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.
And here we have immigration classically being blamed for the failings of UK governance. All those issues you describe are a symptom of the government cutting back on services, failing to invest in a future generation of NHS workers, failing to deal with the economic shift to London and other large powerhouses such as Birmingham while much of North lies deserted.
My comment was designed to show that students such as his friends from Pakistan and India will still be at a disadvantage, more than likely a greater one now that May has set her sites on a quota of 100,000.
The only thing stopping the world becoming a level playing field is because the world is still hung up on nationalist principles. If you really want a level playing field, why not support the experiment that is the free movement of people rather than trying to isolate yourself from it? With any luck, free movement of people may be a concept that can apply to the whole world. Just imagine that aye, being a citizen of planet earth rathern then a random area you was born into on the face of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/25 21:11:31
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
It was about ensuring that the laws we are beholden to are made by the people we can vote out - the fact that when you spot that something needs to change, you have at least two ways of having your point discussed in parliment and potentially have your point enshrined in law.
Not this again. We do vote for the people that have a say over EU legislation. As a population we just decide that in our wisdom as a whole that we don't really turn up at these elections and then we end up with a nutcase party MEPs that has a self interest in ensuring they cause as much disruption as possible in the EU parliament and tend not to turn up when they want to formulate new policies (like fisheries).
In fact most of what the EU puts in place are generic rules (Directives) and it is up to the UK to implement them (they draft the actual how it is going to work legislation). There is relatively few actual EU pieces of legislation that come into force automatically.
In some ways the EU has put a lot of sensible Directives in place.
For example limits on fishing quotas to avoid our seas becoming like the Grand Banks disaster zone, but the people that actually allocate and legislate the allowances is the UK government - it is not the EUs fault that the UK gives 90% of rights to large shipping companies several not based in the UK whilst leaving the one vessel 'fleets' out in the cold; the UK government doesn't have to do this.
...Or maybe EU chemical directives ensuring companies test the substances that consumers can use so that it isn't causing cancer, burns or breathing problems etc. Take the original creosote for example, absolutely nasty stuff that can poison the soil, plants, burn people, kill pets and the unlucky frog, badger or falcon that passes by; the UK was never going to ban this chemical. The same goes for the neonicotinoid pesticides that are devastating our bee population, banned by the EU but utterly opposed by the Tory government despite the (non-biased) evidence.
...Or maybe that ensured our waste sites weren't dumping tonnes of toxic chemicals into the environment each year or the limits on air pollution.
The argument that EU legislation does not provide benefits to the UK is exaggerated. Yes it provides some limits but it does restrain our government from allowing anything as long as it benefits the few. The risk by leaving the EU is all this will be torn up and those that have less say will suffer; waterways could become like they were in the 70's; polluted quagmires of agricultural and industrial run off because it is in the best interest of the economy to remove this 'red tape'. It won't be the well off few living the high life in the countryside it will be the less well off that will suffer the consequences as they have to deal with poorer air quality etc etc etc.
SirDonlad wrote: I want equality - GENUINE equality. Not the EU preferential migration fantasy.
The only true fair immigration policy would be open doors for everyone (or closed doors for everyone) else you are always going to have a selection method that's going to be biased against someone because of their upbringing, education, wealth etc.
"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
Lower foreign attendance is going to mean less students. Less students mean's universities struggling to make ends meet and having to increase fees as a result. Universities such as Kent will then just raise their own fees to match as it puts them at no disadvantage.
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
Which is good, because foreign students are absolutely ripped off by the university system in regards to fees. The University of Kent (the one I went too) loved have forge in students because the fees were £15,000 a year, compared to £9,000 for a regular student (or £3,000) for me because I was Welsh. Maybe if they stopped coming, the University's might actually lower their fees.
That's not going to happen. In fact quite the converse as to provide the same level of quality they are going to have increase their fees or the variety of courses and the quality will have to drop as universities make redundant lecturers because they need to balance their books. Universities rely a lot on foreign students to make them viable. It's not the other-way round; in fact foreign students effectively allow subsidising of UK students - especially for the sciences where the actual cost of providing the course is about 30% higher than the actual fees they get per UK student.
@Optio - Ninja'd...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/25 21:10:04
"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
Wleshhoppo, have you ever heard of Aberystwyth? A quick search of the local media will provide you with an example of a university already struggling due to the government policies towards tuition fees. Brexit has literally already made this significantly worse with 100 EU students pulling out. Several of the Departments are world renowned and receive many applications from outside of the EU. If it becomes even harder for those students to attend, I think you will quickly see the university being wiped out. It would also take much of the town with it.
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
On the migration thing - finally we can have a FAIR migration policy; it had been skewed to allow for the EU free movement fantasy to exist: a bunch of peeps i know at uni who came from india and pakistan won't have to jump through flaming hoops to live and work here when the people from Europe can come and go as they please.
I want equality - GENUINE equality. Not the EU preferential migration fantasy.
Right, the UK is NOT part of Schengen, Therefore your friends from outside the EU are not applying for Schengen Visa's, just UK Visa's. NOTHING, literally NOTHING will change for them. Ironically if the UK remains in the free market, we will still have to accept 'free migration' from the EU.
People from the EU don't apply for visa's - Here's the way the EU guys gain right to live/work..
https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate Its a single form and £65 - all the visa stuff is handled automatically and it also states that...
You don’t need a registration certificate if you are a ‘qualified person’, ie you’re working, studying, self-employed, self-sufficient or looking for work or have a ‘family member’ who is a qualified person
So it doesn't matter that we didn't sign up to the shengen agreement, we basically have free migration for EU citizens currently anyway.
The hypocritical EU beuaracracy in full swing there!
The quantity of stuff required for people outside the EU is vast - heres the main index for all the stipulations; i was intending on linking to the relevant bit for my mates at uni, but theres way more than a single page to cover it all.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
On the migration thing - finally we can have a FAIR migration policy; it had been skewed to allow for the EU free movement fantasy to exist: a bunch of peeps i know at uni who came from india and pakistan won't have to jump through flaming hoops to live and work here when the people from Europe can come and go as they please.
I want equality - GENUINE equality. Not the EU preferential migration fantasy.
Right, the UK is NOT part of Schengen, Therefore your friends from outside the EU are not applying for Schengen Visa's, just UK Visa's. NOTHING, literally NOTHING will change for them. Ironically if the UK remains in the free market, we will still have to accept 'free migration' from the EU.
People from the EU don't apply for visa's - Here's the way the EU guys gain right to live/work..
https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate Its a single form and £65 - all the visa stuff is handled automatically and it also states that...
You don’t need a registration certificate if you are a ‘qualified person’, ie you’re working, studying, self-employed, self-sufficient or looking for work or have a ‘family member’ who is a qualified person
So it doesn't matter that we didn't sign up to the shengen agreement, we basically have free migration for EU citizens currently anyway.
The hypocritical EU beuaracracy in full swing there!
The quantity of stuff required for people outside the EU is vast - here's the main index for all the stipulations; i was intending on linking to the relevant bit for my mates at uni, but theres way more than a single page to cover it all.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules
What? How the EU guys gain access to an EU identity/citizenship e.t.c is completely besides the point here. If someone from outside the EU wants to apply to access a country in Shengan area, they have to go through a totally different process than to the one they would find for applying for a Visa in the UK. The UK Visa process is controlled by the UK. The EU has diddly squat to do with it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/25 21:24:57
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
On the migration thing - finally we can have a FAIR migration policy; it had been skewed to allow for the EU free movement fantasy to exist: a bunch of peeps i know at uni who came from india and pakistan won't have to jump through flaming hoops to live and work here when the people from Europe can come and go as they please.
I want equality - GENUINE equality. Not the EU preferential migration fantasy.
Right, the UK is NOT part of Schengen, Therefore your friends from outside the EU are not applying for Schengen Visa's, just UK Visa's. NOTHING, literally NOTHING will change for them. Ironically if the UK remains in the free market, we will still have to accept 'free migration' from the EU.
People from the EU don't apply for visa's - Here's the way the EU guys gain right to live/work..
https://www.gov.uk/eea-registration-certificate Its a single form and £65 - all the visa stuff is handled automatically and it also states that...
You don’t need a registration certificate if you are a ‘qualified person’, ie you’re working, studying, self-employed, self-sufficient or looking for work or have a ‘family member’ who is a qualified person
So it doesn't matter that we didn't sign up to the shengen agreement, we basically have free migration for EU citizens currently anyway.
The hypocritical EU beuaracracy in full swing there!
The quantity of stuff required for people outside the EU is vast - here's the main index for all the stipulations; i was intending on linking to the relevant bit for my mates at uni, but theres way more than a single page to cover it all.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules
What? How the EU guys gain access to an EU identity/citizenship e.t.c is completely besides the point here. If someone from outside the EU wants to apply to access a country in Shengan area, they have to go through a totally different process than to the one they would find for applying for a Visa in the UK. The UK Visa process is controlled by the UK. The EU has diddly squat to do with it.
I was pointing out the disparity in the requirements for migration for eu and non-eu citizens - are you refusing to acknowledge the added complexity?
When we finally have equality for both groups it will be far easier for those outside the eu than it is currently because the rules will not need to be as restrictive for them.
We can finally recognise the part indian people have played in our culture with closer business ties and easier access between us - huzzah!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
You are still missing the point SirDonlad. The difference between access from the EU and access from outside is irrelevant. It is the UK government that sets the complexities for Visa applications from Non-EU countries. We have the power to turn around to all the commonwealth countries and say you can come here with no Visa's if you wish...
As for Business ties, the Indian Prime Minister was part of the long list of head of states strongly advising the UK to stay in the EU.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/25 22:48:15
"As a customer, I'd really like to like GW, but they seem to hate me." - Ouze "All politicians are upperclass idiots"
There's no reason why it will become easier for non-EU citizens to apply for visas for working and living in the UK if it becomes harder for EU citizens.
If it did, what was the point of Brexit? Did we hate the Swedes and Italians so much that we want to make it easier for Chinese and Syrians to get working visas for the UK and keep out those ghastly Europeans?
But seriously, foreign students should be charged the same. Not five times what I was paying for no reason.
The reason foreign students are charged more is because the majority of them get their degree, then go home and never pay any tax into the UK system, whereas the majority of British students work in the UK after graduation.
The reason why foreign students are willing to pay more is that UK universities are some of the best in the world. We've got four or five universities that regularly appear in the top 10 in the world. China doesn't have a single university in the top 200! Most of the rest of the top universities are American and much more expensive.
The language of tuition is English, which is the world's most important language for business, science, and so on. Lastly, Britain is a bloody nice country to live in for a few years, with loads of culture and history and easy access to the rest of Europe for going on interesting trips.
I really don't know how much it costs to put a student through Experimental Psychology or Civil Engineering, etc, but if British born students are forced to compete on equal monetary terms with the princeling sons of Chinese army slave labour camp millionaires, Russian oligarchs and Indian and Brazilian plutocrats, I think we are fethed. Well, you younger lot are. I've got my degree, and my daughter is just starting International Baccalaureate and can get through university before everything goes down the pan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/25 22:48:42
Optio wrote: You are still missing the point SirDonlad. The difference between access from the EU and access from outside is irrelevant. It is the UK government that sets the complexities for Visa applications from Non-EU countries. We have the power to turn around to all the commonwealth countries and say you can come here with no Visa's if you wish...
As for Business ties, the Indian Prime Minister was part of the long list of head of states strongly advising the UK to stay in the EU.
so let me get this straight - i say i want equality of process for all migrants to this coutry; you then say that leaving the EU wont change the situation for my indian friends (??) whereupon i showed the current disparity between the two groups brought about by EU stipulations and you then claim that it is irrelavent?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/26 04:16:13
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
SirDonlad wrote: whereupon i showed the current disparity between the two groups brought about by EU stipulations and you then claim that it is irrelavent?
Those stipulations aren't brought about by the EU; domestic UK law is what governs immigration from outside the EU so the difficulty surrounding emigrating to the UK from somewhere like India is entirely on the UK government.
SirDonlad wrote: whereupon i showed the current disparity between the two groups brought about by EU stipulations and you then claim that it is irrelavent?
Those stipulations aren't brought about by the EU; domestic UK law is what governs immigration from outside the EU so the difficulty surrounding emigrating to the UK from somewhere like India is entirely on the UK government.
You're still wilfully missing the point. The Government can control immigration from outside the EU, but not immigration from the EU. Therefore, when a government wishes to look tough on immigration, who do you think bears the brunt?
What point am I missing? If the UK government want's to "appear tough on immigration" by making immigration difficult then that's entirely its own fault.
Immigration certainly has become more difficult. It was much harder for my wife to get her permanent leave to remain the second time, in 2012, than the first time, in 1994.
To be honest Sir Donlad, I have somewhat lost track of what you want.
Do you want more immigration overall, or less, or more or less from specific regions?
You seem to want less immigration from the EU and more from India. Why is that a good thing?
In terms of Cameron's 100,000 target, it was a figure he pulled out of his arse because it sounds a nice round sensible figure, to please people who dislike immigration. It wasn't based on any kind of analysis, or feasibility, though. There was no attempt to find out how many "skills" the UK needs to import per year because our education system can't produce them by itself, such as nurses and doctors, and also seasonal agricultural workers.
Secondly to that, the 100,000 target was massively busted. Immigration last year was over 330,000.
Thirdly, more than half the immigrants came from non-EU countries.
This implies if we shut off the EU immigration route, we probably would still be bringing in 200,000 or more people a year anyway, because we need those workers. There's no reason to suppose it will become easier for Indians to come in if we make it more difficult for Rumanians. In some cases -- seasonal agricultural labour, for example -- we will have to hope for EU workers (if they don't find better work easier elsewhere in the EU after Brexit) because people aren't going to come from India for three months to plant, grow and pick all our strawberries.
Turning 65 in the U.K. used to mean mandatory retirement and a future of endless holiday. But in 2016 it has come to signify a very different cut-off: membership in the single most pro-Brexit age group in the June 23 European Union referendum.
About 60 percent of Britons 65 and older voted to leave the world’s largest trading bloc in the recent vote, the most of any age group, according to two separate exit polls. The glaring irony is that senior citizens are also the most reliant on pensions, which face a worsening funding gap since the Brexit vote.
The combined deficits of all U.K. defined-benefit pension schemes, normally employer-sponsored and promising a specified monthly payment or benefit upon retirement, rose from 820 billion pounds ($1.1 trillion) to 900 billion pounds overnight following the referendum, according to pensions consultancy Hymans Robertson. Since then, it has grown further to a record 935 billion pounds as of July 1.
A sharp drop in U.K. government bond yields to record lows, and a similar decline in corporate bond yields, is largely to blame for the uptick in defined-benefit pension liabilities. That’s because fixed income represented 47.5 percent of total 2014 assets for corporate pensions funds, of which about three-quarters were issued by the U.K. government and/or sterling-denominated, according to the 2015 Investment Association Annual Survey.
And the slump may not be over yet. While the Bank of England held off on cutting rates or increasing asset purchases at its July 14 meeting, early signals point to serious pain ahead for the U.K. economy. If additional quantitative easing is ultimately required to offset growing uncertainty, this would suggest “that bond yields are going to fall, which makes pensions a lot more expensive to provide,” former pensions minister Ros Altmann told Bloomberg. “Deficits would be larger if gilt yields fall further.”
Beyond gilt yields, Altmann said that anything that damages the economy is also bad news for pensions. The country’s gross domestic product is now expected to grow by 1.5 percent this year and just 0.6 percent in 2017, according to a Bloomberg survey of economists conducted July 15-20. That’s down from 1.8 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively, before the Brexit vote.
A weaker economy means companies will be less able to afford extra contributions precisely when pension schemes face a growing funding gap, possibly threatening future payouts to pensioners and creating a vicious feedback cycle. “If companies have got to put even more into their pension schemes than they have previously while their business is weakening, then clearly their business will be further weakened,” Altmann said.
Bad news, in other words, for Brexit’s biggest supporters.
Natwest and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) have warned businesses they may have to charge them to accept deposits due to low interest rates.
The move, if enacted, would make them the first UK banks to introduce negative interest rates, in effect, charging to deposit money.
"Global interest rates remain at very low levels... this could result in us charging interest on credit balances," it wrote in a letter to customers.
Personal customers are not affected.
A spokesperson for Royal Bank of Scotland, which owns Natwest, told the BBC the letter was sent to just under 1.3 million of the combined business and commercial customers of the two banks.
"We will consider any necessary action in the event of the Bank of England base rate falling below zero, but will do our utmost to protect our customers from any impacts," they said.
Mike Amey, a managing director at Pimco, the world's largest bond investor, told the BBC: "They are giving themselves wiggle room in the very unlikely event that the Bank of England did put the official [interest] rate negative.
"The Bank of England sets the interest rate next week, so the fact they put this out this week... is possibly a bit of a reminder to the Bank of England there are negative consequences."
'Easing'
UK interest rates have been unchanged since the Bank of England cut them to a record low of 0.5% in March 2009 at the height of the financial crisis.
The Bank kept them on hold earlier this month, despite speculation it would cut rates further.
But Bank governor Mark Carney has said it is likely "some monetary policy easing" will be required to boost the UK economy in response to the Brexit vote.
However, he has said he does not favour rates falling any lower than 0.25%.
Nevertheless, some economists believe that rates could still be cut to zero or lower later this year.
When the rate goes below zero, the normal relationship between banks and customers is reversed. Instead of the lender getting paid interest by the bank for allowing it to use their money, the lender has to pay the bank for holding their money.
The underlying idea is much the same as cutting interest rates in more normal times. The aim is to encourage more borrowing and spending by firms and less saving.
In 2014, the European Central Bank was the first major central bank to introduce negative interest rates, with the aim of encouraging banks to lend to businesses rather than hold on to money.
Martin Boon
In the latest ICM Unlimited poll, the Labour Party share of the vote continues to drop steeply, now down to 27% – a figure not seen (in the ICM/Guardian) series since October 2009. It drops 2-points from our most recent published poll (13-15th July) with the Conservatives up +4 on the same poll, and again at a level not seen since the same October 2009 poll.
Clearly, the relative calm associated with the handover of power from David Cameron to Theresa May, allied to the current Labour leadership challenge weighs heavily on electors’ minds.
The shares are:
Conservative 43% (+4)
Labour 27% (-2)
UKIP 13% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 8% (-1)
SNP 4% (nc)
Green 4% (nc)
Plaid Cymru 1% (nc)
Other *% (-1)
Ed Milliband's worst ever polling was -6, at a comparable stage in his leadership he was 8-9 points ahead.
... sure this'll just be written off as a conspiracy or something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/26 12:21:54
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,
Kilkrazy wrote: Immigration certainly has become more difficult. It was much harder for my wife to get her permanent leave to remain the second time, in 2012, than the first time, in 1994.
To be honest Sir Donlad, I have somewhat lost track of what you want.
Do you want more immigration overall, or less, or more or less from specific regions?
You seem to want less immigration from the EU and more from India. Why is that a good thing?
Spoiler:
In terms of Cameron's 100,000 target, it was a figure he pulled out of his arse because it sounds a nice round sensible figure, to please people who dislike immigration. It wasn't based on any kind of analysis, or feasibility, though. There was no attempt to find out how many "skills" the UK needs to import per year because our education system can't produce them by itself, such as nurses and doctors, and also seasonal agricultural workers.
Secondly to that, the 100,000 target was massively busted. Immigration last year was over 330,000.
Thirdly, more than half the immigrants came from non-EU countries.
This implies if we shut off the EU immigration route, we probably would still be bringing in 200,000 or more people a year anyway, because we need those workers. There's no reason to suppose it will become easier for Indians to come in if we make it more difficult for Rumanians. In some cases -- seasonal agricultural labour, for example -- we will have to hope for EU workers (if they don't find better work easier elsewhere in the EU after Brexit) because people aren't going to come from India for three months to plant, grow and pick all our strawberries
.
I want all migrants to be bound by the same rules - a level playing Field for all and then a re-evaluation of our migration policy with the new data we would gain.
I strongly suspect that my friends from india etc will find it easier to gain the right to live/work here afterwards.
Heres a link which shows how many people migrated here from where...
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics 270000 from the EU, 277000 from the rest of the world.
Population of the EU 742.5 million, population of the rest of the world ~6.8 billion That's positive discrimination toward EU nationals in my book.
So it's looking like there will be an initial reduction in migrant levels (i'm a level 3 migrant!) which will probably go back up very quickly as the rest of the world cottons on to the easing of our migration policy.
I don't think thats a bad thing - in fact we'll get more higher quality people from the increased selection pool the rest of the world has to offer.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
he UK economy grew 0.6% in the three months to the end of June, a period that ended one week after the vote to leave the European Union.
Growth in gross domestic product was stronger than expected in the quarter, and was up from 0.4% growth in the previous three months, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.
Any uncertainty ahead of the referendum seemed to have a "limited" effect, the ONS said.
On an annual basis, growth was 2.2%.
ONS chief economist Joe Grice said: "Continued strong growth across services, particularly in retailing, reinforced by healthy growth in the manufacture of cars and pharmaceuticals, boosted output in the second quarter.
"Any uncertainties in the run-up to the referendum seem to have had a limited effect. Very few respondents to ONS surveys cited such uncertainties as negatively impacting their businesses."
Economic growth was strongest in April before easing off in May and June, the ONS figures show.
Construction output grew 2.1% in April, while the services sector, the largest part of the UK economy, grew 0.6% that month.
'Position of strength'
This is the first calculation of second-quarter economic activity and is based on less than half the data that will give the eventual figure.
Economists, including those at the Bank of England, had estimated second-quarter growth would be about 0.5%.
"It's always difficult to tell where you're going by looking in the rear-view mirror, and as such today's GDP figures can't be taken as evidence of the current climate," said Ben Brettell, senior economist at Hargreaves Lansdown.
"However, what they do show is an absence of pre-Brexit concerns, meaning that if the forecast downturn does materialise, at least we start from a position of relative strength.
A business survey last week suggested there had been a sharp fall in economic activity in the weeks after the referendum.
Bah, this mass of conflicting economic data is confusing the hell out of me!
Should I be running for the hills or should I be basking in the UK's new dawn of economic prosperity?
One minute it's all BREXIT will kill us all, then it's hey it's not to bad, and now we seem to be middle of the road!
I'm just trying to earn an honest living here!!!
"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
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Bah, this mass of conflicting economic data is confusing the hell out of me!
Should I be running for the hills or should I be basking in the UK's new dawn of economic prosperity?
One minute it's all BREXIT will kill us all, then it's hey it's not to bad, and now we seem to be middle of the road!
I'm just trying to earn an honest living here!!!
At the moment, everyone of note is holding their breath and waiting to see what emerges at the end of EU negotiations. Despite all the talk about the damage the delay could cause, most corporate types view two to three years wait as a relative blip and are carrying on as normal in the meantime.
Personally, I suspect that it's all swings and roundabouts, economically speaking, whatever we eventually lose as a result of Brexit we should be able to gain back as an equivalent level of economic activity elsewhere. It'll be a bit turbulent, and people will be talking about the pound yoyoing for the next five years, but not much damage or benefit of lasting impact will occur.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/27 13:33:14
The good data referred to above comes from the period before the referendum. I speculate to mention that until the last two weeks, the polling was pro-Remain, and this may have affected business confidence.
The bad data comes from the period after the actual Leave result reduced business confidence.
It's worth noting that official UK GDP and economic activity figures are nearly always estimated pessimistically and usually get revised upwards a bit after three to six months -- exactly as has happened in this case. Hopefully the poor estimates of the post-Referendum economy will after a few months be seen to have improved from where they are now.
The down side is that the World Bank data isn't subject to the same biases as the official UK figures, so their forecasts of growth are not so likely to improve, and are rather pessimistic.
The unfortunate thing is that economic growth builds over time like compound interest on a bank account. (Something we won't be getting for long as we head into negative interest rate territory.)
Thus if the size of the UK economy was 100 in 2007, and the UK achieved average 2% growth per year for 20 years, then by 2027 the economy would be 145.7. Whereas if average growth was 1.5% -- which doesn't sound a huge difference -- then by 2027 the economy would be 132.7. That missing 13 comes out of people's pockets in some form or other.
The bad thing for the UK is that our economy shrank 5% in 2008-9 (World Bank figures), so that in 2010 we were at 95 rather than the 106 we ought to have reached. We've had average growth since, and we are well behind where we should be. This is why people are feeling the pinch.
Some bad news for Britain - the EU have appointed Michel Barnier to head up their negotiating team for BREXIT.
I'm not going to post a link (it's in the The Guardian) becuase my phone is fiddly with that sort of thing,
but this isn't good news for Britain.
Barnier is the scourge of the City of London, and is reckoned to be shrewd and hard-nosed. And he's French. No disrespect to French dakka members, but there's a lot of history there.
Normally, I'd be the first to dish out a boot up the rear to London finance, but I don't think this bodes well for us.
Looks like the EU might play hardball, which I suppose, is to be expected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The good data referred to above comes from the period before the referendum. I speculate to mention that until the last two weeks, the polling was pro-Remain, and this may have affected business confidence.
The bad data comes from the period after the actual Leave result reduced business confidence.
It's worth noting that official UK GDP and economic activity figures are nearly always estimated pessimistically and usually get revised upwards a bit after three to six months -- exactly as has happened in this case. Hopefully the poor estimates of the post-Referendum economy will after a few months be seen to have improved from where they are now.
The down side is that the World Bank data isn't subject to the same biases as the official UK figures, so their forecasts of growth are not so likely to improve, and are rather pessimistic.
The unfortunate thing is that economic growth builds over time like compound interest on a bank account. (Something we won't be getting for long as we head into negative interest rate territory.)
Thus if the size of the UK economy was 100 in 2007, and the UK achieved average 2% growth per year for 20 years, then by 2027 the economy would be 145.7. Whereas if average growth was 1.5% -- which doesn't sound a huge difference -- then by 2027 the economy would be 132.7. That missing 13 comes out of people's pockets in some form or other.
The bad thing for the UK is that our economy shrank 5% in 2008-9 (World Bank figures), so that in 2010 we were at 95 rather than the 106 we ought to have reached. We've had average growth since, and we are well behind where we should be. This is why people are feeling the pinch.
Thanks for explaining that, but I get the feeling that there are parts of the UK, the old industry heartlands, that wouldn't have been affected by a BREXIT or Remain vote, either way.
These are the areas that need help, and have done so for a long time. Let's hope they don't get ignored and abandoned again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/27 18:58:03
"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
Kilkrazy wrote: These are the heartlands that have been getting 100s of millions of Euros of EU development aid that will now be lost.
True, but a serious economic plan is badly needed. A few years ago, the SNP mooted the idea of a 'tartan triangle' that would involve high speed rail linking Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Newcastle. Obviously, the main focus was Scotland's central belt, where most of the population live, but as an off-shoot, the rail links and cross-border trade, could have boosted the North east of England, and would have linked in the ferry services to Europe, plus better air routes.
Even with the possibility of Scottish independence, it was still a credible idea, and although it has flaws, examples like this, plans like this, are badly needed to shift the focus away from London and the south-east.
Sadly, the Tories seem to have adopted this business as usual approach...
"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
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Some bad news for Britain - the EU have appointed Michel Barnier to head up their negotiating team for BREXIT.
I'm not going to post a link (it's in the The Guardian) becuase my phone is fiddly with that sort of thing,
but this isn't good news for Britain.
Barnier is the scourge of the City of London, and is reckoned to be shrewd and hard-nosed. And he's French. No disrespect to French dakka members, but there's a lot of history there.
Normally, I'd be the first to dish out a boot up the rear to London finance, but I don't think this bodes well for us.
Looks like the EU might play hardball, which I suppose, is to be expected.
What it comes down to is what influence he'll ultimately have on things. He's Juncker's catspaw, but that's double-edged, it means he has no more power/influence than Juncker necessarily does. Something that needs to be remembered here is that Europe is not one amorphous blob with a single view and motive. The battlelines aren't just being drawn between Britain and Europe, but rather, across Europe in about three different directions and then us.
Juncker, his lad Barnier, the EU institutions, and France are measuring up as the ones out taking a more ideological stance. To Juncker, we're quite literally as he said, 'traitors'. We deserve to be punished, both as a deterrent, and because we are now considered ideologically opposed and should therefore suffer hardship as a result.
In the middle, the moderates are shuffling into line, the ones who want to quickly do a deal that works for everyone, headline it as everyone getting something, quietly pretend nothing else has changed in the EU, and move on with affairs asap. The Germans, and as of today, the Italians, appear to be in this camp.
On the other side, you have the Eastern European and Scandinavian countries who fear being shut out of the inner EU circles, with the hesitant support of Ireland (due to being closely linked) and the self interested support of the existing outsiders (Switzerland & Norway) who are keen to reform the Union itself along lines that would be far more favourable to us.
Ultimately, it comes down right now to a) If Hollande is still there next year (a big if) or who replaces him, and b) if so, whether or not France and the institutional EU influence of the federalists is capable of outweighing the interests/power of the other two blocs within the EU.
I would suspect that they'll lose out generally, but will insist on a specific condition weighted against Britain in whatever agreement is made as their symbolic pound of flesh, which will most likely be freedom of movement. We'll either have to accept it (to their glee), or reject it and potentially everything positive as well (also to their delight). Their goal is to see Britain fail, or forced into line and humbled. Nothing less will satisfy them.
Right now, Spain and the Netherlands haven't particularly swung into one camp or the other. If they fall in line with Germany, I suspect we'll be alright, France and Juncker alone can't face down the rest of the EU. Between them, Germany, and Italy, they represent the largest and most powerful economies/countries of the EU outside France. With our friendly bloc on top, that would be sufficient pull to get a good deal, I should think, with any symbolic pound of flesh just that, symbolic.
I'll be watching the next French elections with interest. If Sarkozy gets in again or Alain Juppé, Juncker's hopes of punishing perfidious Albion go down the toilet altogether. And the odds of that are actually pretty decent.
Tl;dr Watch the French elections and the Dutch/Spanish governments to see how our deal is going to turn out.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/27 20:12:50
Well, I wish I shared your optimism, Ketara, but as some once said, a week is a long time on politics.
I would have more faith if it weren't for the fact that we have two major liabilities involved in this - Fox and Johnson.
Johnson, is a buffoon, and no amount of people saying he's actually quite clever, it's all just an act, will convince me otherwise.
He will feth up with something, either running his mouth off and upsetting people, a scandal, or blundering badly. It's a question of when, not if IMO.
Fox on the other hand, is competent, I've never doubted that, but I don't trust him an inch. His loyalty is suspect in my book. He sails close to the wind, and his past scandals suggest a man that is working to somebody else's agenda, and not necessary in the national interest.
I don't mean treason by this, but he does come across as a stooge for vested interests.
Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
"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
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I wish I shared your optimism, Ketara, but as some once said, a week is a long time on politics.
I would have more faith if it weren't for the fact that we have two major liabilities involved in this - Fox and Johnson.
Johnson, is a buffoon, and no amount of people saying he's actually quite clever, it's all just an act, will convince me otherwise.
He will feth up with something, either running his mouth off and upsetting people, a scandal, or blundering badly. It's a question of when, not if IMO.
I agree Johnson is a buffoon. I don't think he's as big a buffoon as he publicly appears, but that's not exactly hard now, is it?
Luckily, Johnson has nothing to do with it, they've literally split the staff in foreign office down the middle, with Johnson being given the rest of the world and Davis the Brexit negotiations. Whilst he might make the occasional visit over the channel, he'll have nothing to do with the process, so rest your mind there.
Fox is a corrupt motherfether, and I dislike him intensely. That said, his career has barely survived to this point, and I don't think he'll want to take chances, especially under Davis' eye. He can be disposed of just as easily as he was resurrected.
Generally speaking, the odds of us getting a good deal go up the less europhiles in positions of power there are on the other side, and there actually aren't all that many. If Hollande goes, what ones there are left will be impotent, the office of EU President is actually reasonably powerless. Ergo, I'm actually reasonably optimistic right now, as Hollande's fighting for his political life at home at the moment(most unpopular president on the records).
We may well find our exiting is the catalyst the spurs the EU into a two tier solution, leaving us to reap the benefits of tier 2 membership whilst retaining our sovereignty. And that, I think, would be good for everyone.
