Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The top boss of HSBC has said it is planning to move some staff from London to Paris following Britain’s exit from the European Union.
Chief Executive Stuart Gulliver revealed that in interviews at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
He said that Europe’s biggest bank would likely look to shift around 1,000 workers who generate around 20 percent of its trading revenue.
HSBC’s global banking and markets division that houses those trading jobs made profits of $384 million in the UK in 2015, according to a company filing.
The timing on that is in around two years’ time when the UK has fully left the EU.
“We’re not moving this year and maybe not even next year. We will move in about two years time when Brexit becomes effective,” Gulliver said.
HSBC is at an advantage to its major US rivals as it already has a large subsidiary in Paris that holds most of the licences needed by an investment bank, meaning Gulliver has been able to set out more detailed plans.
No passporting
International banks had initially hoped they would not have to move any of their employees.
They were counting on Britain retaining access to Europe’s single market which allows them to trade and sell all financial products from London. However such a deal now looks unlikely.
Other banks are expected to announce more concrete plans for how they will adapt to Brexit in the coming months.
The shift of jobs will be a blow to the City of London, which has been lobbying since the Brexit vote for financial firms in Britain to retain their EU ‘passporting rights’ which lets them sell their services across the bloc.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I find it bizarre how misrepresented May's speech has actually been. I sat down and read the full thing, and for the most part, it was a fine enough speech (we'll see if substance mimics words...)
But the press both domestically and abroad are frothing themselves into lunacy by taking a single phrase that could be interpreted aggressively out of a speech that was generally about conciliation, respect, and everyone getting along. It's really quite astonishing. I'd urge people to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on the Press summary for this one.
I want us to be a truly Global Britain - the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, ....We are a European country - and proud of our shared European heritage ....We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to buy your goods and services, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship.
You will still be welcome in this country as we hope our citizens will be welcome in yours. At a time when together we face a serious threat from our enemies, Britain's unique intelligence capabilities will continue to help to keep people in Europe safe from terrorism. And at a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain's servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty.
We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. ....
I think this part of the speech was particularly apt on the matter.
That is why I have said before - and will continue to say - that every stray word and every hyped up media report is going to make it harder for us to get the right deal for Britain.
.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/18 17:51:15
Ketara wrote: I find it bizarre how misrepresented May's speech has actually been. I sat down and read the full thing, and for the most part, it was a fine enough speech (we'll see if substance mimics words...)
But the press both domestically and abroad are frothing themselves into lunacy by taking a single phrase that could be interpreted aggressively out of a speech that was generally about conciliation, respect, and everyone getting along. It's really quite astonishing. I'd urge people to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on the Press summary for this one.
Negotiations have started already. Media pressure is just one angle and where first blood will be drawn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 17:52:41
Yes, they are close friends and allies, and long may the friendship between our two nations continue,
but food standards and investor courts allowing corporations a free hand to sue the government, not to mention a possible carve up of the NHS, scares the hell out of me...
I agree entirely.
Plus it might be a bit optimistic to think that a President who ran on a very protectionist platform is suddenly going to throw open the borders trade wise.
Trump just says whatever he thinks is going to sound good to whomever he is speaking to at any given moment. All we know from his previous career is that he consistently tries to gyp everyone he does a deal with.
'Love Actually' director Richard Curtis is using Pokémon Go at Davos to tackle poverty — and Jamie Oliver is playing
..well...
..see.. I understand the words I just don;t get why they're there and in that order.
That "existence is a hologram theory" seems more and more plausible.
We must be in one of the later seasons when the writers get desperate and just mess with the characters' lives.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 08:50:35
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
It should never be a referendum issue as its too complicated for any individual, including me, to fully understand
You don't consider the 'The population should not be allowed to vote on anything we consider complex' position to be a dangerous one?
Plato's Philosopher King isn't usually considered a viable form of government.
Not for the way our society works, no. Our political system works on the basis of elected representatives who are there to make what should be the best decisions on our behalf (I'm going to leave the partisanship issue to the side, because it's an increasingly growing stain on this form of politics, but am not denying it is not there). They are effectively employed by us to undertake this duty to understand and debate the different issues. I might know the ins and outs of environmental and science EU policy but know very little about banking or car regulations. After all I have another job to focus on -that's why we have elected representatives. If the referendum was on the national speed limit that is different and the education level of the populace is likely high enough to understand the issues (I.e. we can drive faster vs more people being killed and seriously injured).
If we had a system that is transparent about giving the public the facts and clear risks and benefits of different arguments fairly, independently and transparently; and had a population educated well enough to understand the different issues and how they interacted then, maybe direct votes would be viable. But we don't and decisions are now being made on the back of bigoted notions whether that was what the majority of either side voted for or not. It leads to populists rising in power and that is eminently more dangerous because they exploit and lie to the populace so they gain power.
Do you think this was actually a political option for May? Do you not also consider it somewhat anti-democratic and tiresome for everyone involved when a referenda is held, to say 'Hang on a minute, do it again'? Also, what would happen if we're split three ways down Brexit, Brexit lite, and remain? Doesn't that just extend the problem?
It is always a political option, the question is whether she wants to accept it. The argument was for a referendum was always on the basis of giving the 'people' a decision on the issue. It has been argued many times that it was 'democracy' even here on this forum. Yet ironically now the same side (generally) is arguing that we shouldn't have a referendum on the type of Brexit (and an option to reconsider) even though this question was *never* asked at the referendum. If the Leave side were truly in favour of direct democracy then the populace should also have a say on the type of Brexit (or a chance to change it once they new what the options are). Else it implies that Leave side have effectively got what they wanted and will now no longer consider any option that doesn't get 'their way' (and democracy suddenly, conveniently, becomes about parliamentary sovereignty and not about direct democracy again). We either have a direct democracy or we don't. It's simply (again) the Leave side trying to have their cake and eat it, or being selfish (and the government pandering to the noisy and obnoxious bigoted percentage of Leavers).
Lastly, would you be demanding the same sort of concessions/taking into account the other side of the country if the vote had gone 52/48 the other way?
Yes my argument would be the same - The result would not have been statistically significant (assuming same voter turn out etc). I do not doubt though that if Cameron had won then nothing would have changed (and all we really have done is changed the clothing, the rotten heart of the Tories is still there) and not acknowledge or recognise that there are serious and growing flaws with the way society and wealth is being distributed (but that's for another discussion).
I think this part of the speech was particularly apt on the matter.
Yet she also said
In the last decade or so, we have seen record levels of net migration in Britain, and that sheer volume has put pressure on public services, like schools, stretched our infrastructure, especially housing, and put a downward pressure on wages for working class people. As Home Secretary for six years, I know that you cannot control immigration overall when there is free movement to Britain from Europe.
Britain is an open and tolerant country. We will always want immigration, especially high-skilled immigration, we will always want immigration from Europe, and we will always welcome individual migrants as friends. But the message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver.
Which is all the lies spouted by the bigotry crowd and she is pandering to it. Our services aren't overstretched because of immigration, it's because they have had their resources pulled from beneath them for the last 7 years or so. Only the loud and obnoxious bigoted crowd wanted to control immigration from Europe as the key issue. There was never a question as to why people wanted to leave yet now May is pandering to this crowd and calling us all bigots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I see however that Boris the Clown is at it again and is comparing French politicians to Nazi prison camp officers.
However it appears it is now acceptable to do such things as long as it is 'theatrical'.
You've got to wonder just how long this moron will be kept on (and saddening that he has been for so long already!).
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/01/18 20:04:12
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
And you've fallen for the trap nowhere was nazi'ism mentioned at all just ww11 prison gaurds. Did you know the brits, russkis, japs, yanks and all the other nations all had prision gaurds who beat the inmates as punishment. But as its bojo lets instantly compare to the nazis to trigger people, his point was made with no reference but 'post truth' and all.
I'm no fan of his but in this case over reaction. But no word (or little) on the snp tweet mocked up to look like an official May quote that completely reworded her speech.
Not for the way our society works, no. Our political system works on the basis of elected representatives who are there to make what should be the best decisions on our behalf... It leads to populists rising in power and that is eminently more dangerous because they exploit and lie to the populace so they gain power.
But our politicians will rarely be in a position to understand anything complex, surely? After all, their sole qualification for reaching power is how good their powers of self-advertisement are. Developing political connections and clawing after power rarely leave sufficient time to master any other discipline.
Isn't it ultimately counter-intuitive to say, 'We expect you to base your entire career prospects and ability to put food on the table upon your ability to say what enough people want to hear to vote for you', and decry them for being populist at the same time? It's quite literally built into the system. A populist movement is a popular movement, it's in the name. Why shouldn't politicians represent those people? Isn't that the very basis of democracy? If sufficient people oppose that movement, then they are also a populist movement, and the more popular one of the two will have its way.
In a system built thusly, I don't understand how you can maintain that people should be told issues are too complex for them to be permitted to vote upon them. After all, the people in charge don't understand it any better! The opposite (which you seem to be advocating), is a system whereby politicians can ignore 'populist' (or popular) movements of the people and do whatever they like. Isn't that the basis of dictatorship?
It is always a political option, the question is whether she wants to accept it. The argument was for a referendum was always on the basis of giving the 'people' a decision on the issue. It has been argued many times that it was 'democracy' even here on this forum.
Okay, I acknowledge your opinion on the first two queries. What about the third? To reiterate:-
Ketara wrote:Also, what would happen if we're split three ways down Brexit, Brexit lite, and remain? Doesn't that just extend the problem?
What's more, what about those who decide that they want a fourth or fifth option? At what point do we decide the options are too many? And who decides which ones are popular enough to be offered? Should we take a pre-referendum on the second referendum?
Yes my argument would be the same
Not quite what I asked: I'm interested, would you personally, in the event of a 52/48 vote to stay, be standing up now in the same way, decrying the lack of democracy, and demanding a second referendum? To represent the view of the 48%? Stating that a more detailed referendum was necessary? Or would you be content to let it pass?
Yet she also said
In the last decade or so, we have seen record levels of net migration in Britain, and that sheer volume has put pressure on public services, like schools, stretched our infrastructure, especially housing, and put a downward pressure on wages for working class people. As Home Secretary for six years, I know that you cannot control immigration overall when there is free movement to Britain from Europe.
Britain is an open and tolerant country. We will always want immigration, especially high-skilled immigration, we will always want immigration from Europe, and we will always welcome individual migrants as friends. But the message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver.
Which is all the lies spouted by the bigotry crowd and she is pandering to it. Our services aren't overstretched because of immigration, it's because they have had their resources pulled from beneath them for the last 7 years or so. Only the loud and obnoxious bigoted crowd wanted to control immigration from Europe as the key issue. There was never a question as to why people wanted to leave yet now May is pandering to this crowd and calling us all bigots.
I'll be honest, I'm having difficulty spotting anything overly objectionable in the quote given. The only thing I can spot in there which I'm unsure about is the school places comment (I have no data on that). I know (I have seen the data for) that medical services haven't been stretched by immigration, but I do also know that council housing and foster placements are heavily overtaxed by immigration. Cash isn't so much the issue in that sector as is availability. Downward pressure on wages by mass migration waves is also a reasonable assumption (basic economics).
So all that said, she says you can't control immigration when there's free immigration rights to all of Europe. Quite factual. She says we will always want immigration. And we do, we rely on it. She says Brexit was heavily fought on resentment against immigration, this is also true.
So.....what precisely are you objecting so vehemently to? Because I really don't see much that is objectionable or false there in your quote.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 22:52:57
And then there was this statement of eye-popping twaddle: ‘It’s why we will put the preservation of our precious Union at the heart of everything we do.’ No you won’t and what’s more, Prime Minister, you know you won’t. English Tories have made their feelings plain: the EU is a bigger deal to them than the Union. That too is their choice and one which, once made, we will all have to live with.
Not quite what I asked: I'm interested, would you personally, in the event of a 52/48 vote to stay, be standing up now in the same way, decrying the lack of democracy, and demanding a second referendum? To represent the view of the 48%? Stating that a more detailed referendum was necessary? Or would you be content to let it pass?
Yes Whirlwind, if the result had been 52/48 in favor of Remaining, would you have called for a rerun of the referendum asap? Would you still say then that a simple remain vote doesn't take into account the different levels of enthusiasm for remaining (remain and more integration, remain but no more integration and remain but with rolling back of integration)? Would you still be saying that some voters might regret their decision to vote to remain and need another vote down the line? Would you be as enthusiastic to defend the 48% then?
Yes Whirlwind, if the result had been 52/48 in favor of Remaining, would you have called for a rerun of the referendum asap? Would you still say then that a simple remain vote doesn't take into account the different levels of enthusiasm for remaining (remain and more integration, remain but no more integration and remain but with rolling back of integration)? Would you still be saying that some voters might regret their decision to vote to remain and need another vote down the line? Would you be as enthusiastic to defend the 48% then?
That's far too simplistic as exactly what the referendum meant was never made clear. There are all kinds of states that could be described as 'leaving the EU' and most of them were proposed by someone who at least thought themselves important during the referendum campaign. A remain win wouldn't have required a second referendum because there would have been nothing else to decide.
A leave win however has no fixed end point and it certainly had no planning nor vision, leaving the common market is also breaking a Tory manifesto pledge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 22:42:50
Skullhammer wrote: And you've fallen for the trap nowhere was nazi'ism mentioned at all just ww11 prison gaurds. Did you know the brits, russkis, japs, yanks and all the other nations all had prision gaurds who beat the inmates as punishment. But as its bojo lets instantly compare to the nazis to trigger people, his point was made with no reference but 'post truth' and all.
I'm no fan of his but in this case over reaction. But no word (or little) on the snp tweet mocked up to look like an official May quote that completely reworded her speech.
You're missing the references. Rewatch the films he is referring to. There's no question both the allies and the axis beat POWs. However the films being referred to have a nazi slant to them (indeed in some of them the general German soldiery were shown to be amiable). Hence the inference.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Sorry whrilwind on this your putting in whats not there as you dislike the guy. But thats your choice.
Last October Hollande, in common with many other European politicians in recent months, declared Britain had to pay a price for Brexit: “There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price,” he declared.
So not a prison gaurd against eu exit then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 23:07:29
Yes Whirlwind, if the result had been 52/48 in favor of Remaining, would you have called for a rerun of the referendum asap? Would you still say then that a simple remain vote doesn't take into account the different levels of enthusiasm for remaining (remain and more integration, remain but no more integration and remain but with rolling back of integration)? Would you still be saying that some voters might regret their decision to vote to remain and need another vote down the line? Would you be as enthusiastic to defend the 48% then?
That's far too simplistic as exactly what the referendum meant was never made clear. There are all kinds of states that could be described as 'leaving the EU' and most of them were proposed by someone who at least thought themselves important during the referendum campaign. A remain win wouldn't have required a second referendum because there would have been nothing else to decide.
That is a very valid point.
The only caveat I would add though is that it only works on the basis of an in/out referendum. If we are to proceed with the assumption that the 'out' should have had more options, it is likely that might well have cannibalised a percentage of the Remain vote, splitting it three ways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 23:04:47
The only caveat I would add though is that it only works on the basis of an in/out referendum. If we are to proceed with the assumption that the 'out' should have had more options, it is likely that might well have cannibalised a percentage of the Remain vote, splitting it three ways.
Or you could just have a binary referendum and then a second, more nuanced, one based on the outcome of the first.
The only caveat I would add though is that it only works on the basis of an in/out referendum. If we are to proceed with the assumption that the 'out' should have had more options, it is likely that might well have cannibalised a percentage of the Remain vote, splitting it three ways.
Or you could just have a binary referendum and then a second, more nuanced, one based on the outcome of the first.
...No, I don't see that as entirely democratic, that's more stacking the deck one way. That turns it into heads I win, tails I get a reroll and then get to argue whatever I roll is equivalent to all the other results.
It's the two sided sword of logic. One can argue that Remain means just that, whilst Leave can mean a variety of options, therefore a second vote would have to be held if Leave won in a binary contest in order to be properly democratic. Whilst Remain in turn would not require it. That makes good logical sense.
But you can't then argue that the first vote /should be held in that binary format anyway, because there's no good democratic reason to do so. The only potential motivation to hold two votes is to try and prevent the Remain vote being siphoned off and get two rolls of the metaphorical dice, which is the opposite of a democratic reason, y'know? Either you're arguing you want the most feasible democratic set of options laid out to vote for, or you're not.
I'd also like to take a moment to thank the other contributors in here for keeping it polite (most of the time). It's important to try and never to leave sight of the fact we're a bunch of nerds debating on a forum for toy soldiers
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/18 23:31:47
I'm tired of viciously fighting with people over politics, both here and in real life. It's left me weary, disheartened, almost broken even. So I'm just trying my best to take it gently and to keep it as polite as possible. Although it would easier for me to just vacate the politics discussions altogether. I can't seem to do it though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 23:36:38
But our politicians will rarely be in a position to understand anything complex, surely? After all, their sole qualification for reaching power is how good their powers of self-advertisement are. Developing political connections and clawing after power rarely leave sufficient time to master any other discipline.
I can always be hopeful... I'm not saying the political mechanism is flawed (it is). More that once MPs they are the ones responsible for trying to understand such issues. That's why there is a parliament so that all those different interpretations can be understood and a consensus reached. That can then be explained to the public the reasoning as to why certain views were considered higher than another. For a referendum an individual has to try and understand all the points and issues in an extremely complex system when they also have a day job, family and others things to think of. That leaves people exposed to listening to the group that shouts the loudest and makes simple answers for complex issues.
Isn't it ultimately counter-intuitive to say, 'We expect you to base your entire career prospects and ability to put food on the table upon your ability to say what enough people want to hear to vote for you', and decry them for being populist at the same time? It's quite literally built into the system. A populist movement is a popular movement, it's in the name. Why shouldn't politicians represent those people? Isn't that the very basis of democracy? If sufficient people oppose that movement, then they are also a populist movement, and the more popular one of the two will have its way.
Well our democracy is to vote in someone as our representative in parliament. They are there to do the best for the public. That doesn't necessarily mean that it complies with people's views. We vote them in to do thes best on our behalf not implement what our specific views are on issues because in many cases those views have been skewed by the press or their own anecdotal evidence. To just do what is most popular is just 'rule of the mob'. If we had a referendum on using mobile phones whilst driving the vote might be in favour of their use because clarkson thinks it should be allowed. That doesn't mean it's good for the populace and should be allowed. How many people would vote for any tax on their income? Same goes for HS2 and so on. It's a bit silly to suggest that MPs should only vote for things the majority of their voters are in favour of isn't it?
Okay, I acknowledge your opinion on the first two queries. What about the third? To reiterate:-
Also, what would happen if we're split three ways down Brexit, Brexit lite, and remain? Doesn't that just extend the problem?
Possibly, but we don't know, it's not been asked. If we want a system of direct democracy then just because it might extend the problem just means we continue to have the problem we currently have. On the other hand it might solve it too?
Yes maybe there should be a pre-referendum, but then you are really highlighting why it should never have been a referendum in the first place!
Not quite what I asked: I'm interested, would you personally, in the event of a 52/48 vote to stay, be standing up now in the same way, decrying the lack of democracy, and demanding a second referendum? To represent the view of the 48%? Stating that a more detailed referendum was necessary? Or would you be content to let it pass?
If we assume the hypothetical scenario where remain won and in their case stated, for example, we weren't going to get rid of the £ and then 7 months later said they were going to anyway, yes I would. Whichever way the vote went if the route taken was to drag the other half down in a direction without consideration and thought and as a mechanism to further an individual parties prejudices then yes definitely.
I'll be honest, I'm having difficulty spotting anything overly objectionable in the quote given. The only thing I can spot in there which I'm unsure about is the school places comment (I have no data on that). I know (I have seen the data for) that medical services haven't been stretched by immigration, but I do also know that council housing and foster placements are heavily overtaxed by immigration. Cash isn't so much the issue in that sector as is availability. Downward pressure on wages by mass migration waves is also a reasonable assumption (basic economics).
You mean other than saying that the message from the public was clear that we want to reduce immigration from Europe. Where is this clear message of bigotry that may is referring to. 48% had no issue with it. Are we saying that all the other 52% don't want immigration from Europe. There's been many discussions on this forum that the vast majority of leavers aren't bigoted in this way, yet may is referring to it as fact.
The wage argument is actually as you have pointed out basic economics but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Market values balance themselves out. Even I the 70s when unemployment was effectively zero. Effective wages didn't increase. The only thing it caused was rampant inflation. Mpeople weren't better off because of it. Take the example of my youngest brother, effectively an unskilled metal worker (he cuts patterns out of sheet metal). The assumption this type of job will have an increase in wage. But the macro economics don't stack up. He's paid this wage because it is in equilibrium with other costs across the globe, it's not viable to for example move that work to China because it just makes economic sense to employ him to do. Suppose everyone suddenly asks for a pay rise. Now that option in China is viable (and let's not forget we are talking free trade with everyone too), so that pay rise doesn't materialise. Alternatively perhaps that robot that has a high capital cost, but is faster more efficient, doesn't go for tea breaks etc suddenly pays itself off much quicker. The idea that reducing immigration will result in pay rise for the low skilled is a fallacy because it's not the only market factor.
The issue with public services is not immigrants, schools have had a massive decrease in funding over the last 10 years, teachers are expected to do more and get paid less, driving many out the profession especially in the sciences. Council housing is low because 25 years of governments have given people the right to buy at stupidly discounted prices meaning councils can't afford to bring forward more developments (in general, some still happen). Immigration is a bogey man being touted by bigots and the government is listening to them above those voices of reason.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 23:52:33
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Silent Puffin? wrote: An interesting piece by Alex Massie in the Spectator (you can tell its interesting because I am posting it and its by Alex Massie in the Spectator )
And then there was this statement of eye-popping twaddle: ‘It’s why we will put the preservation of our precious Union at the heart of everything we do.’ No you won’t and what’s more, Prime Minister, you know you won’t. English Tories have made their feelings plain: the EU is a bigger deal to them than the Union. That too is their choice and one which, once made, we will all have to live with.
Remove the stuff about borders and immigration, however, and much of May’s speech today was strikingly similar in tone and rhetoric to the speech that Alex Salmond would have given had he won the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. We are all adults. Let’s be mature about this. You have lost a surly lodger but gained a good neighbour. The spirit of enlightened and mutual self-interest will henceforth guide our negotiations as we do our utmost to reduce uncertainty and make independence a success.
I think this is a very good point and it helps to view a statement sometimes from a different perspective.
Had Scotland won independence, how would that have made rUK and Westminster feel, and react? Certainly they're a big part of our national life, but would we have been as kindly disposed towards them, and been adult enough to not try and stick the knife in when bashing out the divorce proceedings? I'd like to think maybe we would, but considering some of the language on the run up, I'm not sure.
Now the EU "may" have parts who feel the same, but they also have to consider other movements, and possible future referendums. Is it in their interest to ensure that Britain doesn't tank? They could certainly gain some choice banking facilities if we do.
If Scotland left the Union and then went belly up, how would we feel? If we go belly up now, how does the EU feel? Would it affect them as bad as we think?
Dont get me wrong, I'm certainly not hoping we go belly up, or talking the UK down but this whole adventure has been a source of concern for me and my family. We've worked very hard for years to buy our home, even moving to an area we can afford away from our home stomping ground. For the first time we have low debts, which are nearly paid off, and we were just starting to feel like we were coming out on top after years of graft. I've even paid to start a degree course to broaden my skillset in order to make sure I am employable.
Now this massive pile of uncertainty and Tory party preservation bs has upset the applecart, and set us back years, and for what? So that Nigel Fargae can be a bit more of a smug, privileged spanker? Some notion of sovereignty? To control the apparent tidal wave of foreigners drowning the country with their unreasonable demands of work?
We've been sold a steaming pile of horse gak, and now we have to trust a bunch of second rate, not even first choice, second tier politicians to sort it out. Hoping that they'll some how manage to square a circle and not send the country into a spiralling gak cycle.
Sorry, got a bit ranty at the end there, but there's a lot of anger bubbling about in my head, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I can always be hopeful... I'm not saying the political mechanism is flawed (it is). More that once MPs they are the ones responsible for trying to understand such issues. That's why there is a parliament so that all those different interpretations can be understood and a consensus reached. That can then be explained to the public the reasoning as to why certain views were considered higher than another. For a referendum an individual has to try and understand all the points and issues in an extremely complex system when they also have a day job, family and others things to think of. That leaves people exposed to listening to the group that shouts the loudest and makes simple answers for complex issues.
Frankly, the individual MP has another day job, so to speak, namely representing their constituency. They don't have the hours in the day to dedicate to any one particular issue anymoreso than any other citizen does I often suspect. It's what lies behind so many embrassing interviews on Andrew Marr and suchlike, where a junior MP is wheeled out, gets asked some basic questions, and literally cannot answer or is proved wrong within seconds.
Seriously, the grasp of our politicians on basic economics and history is embarassing sometimes. Christ knows how much it is in fields I can't spot. As such, I'm sorry, but I really don't buy the argument that your average MP is any better equipped to decide on complex issues than any working professional.
Well our democracy is to vote in someone as our representative in parliament. They are there to do the best for the public. That doesn't necessarily mean that it complies with people's views. We vote them in to do thes best on our behalf not implement what our specific views are on issues because in many cases those views have been skewed by the press or their own anecdotal evidence. To just do what is most popular is just 'rule of the mob'. If we had a referendum on using mobile phones whilst driving the vote might be in favour of their use because clarkson thinks it should be allowed. That doesn't mean it's good for the populace and should be allowed. How many people would vote for any tax on their income? Same goes for HS2 and so on.
This is a cogent, good, and well argued point. So I won't argue with it.
It's a bit silly to suggest that MPs should only vote for things the majority of their voters are in favour of isn't it?
This not so much.
I mean, come on! That's the whole basis of democracy isn't it? Theoretically, speaking, at least, yes, that's kind of the point! Because the alternative is dictatorship or technocracy or somesuch.
Possibly, but we don't know, it's not been asked. If we want a system of direct democracy then just because it might extend the problem just means we continue to have the problem we currently have. On the other hand it might solve it too?
Christ knows. I suspect it would just make it messier.
If we assume the hypothetical scenario where remain won and in their case stated, for example, we weren't going to get rid of the £ and then 7 months later said they were going to anyway, yes I would. Whichever way the vote went if the route taken was to drag the other half down in a direction without consideration and thought and as a mechanism to further an individual parties prejudices then yes definitely.
If that's the case, then fair play to you. I reckon you're in the very small minority on the Remain side there though.
You mean other than saying that the message from the public was clear that we want to reduce immigration from Europe. Where is this clear message of bigotry that may is referring to. 48% had no issue with it. Are we saying that all the other 52% don't want immigration from Europe. There's been many discussions on this forum that the vast majority of leavers aren't bigoted in this way, yet may is referring to it as fact.
Eh. I'll be honest, I read that as more of a general statement about Britain these days. I think it's impossible to look back at British culture over the last decade and say that there hasn't been an upsurge in people wanting a reduction in immigration. Frankly, it was a natural reaction to the large waves that came from Europe. The fact we've now reached the culmination of that exodus hasn't quite sunk in though, so I'd be inclined to agree with the statement 'The British public would like immigration reduced'. It's been a fairly common feature for a long time and only grown stronger.
The wage argument is actually as you have pointed out basic economics but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Market values balance themselves out. Even I the 70s when unemployment was effectively zero. Effective wages didn't increase. The only thing it caused was rampant inflation. Mpeople weren't better off because of it. Take the example of my youngest brother, effectively an unskilled metal worker (he cuts patterns out of sheet metal). The assumption this type of job will have an increase in wage. But the macro economics don't stack up. He's paid this wage because it is in equilibrium with other costs across the globe, it's not viable to for example move that work to China because it just makes economic sense to employ him to do. Suppose everyone suddenly asks for a pay rise. Now that option in China is viable (and let's not forget we are talking free trade with everyone too), so that pay rise doesn't materialise. Alternatively perhaps that robot that has a high capital cost, but is faster more efficient, doesn't go for tea breaks etc suddenly pays itself off much quicker. The idea that reducing immigration will result in pay rise for the low skilled is a fallacy because it's not the only market factor.
There is definitely something to what you are saying. There are many more factors to be considered. Yet I would also caution that I feel you are straying quite far from the fundamentals , and stretching too far to try and prove that it hasn't deflated low skillled pay, when it most assuredly has. It isn't the only factor, but it has been a major one, and I think you're making a fundamental error trying to deny that.
Any great sweeping generalisations about immigrants depressing the wages of the country as a whole, or stealing jobs as a whole/on average, is incorrect, and the data exists (LSE did a study, for example) to prove that. The data also does exist though, to prove that it has depressed wages in the low skill sectors such as waitressing, cleaning, bar workers, shop assistants, and so forth.
Oxford University Report wrote:Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Similarly, another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008).
The research is there if you want to search for it. So to hearken back to May's speech, she did specify 'wages for working class people', who on average, are at the bottom end of the economic spectrum. So I'm afraid I have to refute your assertion that she's being deceptive there.
The issue with public services is not immigrants, schools have had a massive decrease in funding over the last 10 years, teachers are expected to do more and get paid less, driving many out the profession especially in the sciences. Council housing is low because 25 years of governments have given people the right to buy at stupidly discounted prices meaning councils can't afford to bring forward more developments (in general, some still happen). Immigration is a bogey man being touted by bigots and the government is listening to them above those voices of reason.
Sorry, but this logic could be used to dispute anything. Seriously. If I had 100 houses and domestic workers, and I gave ten away to immigrants, you could argue the resulting ten homeless domestic workers are homeless because I didn't have 110 houses. If the Government had spent the last ten years building, we'd still likely be in a crisis.
To give you an example you can't even use the above logic for, Social services in the southWest of England are overwhelmed by abandoned foreign children. Literally. There's no places, and any British children who now enter the system are being shunted from expensive private agency carer to another. Money means nothing, because not many people want to volunteer to look after other people's children. There's an extremely finite supply of foster carers, and Government cash or policy means nothing. Yet the repeat waves of immigration have left them completely overwhelmed.
I speak from firsthand knowledge here as well, by the way. I've been told the numbers of children and carers (which I won't divulge here) by the people who actually have the figures.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 00:29:18
Well...at least businesses liked it. I think we won't see the actual effects until 2-3 years when we actually seperate and then 10 years to see how it's affected us.
The text is interesting to read. The May government has come to the conclusion that a partial membership of the EU would not work. I have to agree with this view. It would force the other member states to make the arrangement less appealing than full membership or they would face a voter revolt at home. A full Brexit would mean the UK only has to negotiate with the EU as a whole, while member states individually cannot ask for special deals or compensation.
What is interesting is that May offers UK military capability for preferred access to the EU common market. A UK military not restrained by the Dublin accords, or even the EHCR in the future, could be a valuable ally in ending human trafficking in to the EU. If If for example the Royal Navy could effectively block refugee boats from Africa, what Frontex cannot do, it would create an immensely powerful bargaining position.
Same with London facilitating Europe's financial center. I don't think it's that likely that the financial sector as a whole will abandon London fast. English speaking staff is much harder to come by on the continent and Dublin simply doesn't have the size or facilities yet to be a threat.
As a country with a huge service sector and a limited industrial and agricultural base, free trade agreements could benefit the UK economy on the whole. Off course this should terrify Labour, low corporate taxes and free trade will expose part of the work force to the full effects of globalization while social security is likely to become more basic. In equality is likely to rise sharply over time
The PM pays lip service to education and civil rights, but a Tory government is unlikely to deliver on either.
There is talk of immigration controls on EU citizens, but not much is said about immigration as a whole.
The one thing about her speech that interested me was the whole "No deal is better than a bad deal." Which to me means that if the EU comes up with a good deal, we will take it.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Ketara wrote: In a system built thusly, I don't understand how you can maintain that people should be told issues are too complex for them to be permitted to vote upon them. After all, the people in charge don't understand it any better! The opposite (which you seem to be advocating), is a system whereby politicians can ignore 'populist' (or popular) movements of the people and do whatever they like. Isn't that the basis of dictatorship?
I would dare to say somebody who has made career out of politics knows more about politics than random passerby. Quaranteed no? Odds: Better by several scales.
I sure as hell don't think I'm qualified to perform surgery. Why would I be any more qualified to make decisions on politics?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: The one thing about her speech that interested me was the whole "No deal is better than a bad deal." Which to me means that if the EU comes up with a good deal, we will take it.
Of course any deal EU makes is one that is good for EU. Both are looking to ensure THEY get bigger share of limited resources that's called wealth. Either way one of the two is going to get worse than the other.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/19 09:26:05
I would dare to say somebody who has made career out of politics knows more about politics than random passerby. Quaranteed no? Odds: Better by several scales.
I sure as hell don't think I'm qualified to perform surgery. Why would I be any more qualified to make decisions on politics?
I agree. Sadly, running a country and politics are two very distinct things. One involves economics, administrative skills, diplomacy, management skills, broad knowledge of history, law etcetc. The other requires a certain amount of political knowledge and savviness. Sadly, all of the former are far from encompassed in the latter, which is why 'Basic Simplified Economics 101' remains a surprisingly popular book in the library at Westminster I hear.
As such, I don't necessarily buy that MP's are any better qualified to conceptualise, comprehend, and then devise policy on complex matters such as Brexit than your average working professional is.
Bankers at Davos discuss plans to move jobs out of UK May’s Brexit speech seems to have bolstered need to relocate some operations
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
https://www.ft.com/content/a2af5c60-de16-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce
If this week’s speech by Theresa May on her Brexit plans was designed to reassure the City of London and stop banks from shifting jobs out of the UK, early indications are that it appears to have failed.
The prime minister is scheduled to address business leaders at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday morning, but in the meantime a flurry of senior financiers popped up at the event to discuss plans for transferring chunks of their British operations out of the country.
While many bankers have praised Mrs May’s speech, welcoming the clarity she provided on her strategy, it seems only to have strengthened their belief for the need for swift action to relocate parts of their London-based investment banking operations.
Axel Weber, the former head of Germany’s central bank who now chairs UBS, told the BBC that “about 1,000” of the Swiss bank’s 5,000-odd employees in London could be affected by Brexit.
More than 4,000 of the 16,000 staff that JPMorgan Chase employs in the UK could be hit, its chief executive Jamie Dimon told Bloomberg TV.
“It looks like there will be more job movement than we hoped for,” Mr Dimon said. “We don’t want to — it is not a threat — it is just a fact that we will have to accommodate the new requirements.”
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
https://www.ft.com/content/a2af5c60-de16-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce
The instigation for the sudden hardening of bankers’ plans was Mrs May’s declaration that Britain would leave the EU’s common market following Brexit, eschewing a Norway-style relationship that would allow privileged access to the 500m-person market without full EU membership.
For the financial services industry, such a break is particularly problematic. Single market rules allow banks to sell products across the EU through “passporting” rules that allow them to bypass local licenses. Eurozone authorities are also expected to move to strip London of its ability to serve as the international hub for euro clearing.
The prospect of losing passporting rights meant several banks had already signalled they were preparing to move parts of their operations from London to the continent even before Mrs May’s speech. At Davos, HSBC confirmed plans to move 1,000 roles in its London-based investment bank to Paris, and its chief executive Stuart Gulliver told Bloomberg TV that Brexit would hit about a fifth of the unit’s revenues.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs denied a report in Germany’s Handelsblatt that it was planning to halve its UK staff numbers to 3,000 by moving many jobs to Frankfurt and New York.
“There remain numerous uncertainties as to what the Brexit negotiations will yield in terms of an operating framework for the banking industry,” Goldman said. “As a result, we have not taken any decisions as to what our eventual response will be, despite media speculation to the contrary.”
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
https://www.ft.com/content/a2af5c60-de16-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce
Mrs May is due to discuss her Brexit strategy with a handful of Wall Street bosses who have large British investment banking operations — including Mr Dimon — at a private meeting in Davos on Thursday.
Senior executives from some of the biggest US banks adopted a more moderate tone in private meetings with the Financial Times on the sidelines of Davos. They say management has drawn up plans for the most disruptive Brexit outcome — one that results in the UK leaving the EU without a trade deal to maintain access to the single market for the financial services industry.
The first step these US banks have taken is to ensure they have all the necessary legal structures, capital, licences, systems and regulatory approvals to continue operating in the EU after a hard Brexit, while maintaining as much flexibility as possible.
One US banker estimated this initial phase would “cost hundreds of millions of dollars but not a lot of people moving”.
Another top US executive said: “You need to have a broker and a bank in the UK, and a broker and a bank inside the EU. We have that already. There will be other small adjustments, but it is as simple as that.”
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
https://www.ft.com/content/a2af5c60-de16-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dce
The second step, which the US banks plan to take once the new trading arrangements between the UK and EU have been established, involves changes to their operations to optimise their set-up for the new arrangements.
“This is going to take a lot longer than people think,” the US executive said.
“This is about real people and real people have to make decisions,” he said, giving an example of EU-born staff living in London with children soon to move from primary to secondary school, who may decide to pre-emptively move back to their homeland.
Mr Dimon said JPMorgan would need time to “move people, build systems and acquire real estate”. But he added that London was “a fabulous financial centre” and that he did not want to move staff unless he was forced to do so.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Speaking purely from a speculative standpoint, I'm actually reasonably sure that the banking issue will come to naught. It's too big an issue to the Tory party personally. They'll give away whatever they have to in terms of other trade options/access order to secure passporting rights. It will be one of the foremost items on their negotiating list. It's also, conveniently, probably one of the easiest to make arrangements for.
Whether it'll be worth whatever else the Tory party gives away for it is another issue altogether.
Toyota worried too -- still their factories are in Labour areas mainly so ....
..wonder if they'll get the same deal as Nissan then ?
Mike Hawes, chief executive of UK car industry body SMMT, also told the FT yesterday that access to the EU single market was “critical” for the sector.
We must, at all costs, avoid a cliff-edge and reversion to WTO tariffs, which would threaten the viability of the industry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/19 13:37:22
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
I would advise my fellow dakka members not to worry too much.
As I often say, a week is a long time in politics.
We're still in the phony war stage.
We've got French and German elections, the running sore that is the eurozone crisis, Italian banks potentially going belly up, a migration crisis, and in just over 24 hours, Trump is officially in control of the red button...
It's foolish to predict anything right now.
Trust in dakka and keep your powder dry: that's my advice
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If they intended to live out the rest of their lives in Spain, perhaps they should have applied for Spanish citizenship? I know I would have.
My experience of Brits in Spain is that if England had had better weather, they would never have left.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
)
I'm not saying the political mechanism is flawed (it is). More that once 
