[Politics] Brexit

[nicko31]

Ah, it’s the guy who panicked when Wall Street had a wobble. Stop talking about economics and the like Nicko, you really don’t know anything as you clearly demonstrated by your bed-wetting about Wall-Street.

Too well diversified to worry about that

 

[nicko31]

Irish Border problem isn't going away

https://news.sky.com/story/irish-bo...nts-post-brexit-not-possible-say-mps-11291721

Maybe Boris has a solution. He's big on blue sky thinking

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

What will the EU look like after Brexit? - Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/dec6968c-f6ca-11e7-8715-e94187b3017e
regards
DR

Do you really and truly expect us to believe you read the FT? And if you do read it, I bet you follow the words with your finger and read them out to yourself.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

May be, I appreciate, but this on its own makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course the fundamental problem we all face is that we do not know the future.

As a Remainer I do tend to selectively scan for 'evidence' that validates my decision to stay within the EU. I see that there's plenty of it around and that it also tends to accord with the underlying economic model i.e. we will trade less (net), lose access to the biggest single market in the world, incur new transaction costs, be less attractive to 3rd party Foreign Direct Investment, lose access to our services market and possibly our international standing as a global hub, lose access to labour in crucial areas of the economy. Consequently economic growth will slow and holes will appear in the public finances. And then there's the practical stuff like additional border controls and the like such as the huge leaving costs which were never the subject of public discourse during the referendum campaign. I look at the inevitable short-term chaos that will follow which few doubt. I also look at the way our negotiations are being handled. And then there's Northern Ireland.

Equally I'm sure that the Leavers focus on their 'own' evidence although this appears to me to lean rather heavily on the 'you were wrong before so you'll be wrong again' hypothesis. Or the 'we seem to be doing OK so far' line (er, we're not really doing that well folks) and the ultimate trump card: 'feck the lot of them'. And of course 'it' hasn't happened yet.

We'll keep on firing at each other from our respective trenches for a while yet...........................but a SINGLE new post-Brexit trade deal might just strengthen the Leavers' case considerably? Or just any 'positives' (as opposed to rubbishing the negatives) at all, really (please).

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You seem to be the one losing it Tubby.I did advise you to cut back on your craft beer.You have forgotten to use spell-check,and forgotten to give yourself a like!
How we all laughed at your german Red Arrows-what a clown you are!

View attachment 95188

Was this how you imagined it?

How’s your retirement going old man?

 

[beorhthelm]

Simple it makes senses to have your head office within the largest consumer market in the world, and not outside it. Brexit was an influence and more than likely the factor that tipped the balance.

not really. HQ location is about governance, ownership, taxation and access to capital, almost entirely separate from where you might base operations such as sales or manufacturing. where goods are made affects things like import tariffs, where the company reports its accounts does not.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Then goes through it line by line. Yes you claim you know more than the Chief Executive of Unilever. Did you know Unilever is actually getting rid of the preference shares and Dutch trust structures that can be used to thwart bidders? No of course you didn't ....

Off he goes. Please read the middle para of my post and tell me what you disagree with. And as a bonus tell me where I "claim to know more than the chief executive of Unilever".

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Irish Border problem isn't going away

https://news.sky.com/story/irish-bo...nts-post-brexit-not-possible-say-mps-11291721

Maybe Boris has a solution. He's big on blue sky thinking

It's only an issue for the EU. They should keep their noses out of this, and stop trying to make things difficult. The government has stated it's position and that should be the end of it.

 

[ManOfSussex]

It's only an issue for the EU. They should keep their noses out of this, and stop trying to make things difficult. The government has stated it's position and that should be the end of it.

Which Government, ours or The Irish who are remaining as EU members?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It's only an issue for the EU. They should keep their noses out of this, and stop trying to make things difficult. The government has stated it's position and that should be the end of it.

The tone of messages has changed from we hold all the aces etc to playing the victim card.

It’s not going to be the end of it because we need to have controls, after all we are taking back control about who and what goes in and out of the UK.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's only an issue for the EU. They should keep their noses out of this, and stop trying to make things difficult. The government has stated it's position and that should be the end of it.

It’s this staggering level of ignorance and arrogance which is also causing David Davis problems.

 

[daveinprague]

Common sense is 'making things difficult' ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Unilever's Public Affairs advisors had told them to remain Brexit-neutral - sensible advice in the circumstances. It has been suggested that Unilever - recently scarred by a hostile takeover bid of course - liked the look of Dutch takeover regulations. The U.K. has a Wild West attitude to hostile takeover bids by foreign companies and the philosophy of Britain's Brexit-driving politicians suggests that this is now very unlikely to change.

You've conveniently omitted to mention what it is about the Dutch regulations that attracted Unilever to this action - and it's nothing to do with Brexit. In the UK a takeover only has to take account of the affect on shareholders - in the Netherlands they have to take into account the affect on not only shareholders but employees, suppliers, the public good and the environment. This change would have happened regardless of Brexit.

There was also an interesting article on Radio 4 yesterday about British based companies shifting their operations to the EU. Apparently most of the big players ( mainly finance ) have moved the absolute minimum just to allow them them to continue trading inside the EU without restriction - and mostly to sites they already have. The remainer predictions of thousands of jobs moving hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

You've conveniently omitted to mention what it is about the Dutch regulations that attracted Unilever to this action - and it's nothing to do with Brexit. In the UK a takeover only has to take account of the affect on shareholders - in the Netherlands they have to take into account the affect on not only shareholders but employees, suppliers, the public good and the environment. This change would have happened regardless of Brexit.

There was also an interesting article on Radio 4 yesterday about British based companies shifting their operations to the EU. Apparently most of the big players ( mainly finance ) have moved the absolute minimum just to allow them them to continue trading inside the EU without restriction - and mostly to sites they already have. The remainer predictions of thousands of jobs moving hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen.

There is a tendency to assume conflict where none exists. If you reread my post you'll see that I made no attempt to link the Dutch regulations that appeal to Unilever with Brexit. Like Holland, the UK is a sovereign nation and it has a different approach. My Brexit-related point was that this divergence seem likely to increase in the months and years after next March. Again, I made no attempt to link that possibility to Unilever - it might have added weight to the decision to move but of course I don't know.

On your other point I'd simply say that moving staff at short notice is an expensive business and I'd expect any company to keep it to a minimum.

 

[Baldseagull]

How’s your retirement going old man?

He will be inthe pub all day with teenage footballers and retired Nazis.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Simple it makes senses to have your head office within the largest consumer market in the world, and not outside it. Brexit was an influence and more than likely the factor that tipped the balance.

No, it wasn't. I'm a fervent Remainer, but Unilever made this decision because of the stricter takeover rules in the Netherlands. They already have an office in Rotterdam, so it made sense to move HQ to the Rotterdam office, for greater protection. It really isn't a decision based on Brexit.
My daughter is a tax accountant with Unilever so I know what I am talking about. Fortunately, there won't be many job losses, maybe seven or so.

 

[Baldseagull]

not really. HQ location is about governance, ownership, taxation and access to capital, almost entirely separate from where you might base operations such as sales or manufacturing. where goods are made affects things like import tariffs, where the company reports its accounts does not.

Whatever their reasoning, and it would be crazy to think that Brexit was in no way a factor, even if just because of the current uncertainty, it will result in a reduced tax take by UK treasury.

 

[Baldseagull]

You've conveniently omitted to mention what it is about the Dutch regulations that attracted Unilever to this action - and it's nothing to do with Brexit. In the UK a takeover only has to take account of the affect on shareholders - in the Netherlands they have to take into account the affect on not only shareholders but employees, suppliers, the public good and the environment. This change would have happened regardless of Brexit.

There was also an interesting article on Radio 4 yesterday about British based companies shifting their operations to the EU. Apparently most of the big players ( mainly finance ) have moved the absolute minimum just to allow them them to continue trading inside the EU without restriction - and mostly to sites they already have. The remainer predictions of thousands of jobs moving hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen.

These are the small contingency plans, at the moment there is a possibility they could carry on their trade from London without impediment, the Government is certainly doing all it can to convince the city that by remaining here now, they help Britains case for getting a good deal with the EU, if that deal for financial services fails to materialise, it will be thousands of jobs.

 

[Two Professors]

How’s your retirement going old man?

Absolutely marvelous old chap,and thank you for caring.Already had two trips into the 'Evil Empire' this year,and just finished my latest project,re-wiring my home network with cat.6 to take advantage of our ever increasing broadband speeds,best in Europe!

 

[beorhthelm]

Whatever their reasoning, and it would be crazy to think that Brexit was in no way a factor, even if just because of the current uncertainty, it will result in a reduced tax take by UK treasury.

i'm certain its factor in every business decision right now, just in this case low down the weighting, perhaps after quality of local amenities.