Unintended consequences of brexit

Airbus had a meeting with government ministers last Thursday. The purpose of this meeting was Airbus asking for government funding to open a new plant near Bristol.
MP Jack Lopresti was at the meeting and he said "at no point was Brexit mentioned"
Now it all becomes clear!!

Can you please give us some examples allyg of companies that have expressed interest in transferring to U.K. after Brexit?

Is it meant to be on the strength of all those Free ~Trade Agreements with the rest of the world (i.e those countries which aren't already in trade agreements with the EU) that we haven't yet made? I can't see any other reason for moving to the UK.

Interesting comment on R. North's blog today:

Rod Marker Allan Knowles • 6 hours ago
That reminds me of an event a few years ago at the embassy in Delhi. It was a "trade event" for SMEs . It was very lavish and lots of Indian companies But after a while my colleague and I noticed they we mostly looking for distributors in the UK, not distributing for us in India. One charming Indian gentlemen, who became my friend, told us "We only need Consultants from you, we can make everything here in India and cheaper. Even IT we have good grads so why don't we talk BPO and consultancy?". Boy are they tight on money. Our margins were cut so thin we gave up, every opportunity was "camel trading" and then waiting to get paid. Good luck to the brave souls who want to make a "Global Britain" selling in Asia.

www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86911

(you might have to scroll through a lot of comments to find this)

This doesn't seem to me to auger well for the prospects of us selling into the Asian market...

Maizie ref. your post 23.6. 18.01. What a shame you have to resort to "FFS". I know that the voters in the poll to which I referred were asked how they voted.

I was expressing my opinion which I'm as entitled as you are to do, and IMO a sample of less than 5000 in relation to a vote entered into by millions is not large enough to give a true indication as to why people voted as they did.

Excellent posts as usual Allygran. petra.

In April 2017 academic researchers at the Centre for Economic Perfoprmance at the LSE published "Who voted for Brexit?-A Comprehensive District-Level Analysis". They analysed vote and turnout shares across 380 local authority areas in the United Kingdom. They found that -

"Exposure to the EU in terms of immigration and trade provides relatively little explanatory power for the referendum vote. Instead, we find that fundamental characteristics of the voting population were key drivers of the Vote Leave share, in particular their education profiles, their historical dependence on manufacturing
employment as well as low income and high unemployment. At the much finer level of wards within cities, we find that areas with deprivation in terms of education, income and employment were more likely to vote Leave. "

cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1480.pdf

You will see that the conclusions confirm that of other studies in regard to those with low levels of educational attainment being more likely to vote Leave. Brexiters may not like this finding but any well educated person should accept that this does give a true indication as to why people voted as they did.

^ I know that the voters in the poll to which I referred were asked how they voted.^

So why were you saying it was their 'opinion'? That's what led to my frustration!

The local Bristol paper doesn't seem to be reassured by that, Petra:

This, dated Friday 22nd June

www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/business/airbus-warns-pull-out-bristol-1703092

POGS I am relatively new to Gransnet, but already, I am sick of the endless cycle that you describe so well. If this is what has gone on for two years, my admiration goes out to those who do bother to post.

I have left one thread, because of the constant repetitive nature of the the post's. Now having joined other threads in the News and Politics forum, in the hope things would be different, I find they are not. It is just not worth the effort.

The problem for me is when watching the threads, it is hard to ignore, the propaganda, without countering blatantly misleading or misrepresented information. But I must resist, because whatever avenue is taken it leads right back to where we started a few weeks previous, you can recognise that it goes back two years. So there is no hope of achieving any balanced argument I fear.

Mostly, sorry I can't it wasn't my article as you can see. No doubt if your interested, you could research it. My feeling is that once free of the EU inward relocation will come from not just the EU but from all over the free trade world.

Varian can you explain why you believe formal education equates to intelligence?

Varian re your link: cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1480.pdf

There are a number of flags given in the CEP paper on Brexit Leave voters these are:

"We stress that whilst our paper focuses on the variation of vote shares across local authority areas with respect to key variables such as immigration and education, we have less to say about the overall level of support for Vote Leave. Put differently, our paper focuses on slope coefficients, not intercepts. This is important because in order to get a sense of the absolute number of people who voted for or against Brexit, one would need to refer to data on individuals and how they voted. To some extent, such information is available through polling data, for instance as provided by Ashcroft (2016). Such polls indicate that the typical Leave voter is white, middle class and lives in the South of England. The proportion of Leave voters that are in the lowest two social classes (D and E) is less than one-third (see Dorling, 2016).
We also carry out a back-of-the-envelope calculation regarding turnout. Young vot- ers voted overwhelmingly in favour of Remain but had a lower turnout than older age groups. We find that a higher turnout of young voters would have been very unlikely to result in a different referendum outcome, partly because their turnout was already elevated compared to previous UK-wide elections.
Lastly, we also explore the role of some short-run factors such as heavy rainfall and flooding on the referendum day as well as train cancellations in the South East of England. While we document that these did have a reducing effect on turnout, the reduction does not seem to have affected the overall result: the Remain campaign would still have lost on a sunny day."

In my view, before taking any information from any research paper, one must know exactly, what the variables are, what methods of statistical analysis sed chosen and why. What was not included is just as important as what is included, in this case the self imposed parameters of the statistical analysis and limits of the research are I believe significant, although I am not a statistician far from it. They say:
"... key variables such as immigration and education, we have less to say about the overall level of support for Vote Leave. Put differently, our paper focuses on slope coefficients, not intercepts. This is important because in order to get a sense of the absolute number of people who voted for or against Brexit, one would need to refer to data on individuals and how they voted."
The research does not cover "absolute number of people who voted for or against Brexit". Hence the choice of the slope coefficients model rather than intercepts.

This tells you that the key variants chosen by them, are education and immigration, in another research analysis other key variants might have been chosen. So this research specifically looked at those two variants rather than other variants that I for one would consider key.

The statistical methods chosen are also significant, and they specifically mention this, to alert the reader to the inadequacy of these methods when analysing individual data which would be necessary to "refer to data on individuals and how they voted" which of course this study did not cover.

They also refer to Ashcroft (2016) regarding "some" information on polling data:
"To some extent, such information is available through polling data, for instance as provided by Ashcroft (2016)."

Interestingly Ashcroft (2016) data does not support the 'typical' uneducated manual unemployed worker on a low wage theory put forward in a different context. Ashcroft as they say states:

" Such polls indicate that the typical Leave voter is white, middle class and lives in the South of England. The proportion of Leave voters that are in the lowest two social classes (D and E) is less than one-third (see Dorling, 2016)."

They were also clear that little rigorous analysis had been carried out regarding turnout when they say:
"We also carry out a back-of-the-envelope calculation regarding turnout."

Now whilst the CEP is a highly regarded academic unit attached to an academic body, it is essential that their terms of reference, their chosen variables, and their methods of statistical analysis be considered when reading their findings. Since it indicates and they are, as one would expect, open about their purpose, and how they arrive at their conclusions, as well as indicating where their study did not go, or where it is less rigorous. This is entirely proper. What is important is that quoting out of context can misrepresent the findings, so I urge anyone interested to click on the link and read the whole thing for yourselves.

General news from the FT:
UK inflation
Why sterling has hit post-Brexit high
Katie Martin, head of fast FT, looks at the reasons for sterling's post-Brexit high, riding on hopes for a smooth EU exit.

www.ft.com/video/221fc8a6-952f-4038-b13f-f47ee5f83651

Petra your information about the Airbus meeting makes a lot of things clearer, thanks for posting that.

It is as usual money at the centre of all this. Airbus seeing the opportunity to squeeze the Government i.e the tax payer for as much as they can to open a plant in Bristol!! A multibillion euro organisation. It is so irritating, especially when they then use propaganda and threats to reinforce their blackmail, because that is what it looks like to me. From what I have heard on the news today, Ministers are speaking out about the Airbus scaremongering, and I hope they continue to do so.
Thanks again Petra.

Not sure if this is economic good news - The £ is 11% down since 2016
Yael Selfin, the KPMG chief economist, said the UK 50 is 4% below its level prior to the referendum, while the non-UK 50 has gained 35% over the same period.
www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/25/uk-focused-firms-have-struggled-since-brexit-vote-kpmg-analysis-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Petra's informstion about Airbus is, at the moment, nothing more than gossip/heresay; she has provided no evidence of its veracity. This is why it is helpful give a link to an information source. As it is, I could find nothing about it on google; the most recent local news about Airbus & Bristol was the Bristol Post item I linked to, dated the day after the meeting Petra talked about. I would have thought that such good news about further investment would have been splashed in the local press, not warnings of relocation and job losses.

I'm afraid I find the Leavers' rhetoric of blackmail and bullying by businesses and the EU extremely childish. I can't give much credence to it.

I said it was the poll that was offering an opinion Maizie, not the people who took part in it.

As for Petra's post about Airbus being "nothing more than gossip/heresay" that clearly isn't the case if, as Allygran has posted, "Ministers are speaking out against about the Airbus scaremongering".

It would seem that "the Leavers' rhetoric of blackmail and bullying by business ...." isn't as childish as you suppose.

Exactly two years after the referendum, nearly half of 800 executives surveyed across six EU countries by law firm Baker McKenzie said their businesses had reduced investment in the U.K. since the Brexit vote, according to a report published Monday. While 75 percent said the EU should make concessions to the U.K. to secure a better trade deal for their businesses, more than a third also wanted to see Britain punished.
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-24/eu-businesses-cut-u-k-ties-on-brexit-and-want-britain-punished

I said it was the poll that was offering an opinion Maizie, not the people who took part in it.

A poll can't 'offer an opinion', it's not a sentient, thinking being. It can reflect people's opinions if it is an opinion poll, but this wasn't an opinion poll, it was a survey of how people actually voted. There's a huge difference. It presented facts. You can't dismiss 'facts' as just an opinion (well, you obviously can but it's not a particularly secure way of viewing the world. Though there is a very thriving community of Flat Earthers in existence so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised)

Allygran has posted, "Ministers are speaking out against about the Airbus scaremongering".

Indeed they are, they are scared that if people know the facts they will turn against Brexit. Look how they tried to suppress the dreadful Impact Assessments. Produced by their own civil servants.

I'm afraid I trust businesses to know more about risk assessment and what is good for their business than I do government ministers who are determined to push through a policy which, by their own assessments, promises to leave the UK poorer. It's not the job of business to bolster UK government policy; it's their job to be profitable and if they don't see being in the UK as being profitable any more they will leave. It's not blackmail or bullying, it's sound business sense.

Do people think that Jacob Rees-Mogg was just “scaremongering” by moving parts of his Investment Company to Ireland to avoid the economic uncertainties of Brexit in the U.K.

Prominent Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has defended the move by a City firm that he helped to found to establish an investment fund in Ireland ahead of the UK leaving the European Union.

The Conservative MP faced questions when it emerged that Somerset Capital Management (SCM) had launched a new investment vehicle in Dublin amid concerns about being cut off from European investors.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-jacob-rees-mogg-scm-ireland-city-move-eu-withdrawal-dublin-a8398041.html

Or John Redwood advising investors to move their money out of the UK?

A veteran, Brexit-supporting Conservative MP has told investors to withdraw their money from the UK and instead invest in the EU.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-john-redwood-tory-mp-investors-withdraw-money-uk-economy-city-london-eu-a8056771.html

MaizieD
Did you not think to search Jack Lopresri's own website. Surely the first port of call when checking out if a minister has made a statement on something ( or twitter)
Check out www.jacklopresti.com
You'll find the gossip perpetuated by me in his own words
Always best to check first, I find.

Business will always protect it's shareholders, and sadly less so it's stakeholders, in some cases. Hence Globalisation issue that were predominant in the last Century. If the business, is requiring specialist/technical/or skilled workers, then it is less likely, unless it has other capacity, such as Airbus has in Europe to move. Re-training and training is often long term with a cost and reduced output, or expensive to recruit the highly skilled specialists.

What I find surprising is, that some people did not expect that business's would relocate on Brexit, if that suited their business model.

Business investment through re-location, will work both ways, it is a two way street. Some will go and some will stay. That's business. It is not something to be afraid of. This is after all a revolution, it might be a peaceful one, but it is still shaking things up, as it should. To think anything other is very naive.

Brexit is the building block into the business models, employment patterns and our society of the twenty first century. It is a bit scary, but it is necessary, usually a war brings change, this time we have learned so much, now we get divorced rather than murdering each other.

USA Ambassador to the United Kingdom alone with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, both very bullish about the future of expanding trade and business to and from the UK and with the rest of the trading unions outside of the EU.

One last thing on Airbus, it is highly unlikely in my view that Airbus will do anything other than what they had stated in their long term business plan, issued some time before the Referendum. They had plans then to loose around 7,000 personnel from UK sites working on the wing sections. The Trade Unions at Broughton were unconcerned, because that was planned to happen through natural wastage, and absorbing wing manufacturing personnel into other area's of work, provided from Broughton's large long term order book. In fact we have gone through this before, somewhere I posted an article about just this.

From information posted on this thread, it seems Airbus are looking expand in Bristol. That does not sound like they are planning on doing a runner! Oh! Unless of course our Government won't fund it for them. This whole Airbus thing is fallacious in connection with Brexit in my view.

Did you not think to search Jack Lopresri's own website

Silly me. Expecting people to back up their statements with evidence.

Petra

You offered a valid post to counter balance another poster saying :-

" Petra's informstion about Airbus is, at the moment, nothing more than gossip/heresay; she has provided no evidence of its veracity. This is why it is helpful give a link to an information source. "

Maizied

When you say :-

"Silly me. Expecting people to back up their statements with evidence"

That is what happened surely.

Car manufacturers have warned Theresa May there is “no Brexit dividend” for the industry, with 860,000 jobs being put at risk unless the government “rethinks” its red lines in negotiations.

BMW will shut UK sites if customs delays clog supply post-Brexit. In the starkest warning yet from a single business sector, the car lobby has told the government that it needs “as a minimum” to remain in the customs union and a deal that delivers “single market benefits”.

“There is no Brexit dividend for our industry,” Michael Hawes, the chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), said. It said Brexit uncertainty was thwarting investment and repeated calls for the UK to stay in the customs union until the government came up with a “credible plan B”.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/26/brexit-uncertainty-putting-860000-jobs-at-risk-warns-car-industry