The Brexiters shit on the country again

[ProfessorDavey]

This sort of drivel isn't going to change anyone's mind.

Jeremy is absolutely correct that the brexit vote is already having a negative impact on scientific research in the UK, it isn't drivel.

Now I don't know what you do Jakswan, but I am a research scientist and in a senior position within a research intensive university so part of my role is providing strategic management of the research activities. So I know what I'm talking about.

So since the brexit vote there have been a significant number of instances where researchers in my institution have found they are no longer welcome in developing consortiums that are aiming at applying for EU funding in the newer future. We are being excluded, and you can understand why. If you are putting together a consortium and one partner may no longer be eligible for the funding then that is a big risk - if they cannot participate then the ability of the overall consortium to deliver is compromised.

Actually I have been asked, formally to keep a dossier of such occurrences, with the information to be submitted to the minister for universities and science.

Brexit has also had a chilling effect on recruitment and retention. Top scientists are often more than happy to relocate internationally to the best place to support their research ambitions. Although we haven't lost anyone yet I am aware of colleagues who are reactively looking to relocate into the remaining EU. Also in interviews earlier this week the issue of brexit was brought up by all the candidates as an issue of importance in their decision as to whether to take a position in the UK or elsewhere.

[jakswan]

Jeremy is absolutely correct that the brexit vote is already having a negative impact on scientific research in the UK, it isn't drivel.

Now I don't know what you do Jakswan, but I am a research scientist and in a senior position within a research intensive university so part of my role is providing strategic management of the research activities. So I know what I'm talking about.

So since the brexit vote there have been a significant number of instances where researchers in my institution have found they are no longer welcome in developing consortiums that are aiming at applying for EU funding in the newer future. We are being excluded, and you can understand why. If you are putting together a consortium and one partner may no longer be eligible for the funding then that is a big risk - if they cannot participate then the ability of the overall consortium to deliver is compromised.

Actually I have been asked, formally to keep a dossier of such occurrences, with the information to be submitted to the minister for universities and science.

Brexit has also had a chilling effect on recruitment and retention. Top scientists are often more than happy to relocate internationally to the best place to support their research ambitions. Although we haven't lost anyone yet I am aware of colleagues who are reactively looking to relocate into the remaining EU. Also in interviews earlier this week the issue of brexit was brought up by all the candidates as an issue of importance in their decision as to whether to take a position in the UK or elsewhere.

Yes and your post is rational well thought out and would influence my view, calling people twats as per Jeremy wouldn't.

I don't work in that field, the field i do work in, furniture retail stands to gain, but let's not do the debate again it in the past now.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

That is a very chilling post, what you are describing is a brain drain, wonder what kind of sticking plaster the Tories will come up for this one.

It does my wee British/Scottish/Glaswegian heart the power of good when I read about all the advances coming out of our Universities and research institutes, will that now become a thing of the past, never mind we have Mr Carney's magical 250 billion! but no, wait, that is for the banks, the very people Jack Knave keeps complaining about

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Yes and your post is rational well thought out and would influence my view, calling people twats as per Jeremy wouldn't.

It's not the first time the Prof has posted on the subject. Unlike the Leavers I read what he wrote and what scientists have been saying in the media. Do you deny that this is a serious problem?

I don't work in that field, the field i do work in, furniture retail stands to gain, but let's not do the debate again it in the past now.

No, let's do the debate. Tell me how you think that the furniture retail industry is going to gain from Brexit. Seriously, we could do with some good news.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and your post is rational well thought out and would influence my view, calling people twats as per Jeremy wouldn't.

I'm glad that you accept my inside knowledge on this as being more authoritative than most.

I don't work in that field, the field i do work in, furniture retail stands to gain, but let's not do the debate again it in the past now.

In what way would furniture retail gain?

Aren't you importing products to then sell to the public - won't the drop in the rate of sterling make your product range more expensive and therefore require you either to pass on that increase in price to customers (who may therefore choose not to buy) or cut margins therefore reducing profitability or require efficiency savings.

Also surely a sector such as furniture retailing must be rather susceptible to the broader health of the economy - sure we all need chairs, beds, tables etc, but when times are tough we may choose not to replace but to allow existing furniture to last a little bit longer.

Also isn't your sector fairly linked to the housing market - people move house, particularly to a bigger place and they also buy new furniture. If the housing markets become suppressed, with less transactions, less new builds (we are already seeing signs of this) there will be less people moving and deciding that their old sofa just won't do in their new place.

Now I'm not an expert, but as I've give a detailed expert view on why brexit has already been negative for scientific research it would be good for you to explain why it will be positive for furniture retailing as I genuinely can't see why it would be, but presumably you can provide an explanation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

That is a very chilling post, what you are describing is a brain drain, wonder what kind of sticking plaster the Tories will come up for this one.

Indeed it is.

A particular concern of mine is that I have 3 members of my staff awaiting the outcome of major prestigious personal research funding from the EU - in total worth about Euro4.5 million. The three researchers are Chinese (worked in France before coming to the UK), Turkish (having worked previously in the Netherlands) and Italian. So all are happy to move across borders to support their research.

Now currently they should be able to hold those grants in the UK, but the uncertainty is a real problem. Universities are extremely skilled at poaching the best people, particularly those with sufficient external funding to make them effectively 'free' to their university for the foreseeable future (in this case each grant is 5 years).

So without doubt there will members of their wider research network in other EU countries quietly suggesting that if successful they might be well advised to relocate to a country where there will be no issues about holding the grant.

So in the Autumn I could be looking at not only losing Euro4.5 million of funding but also three exceptionally talented members of staff.

That's the reality here at the coal-face of scientific research in the UK.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, let's do the debate. Tell me how you think that the furniture retail industry is going to gain from Brexit. Seriously, we could do with some good news.

My point too - see above.

I am struggling to see how an industry sector heavily reliant on imports and also affected by the overall buoyancy (or otherwise) of the retail sector would be feeling confident, rather than concerned by the brexit vote.

[jakswan]

I'm glad that you accept my inside knowledge on this as being more authoritative than most.
In what way would furniture retail gain?

Aren't you importing products to then sell to the public - won't the drop in the rate of sterling make your product range more expensive and therefore require you either to pass on that increase in price to customers (who may therefore choose not to buy) or cut margins therefore reducing profitability or require efficiency savings.

Also surely a sector such as furniture retailing must be rather susceptible to the broader health of the economy - sure we all need chairs, beds, tables etc, but when times are tough we may choose not to replace but to allow existing furniture to last a little bit longer.

Also isn't your sector fairly linked to the housing market - people move house, particularly to a bigger place and they also buy new furniture. If the housing markets become suppressed, with less transactions, less new builds (we are already seeing signs of this) there will be less people moving and deciding that their old sofa just won't do in their new place.

Now I'm not an expert, but as I've give a detailed expert view on why brexit has already been negative for scientific research it would be good for you to explain why it will be positive for furniture retailing as I genuinely can't see why it would be, but presumably you can provide an explanation.

There is no solid oak furniture made in this country so any price increases will be experienced by all retailers, we have more room for cutting prices than almost all of our competitors being direct source, just one store.

If the market gets smaller, no signs of this yet (highest ever sales for July) we can increase market share by cutting prices and continue our growth. Oak Furniture Land started as the Container Clearance Company in 2007 ish, they grew through the recession and now turnover is £300million ish.

Furniture sales are influenced by house moves and non-house moves, one of most interesting cohorts is people that take their property off the market, they often elect to redecorate with a handsome budget.

The biggest reason why I think Furniture retail would benefit is the opportunity to negotiate free trade deals with many more markets and this should help to drive prices down for UK consumers.

I'd rather not debate with someone who is going to call people twats, what will that be like 'I know you are but what are you etc' and anyway the debate is over, leave won.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no solid oak furniture made in this country so any price increases will be experienced by all retailers, we have more room for cutting prices than almost all of our competitors being direct source, just one store.

But you talked about the 'field' of furniture retailers - i.e. the whole sector, not just solid oak furniture retailers, still less just you one store. So what you appear to be saying is that some individual businesses may buck the trend of the sector - but that isn't what you implied, nor what I asked, which was clearly a view that the sector as a whole is going to gain.

If the market gets smaller, no signs of this yet (highest ever sales for July) we can increase market share by cutting prices and continue our growth. Oak Furniture Land started as the Container Clearance Company in 2007 ish, they grew through the recession and now turnover is £300million ish.

See above, you are focussing on your single company not the sector. Sure your sales may have remained buoyant but that doesn't seem to be the case for retail as a whole, still less for discretionary spending on big ticket items, which furniture would seem to be:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pmi-7-year-low-consumer-spending-down-brexit-eu-referendum-a7131151.html

Furniture sales are influenced by house moves and non-house moves, one of most interesting cohorts is people that take their property off the market, they often elect to redecorate with a handsome budget.

I can see that as being true, but to what extent would that counter the need for people who have moved to buy new furniture, or that in times of tightening of belts (whether actually needed or due to concern as to what the future might bring) that new furniture is an expensive 'nice to have' in many cases and therefore the first type of purchase to suffer.

The biggest reason why I think Furniture retail would benefit is the opportunity to negotiate free trade deals with many more markets and this should help to drive prices down for UK consumers.

Theoretically possible, but pure speculation and certain this type of speculative horizon gazing will have no effect on the current state of the sector.

I'd rather not debate with someone who is going to call people twats, what will that be like 'I know you are but what are you etc' and anyway the debate is over, leave won.

But that wasn't me.

No the debate isn't over, it has barely begun. The real debate - what the future of the UK should be is only just starting. Indeed our PM doesn't appear to want to start that debate until 2017 at the earliest.

[jakswan]

Of course any downturn in the economy will have an effect on most retailers.

Theoretically possible, but pure speculation and certain this type of speculative horizon gazing will have no effect on the current state of the sector.

Its not speculative, Australia is already keen to crack on.

But that wasn't me.

Apologies correct I should have done a new post.

No the debate isn't over, it has barely begun. The real debate - what the future of the UK should be is only just starting. Indeed our PM doesn't appear to want to start that debate until 2017 at the earliest.

Yes makes sense, see what deals could be done, what is on offer from the EU then maybe the debate starts again.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course any downturn in the economy will have an effect on most retailers.

So you accept then that the downturn in the economy (reduced growth, loss of consumer confidence, increased costs for retailers that import products to sell) that we are already seeing will detrimentally accept the retail sector, albeit with some individual companies bucking the overall trend.

In which case you will need to retract your earlier comment that:

'the field i do work in, furniture retail stands to gain'

Sure your particular company might be one of those that bucks the trend (in part because others may go out of business) but the overall affect on the furniture retail sector is negative.

Its not speculative, Australia is already keen to crack on.

Of course it is speculative

How many new deals so we have in place - zero.

How many new deals are close to completion - zero.

How many negotiations on new deals have formally started - zero.

In fact we don't even have sufficient experience trade negotiators in the UK to have any hope of negotiating multiple deals in any serious timeframe. I gather we have less than 20.

Yes makes sense, see what deals could be done, what is on offer from the EU then maybe the debate starts again.

No - that is the debate. Prior to the referendum the debate was in fantasy land cake and eat it territory. That isn't a debate, merely wishful thinking (we can have full access to the free market and significant limitations to freedom of movement).

We are now into the real debate - if we leave which is more important - access to the free market (I think you'd support that one) or restrictions on freedom of movement (clearly JK's line in the sand). You can't have both - we have to face up to reality rather than wishful thinking fantasy.

[jakswan]

So you accept then that the downturn in the economy (reduced growth, loss of consumer confidence, increased costs for retailers that import products to sell) that we are already seeing will detrimentally accept the retail sector, albeit with some individual companies bucking the overall trend.

In which case you will need to retract your earlier comment that:

'the field i do work in, furniture retail stands to gain'

Your "credible sources" predicted -0.5% GDP for two quarters, if that happened then its a minor loss for furniture retail overall short term, long term we would see gains, more markets to import from, results in greater choice for consumers, lower prices.

Of course it is speculative

How many new deals so we have in place - zero.

How many new deals are close to completion - zero.

How many negotiations on new deals have formally started - zero.

In fact we don't even have sufficient experience trade negotiators in the UK to have any hope of negotiating multiple deals in any serious timeframe. I gather we have less than 20.

I don't know the answer to all of those question no one does apart from the government, early news looks positive.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/16/theresa-may-plans-for-brexit-trade-deals-with-the-usa-and-austra/

No - that is the debate. Prior to the referendum the debate was in fantasy land cake and eat it territory. That isn't a debate, merely wishful thinking (we can have full access to the free market and significant limitations to freedom of movement).

We are now into the real debate - if we leave which is more important - access to the free market (I think you'd support that one) or restrictions on freedom of movement (clearly JK's line in the sand). You can't have both - we have to face up to reality rather than wishful thinking fantasy.

The vote is over, carrying on with doom and gloom predictions isn't going to get us far. I agree we can discuss what deal the EU might offer us, what deals we might get outside of the EU, when those are on the table you can then make a case for another referendum or simply leaving.

I'm assuming you will be arguing for another vote but wouldn't you agree it is too early to do that now?

I'd be up for a Norway type deal, they might offer a brake on immigration, they might ask for £3000million a week and offer no free movement, I don't know and neither do you.

We might in two years be in a place where we have a free trade deals with the EU\US\Australia agreed, some controls on immigration, a much reduced contribution to EU, no political union, and an economy that is growing faster than predicted by your "credible sources". At this point would you vote leave?

[jeremyp]

There is no solid oak furniture made in this country so any price increases will be experienced by all retailers, we have more room for cutting prices than almost all of our competitors being direct source, just one store.

If the market gets smaller, no signs of this yet (highest ever sales for July) we can increase market share by cutting prices and continue our growth. Oak Furniture Land started as the Container Clearance Company in 2007 ish, they grew through the recession and now turnover is £300million ish.

Right, so when you said "the furniture retail industry will benefit" you meant the furniture retail industry will be hit just like the rest of retail but your company is well positioned to survive. Well that's lucky for you. Others won't be so fortunate.

Furniture sales are influenced by house moves and non-house moves, one of most interesting cohorts is people that take their property off the market, they often elect to redecorate with a handsome budget.

But if the housing market slows, overall, will this be good or bad for the furniture industry?

The biggest reason why I think Furniture retail would benefit is the opportunity to negotiate free trade deals with many more markets and this should help to drive prices down for UK consumers.

Well we aren't going to even start negotiating free trade deals until two years after we trigger article 50. We could start talking with other countries now to short circuit the formal negotiations, but even if you have a trade deal on day one of New Little England, you have to survive the two years until then.

I'd rather not debate with someone who is going to call people twats, what will that be like 'I know you are but what are you etc'

This reply is to somebody who equates his one company to the whole furniture retail business. If that's the quality of your thought, well.

and anyway the debate is over, leave won.

No. Leave won a vote. It does not mean that they were right - in fact events have shown that the Leave campaign was a tissue of lies.

Hopefully there is still time to rescue something from the sorry mess that Johnson, Farage and Gove shat all over us, but it won't be rescued if we don't face reality.

[jeremyp]

I'd be up for a Norway type deal,

You should have voted to remain. The deal we have now is better than the deal Norway has.

We might in two years be in a place where we have a free trade deals with the EU\US\Australia agreed,

We technically can't even start negotiating free trade deals until we are out. Yes, we can have informal talks now but that is all.

some controls on immigration

Oh dear, you have bought the immigration myth.

Currently net immigration is 300,000 per year of which about 180,000 is from the EU. So our government could curb immigration by 120,000 tomorrow without leaving the EU and yet it doesn't.

Do you know why it doesn't? It's because immigration is good for the economy. Immigrants pay more to the exchequer than they take out, they are prepared to do jobs that locals won't and they provide a huge resource of labour for our companies.

a much reduced contribution to EU, no political union, and an economy that is growing faster than predicted by your "credible sources". At this point would you vote leave?

The IMF is predicting a World slow down caused by Brexit and a nearly 1% slow down in the UK. That doesn't sound much like "growing faster".

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

Hopefully there is still time to rescue something from the sorry mess that Johnson, Farage and Gove shat all over us, but it won't be rescued if we don't face reality.

Bit players, leading role goes to Cameron, he is/was the boss, this whole comedy of errors lies at his feet, he tried to please his anti EU Tory pals and it backfired, bigtime!!

A poor leader, and his failure to be tough on EU negotiations, his full on austerity measures just fueled the fire, the people who voted brexit, they have justification in being angry, Cameron failed them, if he had put some investment into places like Sunderland then we would not have seen such a angry protest vote.

And this is what it was, a protest vote, but they were protesting about the wrong thing, we should never have had a EU referendum or not one so hastily put together, both sides of this campaign have let the country down but the buck stops at Cameron.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

We might in two years be in a place where we have a free trade deals with the EU\US\Australia agreed

What planet are you on - there is absolutely no way we will have these deals in place in 2 years, unless we simply sign up to an off the shelf package such as the EEA.

As Jeremy P has pointed out we cannot actually start formal trade deal negotiations until we have actually left the EU and even then (unless an off the shelf package) they will take years to negotiate.

Now prior to the vote I regularly mentioned the EU/Canada deal - 12 years from announcement of an intention to do a deal, 8 years from the start of formal negotiations and still not in place.

Now you might argue this is because of the EU, but it isn't true.

Elsewhere you claim that 'Australia is already keen to crack on' - well no doubt they were also keen to crack on with a deal with Japan, which lets face it is a more important and logical partner for Australia. And indeed there is a deal with Japan - something called the Japan–Australia Economic Partnership Agreement. Due you know how long it took to sort it out? 8 years. Formal negotiations started in 2007 and it didn't come into effect until 2015. And as far as I am aware the deal only covers goods and not services.

So on that timeframe 'Australia is already keen to crack on' would mean we would be looking at a deal in place in 2024, and that's even if we accept that negotiations can formally start now - if we need to wait for 2 years for leave the EU then we'd be looking at 2026 at the earliest.

[jakswan]

What planet are you on

Yeah ok enjoy debating with someone who is going to bother with that.

[jeremyp]

Dear Jeremyp,

Bit players, leading role goes to Cameron, he is/was the boss, this whole comedy of errors lies at his feet, he tried to please his anti EU Tory pals and it backfired, big time!!

Nevertheless he didn't spend the months leading up to Brexit constructing a tissue of lies in the way they did.

if he had put some investment into places like Sunderland then we would not have seen such a angry protest vote.

Ah, Sunderland. Sunderland was a major beneficiary of EU investment and now they are one of the regions that voted Brexit and yet is begging the government to replace the EU funding

http://nelep.co.uk/funding/european-funding/

I want to say "tough, you made your bed, now lie in it" but that would be seriously reckless given that families will probably lose their livelihoods and that would be a terrible punishment for merely being duped by Farage.

Unfortunately, I don't think the government will be replacing the EU grants. The slow down in the economy will be putting too much pressure on our finances.

[jeremyp]

Yeah ok enjoy debating with someone who is going to bother with that.

I sense you are in serious denial, picking up on the trivial and ignoring the substance of the posts.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yeah ok enjoy debating with someone who is going to bother with that.

So yet again I provide some evidence to indicate that your assertions (always unevidenced) are naive and fanciful. And all you can do is detach yourself from the debate.

So you imply that we might have deals in place with USA/EU/Australia in 2 years yet this is the reality:

EU
deal with Canada - not in place after 12 years

USA
TTIP with EU - not in place after 5 years (or 18 years depending on when you start the clock ticking)
with Canada - 4 years to implement from formal negotiations starting

Australia
with Japan - 8 years to implement

[jakswan]

I sense you are in serious denial, picking up on the trivial and ignoring the substance of the posts.

I ignore almost all of your posts Jeremy.

[jakswan]

So yet again I provide some evidence to indicate that your assertions (always unevidenced) are naive and fanciful. And all you can do is detach yourself from the debate.

So you imply that we might have deals in place with USA/EU/Australia in 2 years yet this is the reality:

EU
deal with Canada - not in place after 12 years

USA
TTIP with EU - not in place after 5 years (or 18 years depending on when you start the clock ticking)
with Canada - 4 years to implement from formal negotiations starting

Australia
with Japan - 8 years to implement

No its not that, its the nature of the posts and trying to debate with someone who can't seem to conceive of being wrong.

I think we should you leave, I'm quite happy to admit I might be wrong and would be willing to change my mind at a later stage, you?

[ProfessorDavey]

No its not that, its the nature of the posts and trying to debate with someone who can't seem to conceive of being wrong.

I think we should you leave, I'm quite happy to admit I might be wrong and would be willing to change my mind at a later stage, you?

Where on earth do you get the idea that somehow I can't conceive of being wrong - what a bizarre notion. I But the best way to guard against being wrong is to base your views on evidence - sure it might not be right, but it is better to have an evidenced view than an unevidenced one Jakswan.

So the specific issue here is about the time it takes to get a trade deal negotiated and implemented. You are somehow implying (without evidence) that we will have these in place by July 2018. A cursory glance at the evidence suggests this is complete fantasy and that trade deals take way longer than that to sort.

I read somewhere (I will try to find the link again) that the average time from initiation of formal negotiations to completion was 7 years. And of course we are way off the starting blocks of formal negotiations.

So 2024 seems a more realistic date for those deals to be in place and even then that is optimistic as it implies we are 'at the front of the queue', when we know that in many cases we will be at the back of the queue.

[jeremyp]

I ignore almost all of your posts Jeremy.

I was talking about the Prof's post.

You are in denial.

All of problems of leaving the EU are beginning to become apparent. The home truths of negotiating trade deals are making themselves known but all you care about is being insulted by other board members.

You said that the furniture industry will be OK but what you meant was that your oak table company will be fine and the rest can go to the wall.

You and the other 17 million Leavers have set the United Kingdom on the path to destruction. If I had made a decision that wrecked your company and put you out of a job, I expect you'd have some insults ready for me. Make no mistake, what you have done makes me really angry.

[ProfessorDavey]

You and the other 17 million Leavers have set the United Kingdom on the path to destruction. If I had made a decision that wrecked your company and put you out of a job, I expect you'd have some insults ready for me. Make no mistake, what you have done makes me really angry.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the UK is on the path to destruction - certainly not economically, although it may well cease to exist in a few yours time due to the brexit vote if Scotland becomes independent.

But we are in for a real hit on the economy and there will be job losses, companies going out of business, decreased investment, worsening of personal income and major strain on the public finances.

And Jakswan and his fellow co-brexit voters 'own' every single job loss, every hit on pensions, every increase in cost of living, every cut in public expenditure etc etc as a result of the vote. Every one. And that's of course why he doesn't want to accept the reality because to do so requires him to accept the responsibility. And that is why it is the duty of every remain voter to remind brexit voters constantly that they are responsible for the storm, that they own every single brexit induced negative effect.