Politics, politics, politics

[SpurMeUp]

You said why listen to business owners what do they know, plenty say its also going to be fine, by your reckoning of business know best it isn't going all going to be doom and gloom. RF Hotels and JPW Pubs owners say its going to be good for UK and their custom base is their business, why would they risk a statement as such? Reuters polled 120 finance and asset management companies and most said impact hasn't been anywhere near as feared (not 10,000 jobs moving to Europe by now as predicted) and one major asset management company with over 1000 staff here was bouyant on prospects, will grab the article for who later.

Like I said earlier companies moving abroad to seek an advantage or future proofing their business isn't new, its not a Brexit thing.
Brexit offers a lovely excuse for laying off you staff and taking massive tax breaks abroad though, something that's overlooked by many.

One quetion, what stopped these companies upping sticks before? "future proofing" is exactly what Dyson, Sony etc are doing. Sony openly said they are moving their European HQ to Amsterdam partly because of Brexit. Why listen to them? Well you havn't. And fair play its not so simple, Brexit doesn't affect some companies. Who are JPW pubs? I googled RF Hotels and brexit and found a Sun article where the pro Leave owner says:

"As a hotelier, I can say without exception, it is much more difficult to do business in Europe than it is in the UK. The EU’s high corporate taxes, complex labour laws and tricky legal system make Britain’s low taxes and fair laws very appealing."

Isn't he aware that the UK is within the EU now and has been for the last 40 odd years, yet we are a good place to do business now! In fact it is a reason so many companies like Sony chose the UK for their European head quarters. If you're a US firm, you're going to chose the UK too, as we speak the same language, have fair taxation, a fair legal system (note its still fair and attractive within the EU) and they have access to the 500 million EU consumers. Take away unfettered access to the 500m EU consumers and companies like Sony start to look at Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt. It is logical is it not?

 

[Baleforce]

Speaking American and being in Europe has been a huge advantage, no question.

It might be JDW pubs?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/inew...-boss-tim-martin-pub-tour-no-deal-brexit/amp/

 

[Gutter Boy]

Didn't UBI in Scandi countries fail to deliver anything? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years Personally I'm not comfortable with the premise. It could create a 2 tier society, where some work and an underclass get hand outs.

What is social control?

I don't know a lot about marx's solutions, but I know his vision was of workers working part time in the factories and fishing in the afternoons. And that Marx thought this setup would evolve out of advanced stages of capitalism (not imposed onto feudal societies as it was). John Lewis might be an example of something closer to Marx's vision.

How would you deal with organisations that need to be large? Railways, telecoms, NHS etc? What is anti-state and anti-market? What reality is no sate and no market? Anarchy? Would we have had the internet or mobile phones with localism? Are you essentially a Luddite? Someone who doesn't like advancement and technology? You've outlined a collection of things, but not really given us a vision of a utopia (I want to believe). De-growth doesn't really mean a great deal other than what we have now but without change and forward thinking. Advancement is a core human trait, I am not sure how you can effectively control or manipulate that chariacteristic of human societies.

The problem with the UBI trials is they misunderstand the purpose. It's judged as a way to increase employment (by allowing people more space for training and job seeking). But the whole point of it is that it's a way to decrease employment (but in a way that ensures more fair wealth distribution).

Social control is anything that the state uses to make people conform - interventions to curb social behaviours, education curriculums, regulation etc. Pretty much anything that goes beyond punishing criminality.

Organisations that need to be large just get broken into smaller autonomous units. Roman legion principles. The best thing that could happen to the NHS would be more, smaller hospitals acting much more independently from each other.

Degrowth shouldn't stop anything. By freeing people from oppression by the markets and the state, it frees them to become a bit more human again. The ideal is usually seen as people spending 1/3 of their time at work, 1/3 at leisure/socialising and 1/3 in (lifelong) education. Technology is the enabler of it, but it's making sure humans become the masters of it again, rather than slaves to it like they are now. Making them time richer again.

 

[Grays_1890]

Sorry yeh Wetherspoons...typo

Dyson future proofing their business is down to Asia being a major emerging market for them no?

 

[SpurMeUp]

The problem with the UBI trials is they misunderstand the purpose. It's judged as a way to increase employment (by allowing people more space for training and job seeking). But the whole point of it is that it's a way to decrease employment (but in a way that ensures more fair wealth distribution).

I have to say it makes no sense to me what so ever. I could understand if people give something to society to then recieve income. Anything from part time teaching to enhancing education to environmental work - could be part time and then you get UBI. Super. But the idea that some in society just don't work, and that is more fair, is an anathema to me. It would create division of those who do and those who do nothing. Where is the value in that?

Social control is anything that the state uses to make people conform - interventions to curb social behaviours, education curriculums, regulation etc. Pretty much anything that goes beyond punishing criminality.

Interesting. "Social control" can be positive can't it? Under your definition, state education would be scrapped? Drives for healthier living and educating people would be a thing of the past. Is that what you are suggesting?

Organisations that need to be large just get broken into smaller autonomous units. Roman legion principles. The best thing that could happen to the NHS would be more, smaller hospitals acting much more independently from each other.

Doesn't privitisaton promise something similar? National networks are just that - national. BT couldn't be 20 different companies. Or the railways seperate companies (opps they are). Are you for state ownership of the railways?

Degrowth shouldn't stop anything. By freeing people from oppression by the markets and the state, it frees them to become a bit more human again. The ideal is usually seen as people spending 1/3 of their time at work, 1/3 at leisure/socialising and 1/3 in (lifelong) education. Technology is the enabler of it, but it's making sure humans become the masters of it again, rather than slaves to it like they are now. Making them time richer again.

This is back to Marxism then. And I think you and Marx are right. If you look at our society, how rich we are. We could structure things better. We could enable affluent society to continue but with a greater emphasis on people and the quality of their lives. We often hear people laugh at the French. How ineffecient their economy is. How labour laws stop commerce. But look how they live! In the cafe half the day drinking coffee reading Satre..3 hour launches, a focus on food and family...

For the past decades the west has put profit first. Its a very easy thing to measure and democratic politicians can have easy wins making people richer, because everyone wants it. BUT the next revolution or evolution should re-appraising this. We're rich enough, now we need to ephasise and influence quality of life, environment, while maintaining freedom and prosperity. It isn't revolution, but stable systems need shaking up so people's wealth is more similar - and that may not mean wealthy in terms of money but qualityof life. However, you think government shouldn't interven, there shouldn't be any social policy. Which is contradictory. You've plucked out a few principles you can remember from your lectuers and thrown them at us. And why not!? There is something there dispite the lack of coherence.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I have to say it makes no sense to me what so ever. I could understand if people give something to society to then recieve income. Anything from part time teaching to enhancing education to environmental work - could be part time and then you get UBI. Super. But the idea that some in society just don't work, and that is more fair, is an anathema to me. It would create division of those who do and those who do nothing. Where is the value in that?



Interesting. "Social control" can be positive can't it? Under your definition, state education would be scrapped? Drives for healthier living and educating people would be a thing of the past. Is that what you are suggesting?



Doesn't privitisaton promise something similar? National networks are just that - national. BT couldn't be 20 different companies. Or the railways seperate companies (opps they are). Are you for state ownership of the railways?



This is back to Marxism then. And I think you and Marx are right. If you look at our society, how rich we are. We could structure things better. We could enable affluent society to continue but with a greater emphasis on people and the quality of their lives. We often hear people laugh at the French. How ineffecient their economy is. How labour laws stop commerce. But look how they live! In the cafe half the day drinking coffee reading Satre..3 hour launches, a focus on food and family...

For the past decades the west has put profit first. Its a very easy thing to measure and democratic politicians can have easy wins making people richer, because everyone wants it. BUT the next revolution or evolution should re-appraising this. We're rich enough, now we need to ephasise and influence quality of life, environment, while maintaining freedom and prosperity. It isn't revolution, but stable systems need shaking up so people's wealth is more similar - and that may not mean wealthy in terms of money but qualityof life. However, you think government shouldn't interven, there shouldn't be any social policy. Which is contradictory. You've plucked out a few principles you can remember from your lectuers and thrown them at us. And why not!? There is something there dispite the lack of coherence.

You still get the differential with UBI though. Those that don't work get the basics - their housing and food covered (so not much different to housing and income support now). Those that work still get the bigger houses, holidays, cars etc. In some ways its de-stigmatising benefits claimers by giving benefits to everyone. But those who do work, end up with a life more like a university student or someone who is retired.

Social control is generally bad. I'm not against state education, rather state curriculums (school children now are learning Michael Gove's version of history!). Some public health stuff is ok with areas like contagion. But let people who make bad lifestyle choices deal with the consequences - personal responsibility.

Privatisation always leads to cartels/monopolies. Their primary aim is to take each other over, rather than function as a stable state. Ownership is different from operation. They can be state owned, but be highly devolved to achieve community-level responsibility.

The difference with degrowth (as opposed to Marxism or stable state), is that it recognises that we already use 1.5 times the resources that the earth can sustain. If the current population were to be raised to western standards, that would need 7 earths. You just can't have exponential growth in a finite world. So the active reduction in production and consumption is designed to bring that back into balance. But being more French - enjoying life more, with a bit less plastic tat and more local/seasonal food - is pretty much it

The theories have been around since the 70s. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly are some of the main intellectuals in the area. Although its origins actually go back to Ruskin and Arts & Crafts. Five Star in Italy are the first major government to have been elected on some of its principles. Although the Green Party here have a 4 day working week (which is the first step down that path) as a policy, and there are rumours Labour might adopt that for their next manifesto too.

 

[monkeybarry]

Europe (all of it, not just the EU) is in for a very interesting time

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47192612

 

[Grays_1890]

Maybe a silly question but one that I was thinking on the way to work. With the thought process that leaving the EU is a bad thing, turning our backs on the union, turning our backs on Europe, being disruptive and it being very right of centre to do so.

Do we view and treat countries that are not and never have been in the EU any differently than those in? Has it ever been levelled at Norway or Iceland that by not being with the EU they were being anti European? Are they viewed in anyway less European as a result?

Im not sure they have been viewed in the same way and although I will be told the two are not the same as we are leaving, its alot of this just one big mental block of people going OTT in what is now a reaction driven world?

 

[Gutter Boy]

Maybe a silly question but one that I was thinking on the way to work. With the thought process that leaving the EU is a bad thing, turning our backs on the union, turning our backs on Europe, being disruptive and it being very right of centre to do so.

Do we view and treat countries that are not and never have been in the EU any differently than those in? Has it ever been levelled at Norway or Iceland that by not being with the EU they were being anti European? Are they viewed in anyway less European as a result?

Im not sure they have been viewed in the same way and although I will be told the two are not the same as we are leaving, its alot of this just one big mental bloke of people going OTT in what is now a reaction driven world?

There's been no political leadership for leave, so the narrative has been dominated by the federalists in Brussels and apologists in Westminster. I would have been great if leave had let someone like Jenny Jones go into bat for it more, or if Tony Benn had still been around.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Maybe a silly question but one that I was thinking on the way to work. With the thought process that leaving the EU is a bad thing, turning our backs on the union, turning our backs on Europe, being disruptive and it being very right of centre to do so.

Do we view and treat countries that are not and never have been in the EU any differently than those in? Has it ever been levelled at Norway or Iceland that by not being with the EU they were being anti European? Are they viewed in anyway less European as a result?

Im not sure they have been viewed in the same way and although I will be told the two are not the same as we are leaving, its alot of this just one big mental bloke of people going OTT in what is now a reaction driven world?

It is an interesting question. Amazing how active our brains prior to work dulling them!

The main thing is each nation is unique. The UK has been a global player. Iceland are a tiny volcanic island and Norway also pretty small with its own oil reserves that gives it greater independence. It is notable that both have agreements with the EU and Norway is effectively part of the EU, it just gets emailed the new laws it has to imlement without any say in them.

For me Brexit would signal the end of the United Kingdom as a global force. I know that is contary to many leave supporters who think leaving the EU will make us 'great again'. Personally I think history would show Brexit (especially a hard brexit) to be the point at which the UK signalled its demise from a global power. It started around the world wars when we lost our colanies, continued as we reduced our miliary, and ended when we decided to impare our trade and influence with the world via Brexit.

If you have the misfortune of speaking with Americans that is more or less how they see it. The UK has been an entry point for them into the EU. Us stepping away from intranational cooperation via the EU, signals a decline in the UKs standing in global political circles.

 

[SpurMeUp]

You still get the differential with UBI though. Those that don't work get the basics - their housing and food covered (so not much different to housing and income support now). Those that work still get the bigger houses, holidays, cars etc. In some ways its de-stigmatising benefits claimers by giving benefits to everyone. But those who do work, end up with a life more like a university student or someone who is retired.

Social control is generally bad. I'm not against state education, rather state curriculums (school children now are learning Michael Gove's version of history!). Some public health stuff is ok with areas like contagion. But let people who make bad lifestyle choices deal with the consequences - personal responsibility.

Privatisation always leads to cartels/monopolies. Their primary aim is to take each other over, rather than function as a stable state. Ownership is different from operation. They can be state owned, but be highly devolved to achieve community-level responsibility.

The difference with degrowth (as opposed to Marxism or stable state), is that it recognises that we already use 1.5 times the resources that the earth can sustain. If the current population were to be raised to western standards, that would need 7 earths. You just can't have exponential growth in a finite world. So the active reduction in production and consumption is designed to bring that back into balance. But being more French - enjoying life more, with a bit less plastic tat and more local/seasonal food - is pretty much it

The theories have been around since the 70s. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly are some of the main intellectuals in the area. Although its origins actually go back to Ruskin and Arts & Crafts. Five Star in Italy are the first major government to have been elected on some of its principles. Although the Green Party here have a 4 day working week (which is the first step down that path) as a policy, and there are rumours Labour might adopt that for their next manifesto too.

There is something there. Maybe you are 100 years too early? At the moment, I think the human race are more suited to 'accelerating' out of the problems. Innovating, creating new solutions, new technology, to bring about better livelihoods and environment. You have to work with the setup (economies and societies) we have. We can't draw an abstract plan and then impose it. That is where communism failed so spectacularly, and it was never what Marx envisaged.

 

[Grays_1890]

For me Brexit would signal the end of the United Kingdom as a global force. I know that is contary to many leave supporters who think leaving the EU will make us 'great again'. Personally I think history would show Brexit (especially a hard brexit) to be the point at which the UK signalled its demise from a global power. It started around the world wars when we lost our colanies, continued as we reduced our miliary, and ended when we decided to impare our trade and influence with the world via Brexit.

Its an interesting one for sure, I read yesterday in the Standard that the straw poll in the city was showing a number of financial institutions that saw brexit as a huge opportunity, I suppose though its an opportunity by name and into the unknown rather than hard facts which is the complaint from remain.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Its an interesting one for sure, I read yesterday in the Standard that the straw poll in the city was showing a number of financial institutions that saw brexit as a huge opportunity, I suppose though its an opportunity by name and into the unknown rather than hard facts which is the complaint from remain.

The standard are particularly biased for remain so that is interesting. There are oppotunities. The UK could reinvent itself on the global stage as a Switzerland like nation. Independent, trusted. But the many drawbacks always outweigh possible benifits (that are indeed yet to be defined and a Corbyn government + Brexit would probably leave such institutions running for the continent). For many of the 'possible benifits' of leaving the EU, you can ask the question, why can't we do that now while keeping open trade and copperation? In most instances the EU doesn't stop us. It's just a convenient other to blame.

 

[Grays_1890]

The standard are particularly bias for remain so that is interesting.

I will dig it out on my lunch.

Another question on the city moving and job losses. There were predcitions of 275,000 jobs in the UK being lost and 20,000 moving to the EU because of Brexit. I think the city is reporting 800-1000 jobs moved or created in the EU as a result of Brexit. Surely if we were going to lose numbers to the EU from finance and the city into Europe it would have happened long before now? We are only a month away fro leaving, surely thats not long enough for these companies to jump?

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Brexit: Theresa May promises meaningful vote after more talks with EU

Theresa May has promised MPs a final, decisive vote on her Brexit deal with the EU - but not until she has secured changes to the Irish backstop clause.

Speaking in the Commons, the PM said she had a "mandate" to seek changes to the backstop as MPs had voted for it.

"We now need some time to complete that process", she added.

If no agreement is reached by 26 February, then MPs will get more non-binding votes on Brexit options the following day.

The final vote on whether Britain leaves the EU on 29 March with a deal would be pushed back into March.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused the PM of "recklessly running down the clock" in an effort to "blackmail" MPs into backing her deal, and asked when MPs would get a final, "meaningful" vote.

He said: "We were promised a meaningful vote on a deal in December, it didn't happen. We were told to prepare for a further meaningful vote this week after the prime minister again promised to secure significant and legally binding changes to the backstop and that hasn't happened.

"Now the prime minister comes before the House with more excuses and more delays."

The SNP's leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford, was reprimanded by Commons Speaker John Bercow for shouting "liar" at the prime minister as she was making her statement.

Mr Blackford agreed to withdraw his remark "in deference" to the Speaker, but did not apologise to Mrs May. MPs are banned by Commons rules from calling other MPs liars in the chamber.


Twitter insert:
May 'when we achieve the progress we need we will bring forward another meaningful vote' - but whatever happens, confirm vote on 27th -kills off most of the likely rebellious moves this week as expected, gives the Cooper-Boles gang another date in the diary - high noon postponed

— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) February 12, 2019


The backstop arrangement is the "insurance" policy in Mrs May's deal to avoid a return to border checks on the island of Ireland.

The EU has reiterated it will not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

Mrs May is making a statement to MPs, ahead of a debate on Thursday on the next steps for Brexit.

It comes after Parliament voted last month for the PM to find alternatives to the current backstop arrangement.

She promised to give MPs a "stronger and clearer role" in the next steps, and said she would return to the Commons for a meaningful vote on her deal "when we achieve the progress we need".

But if negotiations had not secured the "legally binding changes" Parliament had voted for, Mrs May would table an amendable motion on 26 February to be voted on the next day, giving MPs more of a say.

The PM said talks were at a "crucial stage", but she still believes it is possible to get a deal that MPs can support.

"We now all need to hold our nerve to get the changes this House requires and deliver Brexit on time," Mrs May told the Commons.

"By getting the changes we need to the backstop; by protecting and enhancing workers' rights and environmental protections; and by enhancing the role of Parliament in the next phase of negotiations I believe we can reach a deal that this House can support."

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn says the "country facing biggest crisis in a generation" and Ms May is "recklessly running down the clock".

The prime minister has "more excuses and more delays", he adds.

The Labour leader asks what progress Mrs May has made on alternative arrangements and if she set those arrangement before the House.

Jemery Corbyn accuses the prime minister of "playing" with jobs and industries, adding that the Nissan decision may be the "thin end of a very long wedge".

He adds that the Leader of the House says a meaningful vote will be on 21 March, days before Brexit, and asks if this is not the case when will the meaning vote be.

Mr Corbyn says the prime minister is "playing chicken with people's livelihoods".

Jeremy Corbyn continues that "it becomes clearer to me" that the PM is just pretending to work across Parliament, as she will not move "one iota" from her red lines.

"We need a permanent customs union" to stop the UK "falling" into the backstop. That is what is required to maintain an open border in Northern Ireland, he states.

He says there will be barriers to trade in goods under the May deal, and "nothing is secured".

He says "just look at the record of the party opposite" when it comes to Conservatives supporting workers' rights. He says the Conservatives introduced employment tribunal fees and placed a cap on public sector pay.

For some in the Conservative Party, he says, removing rights "is what Brexit is all about".

Jeremy Corbyn says "there is a sensible way forward: Labour's alternative which would break the impasse." He says this plan has been widely welcomed by business leaders, European leaders and even some Conservative MPs.

Mr Corbyn urges MPs to think about the damage the prime minister's strategy is doing to jobs, industry and the community.

"Now is the time to stand up and do the right thing: to rule out no-deal and back Labour's alternative plan," he adds.

Theresa May says a flaw with Labour's strategy is that being a member of the single market means accepting free movement, one of the things that people voted to end when they voted to leave the EU.

Businesses backed the deal, Theresa May adds, noting that the best way to avoid uncertainty is to vote for this deal.

On the accusations of the prime minister running down the clock, Theresa May says she "wanted to have this sorted by Christmas" which is why she brought a deal back then.

"It is not me trying to run down the clock," she adds, "every time someone votes against a deal the risk of no-deal increases."

Theresa May continues that the "national interest is in getting a deal through this Parliament" which is why the government continues to work with the European Union "in everything we are doing".

The deal the UK has negotiated "is a deal that protects jobs". She adds that the biggest threat to jobs in the UK is a Labour government.

 

[Gutter Boy]

It is an interesting question. Amazing how active our brains prior to work dulling them!

The main thing is each nation is unique. The UK has been a global player. Iceland are a tiny volcanic island and Norway also pretty small with its own oil reserves that gives it greater independence. It is notable that both have agreements with the EU and Norway is effectively part of the EU, it just gets emailed the new laws it has to imlement without any say in them.

For me Brexit would signal the end of the United Kingdom as a global force. I know that is contary to many leave supporters who think leaving the EU will make us 'great again'. Personally I think history would show Brexit (especially a hard brexit) to be the point at which the UK signalled its demise from a global power. It started around the world wars when we lost our colanies, continued as we reduced our miliary, and ended when we decided to impare our trade and influence with the world via Brexit.

If you have the misfortune of speaking with Americans that is more or less how they see it. The UK has been an entry point for them into the EU. Us stepping away from intranational cooperation via the EU, signals a decline in the UKs standing in global political circles.

I'd still see that as a positive. Becoming more like a Scandinavian nation, rather than a brick America. Internally cohesive, high-quality of living, non-interventionist abroad

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Conservative MP Boris Johnson rises to congratulate Theresa May for what she is doing "to extricate this country from the humiliation of the backstop".

He asks Theresa May to confirm that there is "no point in having a time limit on the backstop unless it is written into the treaty itself and if the end date is substantially before the next general election".

Theresa May says she wants to see the future relationship coming into place in the beginning of 2021.

"We are asking for legally binding status to the assurances the EU has given over the backstop," the prime minister says.


And thats it in a nutshell, isnt it?

The EU are playing brinkmanship, not wanting to formalise what they say about the backstop in the hope we simply fold.

Is it really so crazy to want to make sure the backstop isnt a permanent trap?

They shouldnt really have issue with this, but of course to do so would be to give a little ground wouldnt it...

 

[SpurMeUp]

I will dig it out on my lunch.

Another question on the city moving and job losses. There were predcitions of 275,000 jobs in the UK being lost and 20,000 moving to the EU because of Brexit. I think the city is reporting 800-1000 jobs moved or created in the EU as a result of Brexit. Surely if we were going to lose numbers to the EU from finance and the city into Europe it would have happened long before now? We are only a month away fro leaving, surely thats not long enough for these companies to jump?

1. we still do not know what Brexit will be. You might even ask if it will be at all. Had the government come out and said expect a hard exit, then I am sure more contingencies would swing into action. How can people react when they don't know what brexit will look like? Sony, Dyson, Jaguar have pre-empted any clarity and made the move. Most others havn't.

2. It takes time to adapt. Even if there was clarity today and the type of brexit required more movement into the EU for access, it takes a while to see things shift. In the short term comapnies work with it, maybe setting up an office in Paris etc, longer term they will go for the cheapest, easiest solution which may be relocating. But that doesn't happen overnight. Car firms don't build new factories overnight. But when planning for a new car model, a couple of years down the line, they will choose the most oppotune setup. Hence Nissan cancelling the new model in Sunderland as was previously planned.

I don't think the city finance sector would disappear overnight. Zurich still has a big finance industry despite not being fully in the eu, but it is notable that many Swiss banks - Credit Swiss etc - chose to locate in London, as did US banks. Longer term, why wouldn't they shift into the core market? Why would they stay outside it in the periphery?

 

[Grays_1890]

1. we still do not know what Brexit will be. You might even say if it will be. If the government came out and said expect a hard exit, then I am sure more contingencies would swing into action. How can people to react when they don't know what brexit will look like? Sony, Dyson, Jaguar have pre-empted any clarity and made the move. Most others havn't.

2. It takes time to adapt. Even if there was clarity today and the type of brexit required more movement into the EU for access, it takes a while to see things shift. In the short term comapnies work with it, maybe setting up an office in Paris etc, longer term they will go for the cheapest, easiest solution which may be relocating. But that doesn't happen overnight. Car firms don't build new factories overnight. But when planning for the new model, a couple of years down the line, they will choose the most oppotune setup. Hence Nissan not making the new model in Sunderland as was previously planned.

I don't think the city would disappear overnight. Zurich still has a big fiance industry despite not being fully in the eu, but it is notable that many Swiss Banks - credit swiss etc - chose to locate in London, as did US banks. Longer term, why wouldn't they shift into the core market? Why would they stay outside it in the periphery?

Why would they wait? Remain said these numbers would go based on us leaving the EU, that was based on there being a deal. If us leaving with a deal was the best case senario and we were going to leave why would the companies wait around to find out if it was a hard Brexit or not? Thats an example of project fear by pumping out those number no?

Point being if we are to leave which is the result of the Ref'dum and companies are still not leaving and waiting, is it not a case that its not going to be as bad as some said based on the fact they are not jumping regardless? Companies obviously believe they can still operate in an independant Britain or they would have gone regardless.