
From an economic perspective, is it "creative destruction" when (as with Brexit) created by political change, rather than some kind of economic/industrial advance?
IMHO, what is being suggested for Brexit is more likely to have negative rather than positive outcomes for the majority in the UK.
The likelihood is that, post-Brexit, it will be external forces that will be driving the destruction (including trading terms required by potential "partners"), so I wonder the extent to which innovation and/or increased productivity will be the result.
Historically, radical economic change, wrought by external forces (admittedly, often at the point of a sword), even in advanced economies and societies, have rarely ended well - so I have my doubts.
Brexiters like to hark back to the age of buccaneering English traders and freebooters. While the era, and the location (the Caribbean, Central and South America), may be correct, I fear that the experience they will afford us all will be closer to that of those forced to feed the Conquistador hunger for wealth (sad git that I am, I do find the economic management of the Habsburg Empire fascinating).
Nietzsche? "The urge to destroy is essentially a constructive one". He wasn't one for a beer nor a prayer, but certainly subscribed to making the most of circumstance. Ubermensche rings a bell.
However, we are in the midst of the fight so perhaps best to adopt stoical after the event rather than accept the outcome before the narrative is actually finished!
In other words, there's a case right now for discourse and for diverting our destiny, or at least discussing where we might be in March.
Once again Brexit has become more about the Conservative Party and not Brexit itself. At the point where massive decisions affecting us all for generations should be playing out we are stuck with the Tories tearing themselves apart in full view of the incredulous world with everything on hold until they find a way to move forward.
If ever there was a bunch of more useless self serving cowards in government then I’d like to know who.
Comments
productivity remains Britain’s biggest economic challenge. Ironically, on that issue, Brexit may actually help. The economics literature says the exact opposite. It says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But the analysis ignores the power of disruption. Disruption forces change, which orthodox economics celebrates, and Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
Business has grown fat and lazy on cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices. Companies have been paying out record dividends, buying back shares and making only minimal investment for more than a decade. Brexit may have deterred investment in expansion, but it is driving investment in systems and efficiency, which is far more fundamental to productivity than a new warehouse. A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit that it has seconded staff to upgrade suppliers’ technology and management systems because it cannot afford even the slightest delay. This “diffusion” of best practice is now widespread in manufacturing, consultants say. It is important because a failure to diffuse knowledge between companies is a key barrier to higher productivity. Be the Business, an industry-led initiative, was established last year to address that exact challenge. Brexit is giving it a hand.
Now that unemployment is so low and free movement is ending, companies are facing skills shortages. Tighter labour conditions are lifting pay and providing the “impetus for firms to invest in automation to improve productivity”, the Bank of England has observed. Retailers, hit hard by inflation since the referendum, are pouring money into technology. Jobs are being lost, but the industry is creating new, better-paid ones, the British Retail Consortium says.
These are all anecdotes, nothing more because no analysis has been done, but they serve to show that business is responding to Brexit disruption. It is changing in a way that until now it had resisted, and if anything is an enemy of productivity, it is complacency with the status quo.
It’s not only business that faces change. The whole economy will have to adjust after Brexit, the IMF said. Financial services will be the most affected sector in a free trade deal, but the City will remain a global financial centre, just with a little less power. Structural economic changes also would reshuffle Britain’s workforce, with fewer bankers and more engineers as manufacturers gradually bring supply chains onshore.
The IMF concluded that Britain’s labour market was better able to adjust than that of most European countries. Even so, the government would have to invest in retraining and housing to help aid relocation — policies that the country needs regardless of Brexit. The fund also recommended policies to support entrepreneurs, including access to credit. The Bank is already on the case. It is said to be considering plans to relax capital standards for smaller lenders once out of the EU, in a move that could boost small business finance.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course, but no one would ever choose disruption. It is disorientating, a process of painful change that always claims victims. The status quo, protected by entrenched interests, is always preferable. The last time the economy faced an equivalent upheaval was under Margaret Thatcher. It was hard, but Britain did rebuild and was stronger for it. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll. But it may also bring rebirth
The idea that firms aren't innovating/modernising due to cheap EU labour is simply untrue. Competition has never been fiercer in most industries and the need to harness technology, automation and e-commerce is keenly felt by all firms. Those who get left behind lose. Look at all the high street failures of firms that refused to modernise.
Was Thatcher good? Well to London and to big business yes. Not to the dozens of towns and cities she decimated by destroying their industry, leaving behind generations of unemployment and poverty. Whilst Thatcher was destroying British industry, Germany was investing in their own industry and now look where we are - we are a net importer of German goods and they have an industry powerhouse thanks to a highly skilled well paid powerhouse, whereas we have pockets of desolation thanks to the "disruptive" policies you are promoting. We don't even have the excuse that half our country spent nearly half a century behind the iron curtain.
On those terms the score is 1-1.
Trouble is nobody has decided if it is now going to extra time, or a penalty shoot out if a draw after extra time, or straight to penalties, or a golden goal result, or the Duckworth Lewis System, or the Duckworth Lewis Stern System, or the toss of a coin.
Summary
Economics literature says that weaker trade intensity and lower migration damage productivity. But Brexit is nothing if not disruptive.
In Britain, businesses currently benefit from cheap money, cheap labour and high asset prices, which would all be at risk, following Brexit. Companies have been paying out record dividends, which encourages inward investment into UK plc.
A large automotive engineer is so worried that its supply chain will fail after Brexit: it cannot afford even the slightest delay such as would be commonplace with a no-deal Brexit and likely in any other Brexit scenario.
Right now, unemployment is so low and companies are facing skills shortages that to suggest the economy requires restrictions on immigration make no economic sense.
Retailers have been hit hard by inflation since the referendum and jobs are being lost.
The City will have less power.
No one would choose disruption this way, of course. It is a process of painful change that always claims victims. Whatever Brexit we end up with once the dust settles on this week’s draft withdrawal agreement will take an economic toll.
________________________
This is an article considered to be supportive of the idea of Brexit?
It is worth pointing out, however, that, on most occasions, the result of a kick in the nuts is not actually an improvement - at least, not if it's done properly.
However, it does through creative destruction stimulate innovation and increased productivity up to a point. Our current stagnant economy needs something to shake it up. This is the point of the article-which nobody has yet engaged with on here.
I look forward to seeing bankers retraining as engineers though, as we begin to meet the challenges of the late 18th century.
If you drink far too much, you destroy brain cells. If it's the weakest of those brain cells that die, the average brain cell will be stronger. Ergo, drinking alcohol makes you smarter.
Brexit will be harmful to the economy. But, some of the companies that don't go out of business will increase their productivity. Ergo, Brexit will be good for the economy.
I am not sure which of these is the daftest.
Perhaps that's what May has negotiated, 'leaving remaining', or Rabb this morning was about 'loyal treachery' or 'honest duplicity'. Labour policy on Brexit is about 'clear obfuscation'.
Perhaps those who advocate brexit are selling 'fragrant chite'.
IMHO, what is being suggested for Brexit is more likely to have negative rather than positive outcomes for the majority in the UK.
The likelihood is that, post-Brexit, it will be external forces that will be driving the destruction (including trading terms required by potential "partners"), so I wonder the extent to which innovation and/or increased productivity will be the result.
Historically, radical economic change, wrought by external forces (admittedly, often at the point of a sword), even in advanced economies and societies, have rarely ended well - so I have my doubts.
Brexiters like to hark back to the age of buccaneering English traders and freebooters. While the era, and the location (the Caribbean, Central and South America), may be correct, I fear that the experience they will afford us all will be closer to that of those forced to feed the Conquistador hunger for wealth (sad git that I am, I do find the economic management of the Habsburg Empire fascinating).
However, we are in the midst of the fight so perhaps best to adopt stoical after the event rather than accept the outcome before the narrative is actually finished!
In other words, there's a case right now for discourse and for diverting our destiny, or at least discussing where we might be in March.
I can see how it will take the role of Shiva but less sure how Brahma or Vishnu will get a look in.
If ever there was a bunch of more useless self serving cowards in government then I’d like to know who.