In , out, shake it all about

[JoeLeg]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In 5 years time we may very well have a useless,

> bunch of squander bugs called the Labour Party in

> charge and then the future will be very gloomy

> indeed as they try yet again to secure a permanent

> place in Parliament by lifting all restrictions on

> any kind of immigration like Blair did last time.

>

> We will be well and truly fubar if that happens

I really don't think the going to happen.

A) Labour are unelectable under Corbyn, IMO.

B) No political party will commit the political suicide that such a move would bring. Controlled immigration is what's going to happen, I reckon (I could be wrong of course), the question of course will be how controlled it is?

Have you had a chance to think about the questions I asked you earlier? Genuinely interested in your thoughts.

[????]

Bumped

[titch juicy]

A colleague wrote this piece.

"Vote for Brexit would blow British economy inside out.

21 March 2016

With three months still to go before the UK votes on whether to leave the European Union, emotions are running high. That should not prevent us making a calm assessment of the possible reaction of financial markets to Brexit and what that reaction might do to the British economy.

Broken Britain: a vote to leave would have a disastrous impact on the economy

The impacts on sterling, the UK current account and UK assets seem likely to cause considerable damage.

Let?s start with sterling and the pressure that the currency will be under to devalue. Brexit obliges the market to focus on the UK current account. The problem is trade in goods, with the UK importing more than it exports. In services, things are better: the UK runs a current account surplus, with financial services being the major contributor. The net result, however, is not a happy picture: not since the Second World War has the UK current account balance been so deeply in deficit, flirting with -5% of GDP. This has never happened in a time of peace.

Most of this deficit is with the EU, from which the UK imports plenty of goods such as cars, food and beverages.

If, after leaving the EU, the UK negotiated a trade agreement that did not cover services, it would leave a large hole in the UK current account: while still importing a large volume of goods, the country would stop benefiting from exporting its services to the rest of the EU. Financial services represent a matter of profound importance to the UK and the consequences of leaving such an important market would be dire. There is no precedent for a state to have access to the EU financial markets without paying a contribution to the EU and complying with most of its regulations.

The current account deficit has been so far financed by the ?kindness of strangers?, as international investors have poured capital into the UK via portfolio flows or foreign direct investment. It is likely that, in the uncertainty preceding the referendum, which would be greatly increased by a vote in favour of Brexit, flows will slow down and maybe even dry up completely.

Sterling will be the mechanism through which the UK will be able to continue to attract capital flows. Studies suggest that to fund the current account deficit, sterling would need to devalue by about 25% to 30% on a trade-weighted basis; also, an analysis of historical times of stress shows how sterling tends to devalue by at least 15%-20%. In other words, we would have to manage a scenario in which the currency undergoes a significant devaluation to attract capital flows, slow imports and boost exports.

In the event of Brexit, we envisage that the resulting political uncertainty would weaken the euro. But for the UK, because most of its trade deficit is with the EU, it would be desirable for sterling to depreciate against the euro.

A problem caused by this projected weakness of sterling is inflation, which would rise to between 4% and 5%. This would represent a major challenge for the Bank of England, which will have a dilemma: defend sterling by increasing official rates, thus slowing the economy and hitting the housing market, or look through this inflationary phase?

Let us now look at the asset markets. As the current account deficit would have to be plugged by capital inflows, the UK would need to offer an attractive set of risk premiums to global investors.

Many short and intermediate UK gilts are held by foreign investors, while longer-dated paper is mainly held by UK institutions. In case of a post-Brexit flight to quality, expect short and intermediate gilts to be affected first, with yields rising. To judge by past periods of stress, the extra risk premium required would be about 150 basis points, a significant correction. Long-dated securities would be hit by inflation picking up, as a consequence of weakness in sterling.

In equities, Brexit would require many investors to modify their approach. When sterling is strong and the economy works, small and mid-sized caps tend to perform well, given that import costs remain low and domestic demand is strong. If sterling were to weaken, this would cause the opposite, with the need to shift away from the domestically-driven companies towards UK-listed multinationals ? in other words, favouring FTSE 100 companies with a material portion of the revenues generated abroad.

There is still uncertainty on whether the referendum would be considered politically binding by the Government and whether a second vote would be considered. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the UK would be given two years to structure an orderly exit, during which there would be an attempt to negotiate new terms for the trading relationship with the EU.

If the UK did vote to leave, the economic challenges would be difficult, especially in negotiating a different trade agreement with the EU. In my view, the EU would not want to set a precedent and would not want to signal to other member countries that there is an easy way to ?leave and renegotiate?. Negotiations could become difficult and the outcome uncertain.

A new agreement might well be reached on trade in goods, but access to the EU market for services without a full EU compliance package looks almost impossible.

It is clear that the EU does not want the UK to leave. The political reverberations will be deep. The EU would be anxious that post-Brexit concessions to the UK would encourage nationalistic movements in other member countries to try to follow the UK example. This could result in a dangerous political chain reaction that could easily lead to national referendums in other member countries.

The UK?s annual contribution to the EU is about ?10 billion. Eurosceptics would like voters to believe that the UK would save that much a year by leaving ? a great bargain. Apart from the heavy costs of the market reactions already discussed, the UK government would need to help regions that would stop receiving European structural funds and sectors that could be disproportionally hit by tariffs on trade.

The UK?s membership of the EU demands careful deliberation, because among all the uncertainties about this issue, of one thing we can be sure ? whatever the electorate decides in June, the economic effects will be felt for a long time."

[Lowlander]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually I've now changed my mind slightly.

>

> (1) Britain had an energy policy in the 50s and

> 60s and were leading the world. Sadly it was down

> hill from the late 70s onwards as we embraced the

> 'market' - that is the reason (a) we are still

> dependant in part on coal (as well as wasting so

> much natural gas) (b) we want the cheapest source

> of supply.

>

> Without researching I expect that the EU watered

> down some of the environmental regulations that

> would further discourage the use of this dirty

> evil stuff. Nobody who posts on this forum would

> ever want to work down a pit.

>

> (2) The EU outlawed methylene choloride paint

> strippers. I bought the last can ever on sale.

> And I have kept it for a precious time. Sadly it

> has coroded through the tin and all evapourated.

> And why was it banned? Because a few silly people

> died each year from aphixiation. Just have a

> label and say don't use it to clean old bath tubs

> unless you are working outside.

>

> Still wont change my mind though.

>

> The power of Russia - a spurious argument, we

> cowtowed with the yanks to use market economics as

> a lever to end communism. And what did we get -

> another evil single party state (with heaps of

> natural resources). Better tackled by a united EU

> rather than a sovereign state.

To be pedantic, methylene chloride is not banned. In the UK, sale has been restricted to trade use only. And quite rightly, it's pretty dangerous stuff, even in the US there have been (unsuccessful) moves to restrict its use.

[uncleglen]

Now that Donald Trump has waded into the Brexit question, anyone who wants 'out' will be tarred with the same brush as him ...shut down....

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/donald-trump-claims-outpouring-of-love-weighs-in-on-brexit-debate/news-story/9731b8cb8a6c021e0d2e036be53f6a80

[DulwichFox]

In a fresh blow to the EU, 53 per cent of the French voted in favour of holding a UK-style referendum on the country?s membership.

Now that is interesting to say the very least..

DulwichFox