UKH

They voted for it.

They've got it.

https://www.in-cumbria.com/news/18250693.mcbride-confirms-barrow-factory-cl...

While this isn't the only closure and relocation to mainland Europe I've heard of I don't recall hearing of any European companies announcing plans to start up in Britain. Maybe somebody could tell me about any Brexit dividends they've heard of?

In reply to NERD:

Presumably those pesky continental types are still buying powder though, hence the need to shift manufacturing to the EU, because tariffs are coming...

In reply to NERD:

You're not making much sense there. Blathering away. Papering over the cracks, really.

In reply to NERD:

Yes! This is a perfect illustration of how British industry will be decimated by Brexit. It won't happen in spectacular factory closures with thousands laid off in a single day. Death will be by a thousand cuts.

This company's market is shrinking. It has three factories, two in the EU and one outside. I imagine most of its business is with the EU and so it decides to shrink its manufacturing base by shutting the non EU plant. If it moves into liquids to survive you can bet your house that they'll be doing that in the EU, not in Cumbria.

Unless if course we follow the ERG strategy of depressing wages and employment conditions to a point where it makes economic sense because our workers are now in low wage cost industries.

Brexit is a “get out of gaol free card” for any company that has to release bad news (see N26 bank thread), yet the company doesn’t even mention it. Even a cursory read of the article makes that plain. Seriously, what does that mean, do you think? Did you reflect at all before posting?

The article states that profits are down 45.5% due to a fall in demand for their product. 

Any company that has a drop in profits of that amount are going to look at their operation. For all we know the UK factory can only make powder but the France factory can make powder and liquid but hey let's jump to conclusions to validate our own opinion. 

but we might get HP Sauce and Terry's Chocolate Orange back?

In reply to NERD:

My climbing partner's wife is the director of a multi-national pharmeaceuticals company. They have a factory in Kent. They're bailing out this year, they have found a premises in Holland, basically they can't be arsed. They have about 45m in the bank so they can afford to do it. 110 jobs gone. If you think this is scare mongering send me an email via UCK and I'll expalin in detail.

E

My climbing partner's wife is the director of a multi-national pharmeaceuticals company. They have a factory in Kent. They're bailing out this year, they have found a premises in Holland, basically they can't be arsed. They have about 45m in the bank so they can afford to do it. 110 jobs gone. If you think this is scare mongering send me an email via UCK and I'll expalin in detail.

E

Yes.

Read my post again. The company has excess capacity and three manufacturing plants. It decides to reduce costs by shutting one of them. It shuts the plant that isn't in the EU. 

What would you do?

As of 2022 when the tariffs kick in, it will cost them to cross our border. If they retreat to the EU side, they get unimpeded access to 430,000,000 customers, if they stay, they get unimpeded access to 70,000,000 customers. What do you think they are going to do?

youtube.com/watch?v=h2QZprRgxDc&

In reply to NERD:

If someone burgaled your house would you give a shit? 

In reply to NERD:

Don't you realise just how feeble and unknowing that sounds? 

This is a huge lie, and again, you must know it. One third of our electorate (those who bothered to vote) voted for it. And, of course, as any sane person must realise, the idea of making such a fundamental change to our constitution with a simple majority, rather than a super-majority, is an absurdity.

Another distortion of the truth, which ignores the true reason for the majority (less a massive enthusiasm for the Tories than a disbelief in the viability of the Labour alternative.)

If you're telling the truth, you're exposing yourself as a complete idiot. Hard Brexit was always, from the very beginning, the biggest danger of voting for these ideological maniacs. Please don't try to tell us now that you weren't warned.

You have to realise that, by your vote, you helped cause it. You are partially responsible for this mishap, and so, very culpable.

If they close one of the two EU factories, leaving one in and one out, they get unimpeded access to 500,000,000 customers, so if tariffs were the unalloyed reason, that is what you would see, isn't it? Except that nothing's ever that simple and it may be that, as Dax suggests, the EU factories are tooled up to make liquid and the UK only powder. Alternatively it may be that the owners are retiring to Spain where the factories happen to be. We just don't know.

My point isn't that Brexit won't cost jobs, it's that there's no evidence at all that it is behind these cuts. Not least because the firm did not blame Brexit! Still, plenty of UKC contributors are keen to do so for them so perhaps that's why they didn't feel it was necessary.

I read your post. Your conclusions are not only supposition but also, on the grounds I outlined in my first post, illogical. As for your jibe that there are no EU companies setting up in the UK, as of October 2019 a total of 1,441 EU companies had applied to the Financial Conduct Authority to start businesses here. Hundreds of non-financial firms are doing the same. Google is your friend, but, in your rush to chide Brexiters, you didn't bother to check.

Instead of crowing over job losses for Brexit voters "They voted for it. They got it", I'm not going to attribute these new employers to some Brexit bounce. It's just part of the adjustments that companies are making.

START businesses here?? So this is 1441 EU companies that didn’t previously have a UK based business is it? Or is it existing businesses who now need a UK licensed business?

Don't ask me, I just plucked a quote from google (repeated across multiple responses to the same search, so probably reliable). Ask some of the other contributors, they're the ones claiming to have second sight.

In reply to NERD:

I am very happy in my own life, thanks. And I mean, VERY. Unhappy about seeing people (by no means all) around me wrecking their lives.

In reply to NERD:

I do. It's hardly the first time you've posted it...

In reply to NERD:

BTW, if we're going to try and make an effort to be civil and friendly, outside of our obviously huge political differences, could you tell me something about your climbing experiences and enthusiasms? Thanks in advance.

PS. I should add: your profile tells us nothing about your climbing. I sincerely hope you're not yet another non-climber who's discovered UKC and is simply using these forums as a kind of soapbox. There have been several here in the past ...

As someone who works for one of the new 1441, I can confirm that although we are a new UK bank, we employ slightly fewer people than previously when we were a branch of an EU bank. We are still in the Uk market, but recruitment is mostly outside the U.K. Not a single job at group level has gone to a new UK employee since Brexit.

 
Since the decisive GE I try to stay out of these endless Brexit discussions, all the national decisions are totally out of our hands.  I just get dragged in every now and then by thoroughly misleading posts. 

And my intervention in this thread was for exactly the same purpose. The initial post was just misleading supposition. I don't have an axe to grind over whether Brexit is good or bad (hint: I think it's mostly bad although I'm intrigued at some potential outcomes while doubting that they will actually transpire.)

In reply to NERD:

I think you've said many times you don't vote.

Unless I'm confusing you with someone else.

In reply to NERD:

Ooh you are one badass free marketeer.

In reply to NERD:

Almost every individual case you look at there will be multiple factors.  What Brexit is doing is completely needlessly adding an additional negative factor to the balance and making it more likely that the decision will be to close up in the UK or not invest in the UK.   

If you're telling the truth, you're exposing yourself as a complete idiot. Hard Brexit was always, from the very beginning, the biggest danger of voting for these ideological maniacs. Please don't try to tell us now that you weren't warned.

Stainforth, just because you don't share someones opinion that does not give you the right to call them an idiot or indeed to suggests others are maniacs for sharing this ideology.

All you do by showing your anger like this is make yourself look like the idiot.

youtube.com/watch?v=C6PNc9KN50M&

In reply to NERD:

I think you’re trolling this forum. There’s an absence of argument in what you say. A whole load of ‘it’ll be alright’ without a single supporting fact. You really come across as completely vacuous.

And your dumb shit isn’t any better.

In reply to NERD:

Alright then!

What concrete benefits have we already received from Brexit? 

McBride is a U.K. co originally spun out of BP and based in the salt mining area of Cheshire. 
In Warrington Unilever is also closing its soap powder operations with another 100 plus jobs going. 

Just wait, there will be loads of international companies wanting to invest in the UK to export to the USA when the trade deal is done. 

Useful info. Come to think of it, does anyone use soap powder nowadays?

Yes. I've been using soap powder for 40+ years. It works OK. Why change?

"Massive hole in EU budget".    We get to spend some of it on the NHS.

Because the demand data suggests that everyone else already has or is about to.

The impact of the vote to leave on the economy will be something of the order of £200 Bn by the end of this year, when we finally leave the economic structures of the EU. This is more than our entire contributions over the 47 years of our membership. Try spending that on the NHS. 

If sales are down 45% then people must be changing. Maybe people find it easier to just throw a tablet in the machine than measure out x spoon fulls of loose powder or maybe squirting liquid in to the tray from a sealable bottle is easier. 

My mum used a twin tub for 40 years before she discovered an automatic machine. 

Nonsense.

We won't....

Besides, this isn't a benefit that we have already felt. That's what I asked for.

Next muffin. 

Still believing the bus bullshit...hilarious.

Intrigued. Where does that figure come from?

It’s quite simple.
 

You just take the historical relationship between U.K. GDP and that of G7 countries to produce the growth path we normally would have expected, and take the variance against actuals since the vote. 
Do that and you’ll find an adverse impact of about 130bn, and the forecast of an extra 70bn for the rest of the year.

So we know from the data we’re lagging by about that much but of course the cause could be other than brexit.

Ok.....so there has been a reduction and the cause may or may not be Brexit .

What are the other “theoretical “ causes ?

No idea. I’m not attributing any cause I’m just telling you what the data shows.

Does this mean I'm going to be £2951 and 52 pence worse off next year?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

If it gets any worse I'll have to start paying the country money I haven't got.

Not necessarily, it just means that per head of population, the U.K. economy would have produced that much less than we would have expected if it hadn’t been lagging against its peers.

already the case on the aggregate, since the brexit vote UK households are spending more than they earn (the first time in 30y)

I’m not an economist but I think this isn’t sustainable

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51184323

1,000 jobs just created by Facebook in London

Every one a brexit bonus. 

In reply to NERD:

Did you reply to pasbury's question? https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/getting_brexit_done-716160?v=1#...

Is it really statistically significant?

what is £200 Bn as a % of Uks gdp? 
 

is it pennies or £’s if you get what I mean. 

Did mental arithmetic not answer that?

200Bn, 3 years, 70 Bn, 60M population

1000 off GDP per capita

Well it is approximately the equivalent of what the entire U.K. economy and its 32 million workers produced over the last 11 Quarters.

I wouldn’t call 2.75 years worth of effort across 30m people « pennies in the pound » but of course, it’s subjective. Up to you to decide.

So the variance is £200 bn over 3 years. So £65 bn a year. 
 The U.K. s gdp is around 2.1 trillion .

if it was statistically significant I would expect the economy to be in the doldrums and for their to be swathes of unemployment. 

A bit syllogistic. Nothing to do with statistical significance.

As I’ve said, it’s subjective, compared to what is produced every year it’s 65bn variance annualised, as you said.

So whether it’s a lot or not, or important, up to you.
You may consider unemployment or other factors more important sure.

About 1000 per head is another, simpler way to look at it. 

2.75 years longer than expected to reach the same level of production is a much more tangible way to look at it for me.

That is pretty much exactly what the BoE and treasury; for all their ills, had predicted BTW, so I am not sure why it comes at a surprise or why we even have this discussion ? This was well known.

When people band around number in the billions it is often difficult to relate to on a day to day basis so I like to question it.... to try and add meaning.

The 1000 per head I assume is over 3 years, so £330 a year ball park.

I think you need to rethink that assumption.

Thats why I’ve given you two ways to look at it, in annual pound terms (circa 1000£ worth less produced per head, or extra number of years taken to reach the same level of production (circa 2.75 years).

Maybe it would be easier to say that, typically, the U.K. worker produced £2000 less worth of stuff/services per year than they would have if it were not for brexit (if you make the assumption that the U.K. economy lag behind G7 is due to brexit)

Hummm... no

Just reread your post and the way  the figures are laid out 

65 billion a year variance

£1000 per head per year

in line with BoE s forecast for impact of Brexit for this years .And it may or may not be Brexit which accounts for that variance. 

Ok I did re-read my post what exactly is your point ?

I just wanted to clearly understand what you are saying and the numbers you are quoting, that is all, no point, just understanding.So if I seek clarification its just so I clearly understand. Not hard.I find numbers people get really annoyed when you try and ask questions!Just be a bit more tolerant..

What is it exactly you don’t understand?

I’ve replied to all of your questions.
But in your last post you didn’t ask any question, you asked me to re-read my post, which I did, I’m asking why.

 I do not understand why you need to get tetcthy over questions. Just have more patience when people ask for more clarification.Its not difficult.You might win more people over.

And it was not clear  that the 200bn was over 3 years for example. ( that was not you, you clarified it)

I’ve answered very factually and politely every single question you had and provided any clarification requested with extreme patience. That’s not being “tetchy” it’s the exact opposite.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I’m just giving you the data as is.

It’s becoming very clear that your only intent is to be childish, intellectually dishonest, and waste my time.
 

So, Goodbye.

In reply to NERD:

Doesn't that rather neatly highlight the value to a manufacturer (and its dependant community) of being in a large customs union?

jk

I was going to ask you if was possible to  narrow it down and relate that figure to  wages/salaries that have been lost as a result of the reduction.Could you not say that the variance means that a persons salary/wage has been reduced by £ x. It then has more real meaning.

You are the numbers man, can this be done.

I'm interested in getting actual figures and have read about a number of studies and estimates of the cost so far of the Brexit referendum result. This is what I've found so far:

Bloomberg, January 2020 -  £170 bn - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-countin...

Standard and Poor's April 2019 - £66bn or £550m/week  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-cost-how-much-uk-ec...

Gertjan Vlieghe (BoE monetary policy committee member), Feb 2019 - £800m/week  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/brexit-has-cost-uk-economy...

Goldman Sachs, April 2019 - £600m/week  https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-goldmansachs/brexit-uncertaint...

Centre for European Reform, June 2019 - 2.9% smaller economy  https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2019

These are, of course, estimates and you need to look at the dates as well to compare them. I understand that there are two main mechanisms for the reduced growth. One is the exchange rate that increases costs of imports. But the other is, in my opinion, more concerning: there has been a large decrease in business investment i.e. businesses putting money into expanding product lines, improving efficiency etc. And a consequence is that productivity is not increasing

There is inevitable uncertainty when trying to estimate this sort of thing but, despite different methodologies, they are all pointing the same direction: there has been a significant cost due to the Brexit referendum. I note that all estimates are higher than the £350m/week that figured on the side of a bus. 

Well I think to look at how much is being produced has a pretty clear, real meaning and has the advantage of being totally objective, more easily attributable.

Impact on wages on the past three years I don’t think it can be done easily - unless you are only interested in the impact of the crash of the pound on real wages. 

There is of course a long run equilibrium between real wages and GDP. Seems pretty common sense to say that lower productivity would normally result in lower real wages in the long run.

But the effects are quite complex, lagging, noisy, etc etc. So not easy to say over a period of three years.

For example, lower immigration and lower investment in automation can well result in an initial spike in wages due to shortages, leading to an initial boost, but then be wiped out by inflation latter on as the extra costs are slowly passed through to the customer, wiped by lower productivity and competitiveness, etc etc.

You need to be able to write a cheque for £ 3000 to each peron reperesenting the loss in GDP ( £1000 a year), send  it out,  and then a day later cancel it.

Otherwise to most people the number is meaningless ( after all you do not miss what you never had).

What you describe is simply a well known psychological phenomenon known as loss aversion. Not much to do with what that figure means.

The psychological reaction to the economic impact is a different subject.

I agree.

And I am amazed that something like this is not employed to get over the message.Its what I would do.

Well that’s what they tried to do in the referendum campaign but obviously it was painted as “doommongering”.

It’s also an over-simplification which isn’t needed here, I’m not trying to run a campaign or convince anyone I’m trying to present the data objectively.