Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pienaar's gloves said:
You've not read it have you?
Click to expand...
Don,t read doom stories as before the vote 3 months of lies still waiting for the economy to fall off a cliff, and shares to drop - growth to stagnate - an emergency nasty budget - Nissan to leave oh I forgot all that the opposite happened the pound as fell, and marmite gone up even though it's made in the U.K.?
 
The Esk said:
Hard Brexit would mean patients waiting years for new drugs

A hard Brexit would lead to the loss of scientific funding for the UK drug industry and would mean patients waiting much longer for life-changing medicines, a thinktank has warned.

The report by the Public Policy Projects notes that patients, taxpayers and drugmakers benefit from a shared clinical trials and drug approvals process between the UK and the EU. This would be lost under a hard Brexit, which could mean years of delays before vital new drugs come on to the UK market – and £144bn of lost sales for the UK life sciences industry by 2020. A hard Brexit would mean the UK having no access to the single market.

Stephen Dorrell, a former Tory health secretary who heads the thinktank, said the government must be equally focused on Brexit’s implications for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries as it was on banking and the car industry. Life sciences contribute £60bn a year to the UK economy and employ 220,000 people.
Click to expand...


More super doom and gloom!!!!!!!!!

Have you ever considered the EU will not have access to our market and they are in trade surplus to us.

The EU needs to realise that the UK is a big market, if they want to mess about, in the long run they will be the losers.

Give your doom saying a rest.
 
The Esk said:
Hard Brexit would mean patients waiting years for new drugs

A hard Brexit would lead to the loss of scientific funding for the UK drug industry and would mean patients waiting much longer for life-changing medicines, a thinktank has warned.

The report by the Public Policy Projects notes that patients, taxpayers and drugmakers benefit from a shared clinical trials and drug approvals process between the UK and the EU. This would be lost under a hard Brexit, which could mean years of delays before vital new drugs come on to the UK market – and £144bn of lost sales for the UK life sciences industry by 2020. A hard Brexit would mean the UK having no access to the single market.

Stephen Dorrell, a former Tory health secretary who heads the thinktank, said the government must be equally focused on Brexit’s implications for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries as it was on banking and the car industry. Life sciences contribute £60bn a year to the UK economy and employ 220,000 people.
Click to expand...

While it just might - It might also force UK pharma to lower their exorbitant prices & produce more at lower rates, and thereby prevent NICE from denying life saving/prolonging drugs on the basis of cost.

About 10 maybe 15 years ago, I read an article in one of the broadsheets about how it was cheaper for the NHS to go through a third party to get drugs produced by UK based pharma (Astra Zeneca and/or Glaxo were the main protagonists IIRR) shipped abroad, repackaged, and then re-imported to benefit from the lower rate. The EU were more than happy to allow the practice to flourish.
 
Whistlin' Dixie said:
So why not try going out of your way to post an opinion from 'respected source' from the other side of the fence.

Or are those opinions not worthy of 'respect'?
Click to expand...

None of the sources I regularly read think there are many positives. That isn't to say things are perfect and I've posted many times about the challenges of globalisation, automation and so on. It's just that few think the medicine that Brexit is offering will help at all.
 
Whistlin' Dixie said:
So why not try going out of your way to post an opinion from 'respected source' from the other side of the fence.

Or are those opinions not worthy of 'respect'?
Click to expand...

As if by divine providence, this from Tim Hartford just arrived in my feed reader.

"In 1975, the American jazz pianist Keith Jarrett found himself in an unenviable position. Shortly before beginning one of his improvised solo performances, he discovered that some backstage bungle had left him with an old rehearsal piano. It was out of tune, tinny and had sticky keys and pedals. After protesting and realising nothing could be changed, he decided to play anyway. The flaws in the piano pushed him to play in a new style, discovering fresh ways to express himself. And against all expectations — certainly against Jarrett’s — the result was a masterpiece: The Koln Concert album.

I have been thinking about the unplayable piano a lot since Britain voted to leave the EU. By any conventional analysis Brexit was an act of economic self-harm. But by any conventional analysis, a creaking little piano does not make for great music either. Might the UK economy somehow burst into a display of unexpected virtuosity in unpromising circumstances? Let us review the sticky keys and see what fresh tunes might be playable.
First, immigration. The debate on this has taken a xenophobic turn but the pure economics of tighter immigration also looks challenging, particularly for agriculture, catering, the National Health Service and higher education. Since EU migrants have more than paid their way, discouraging them will also weigh on public finances.

Second, trade. We don’t know what the post-Brexit trade landscape will look like but the UK will find it harder to remain an open economy. It will be more difficult to integrate with pan-EU supply chains, the costs of imports will rise and, while exporters benefit from a weaker pound, they may find themselves facing higher tariffs and, more important, non-tariff barriers.

Third, financial services. London will be a less attractive financial centre hub if it cannot be used as a base to provide financial services across the EU. US banks, in particular, may find Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris or New York to be more sensible vantage points to serve the EU market.

These, then, are the obstacles. What are the opportunities? As labour markets tighten, companies may invest more in skills and particularly in capital: better tools, smarter software and more robots. We may see a more productive economy with higher wages, at least for those who can manage the robots rather than be replaced by them.

If the UK economy cannot integrate smoothly with EU suppliers, that will raise costs but it may also stimulate more local networks. This import-substituting strategy is often associated with the policies of Latin American strongmen but it has occasionally worked.

Is there a bright side from a weaker City? Perhaps. A country that exports a lot of a commodity such as oil can start to suffer from the “Dutch disease”, a condition resulting from a currency so strong that it becomes almost impossible to do anything except pump oil and spend the earnings. In principle, the same thing might occur with a very concentrated industry such as the high finance of the City of London. If the oil — or the high finance — dries up then the exchange rate weakens and other industries can flourish. Perhaps this is part of what we are seeing now as the pound falters, and perhaps the misfortune of the City will be beneficial to other industries such as software or high-tech manufacturing.

There is also the possibility of building affordable houses. Once the country’s tabloid press can no longer blame Brussels about red tape, they may turn their fire on the British regulatory thicket holding back the economy: land use restrictions. If we had built more houses where people wished to live, fewer people would be feeling left behind and blaming Lithuanians for troubles that were engineered in Westminster.

All this suggests a British economy with a larger presence as a producer and consumer of high-tech software and robotics: the Japan of Europe, although hopefully without the quarter-century of economic stagnation. It is not impossible. Data collected by Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Atlas of Economic Complexity project suggest that the UK has untapped capacity in industries such as cars and precision engineering.

I do not believe in “economic models”. Models are all very well when we are talking about Lego. When it comes to a major 21st-century economy, things are too complicated for that. We will have to see what emerges. The situation looks unpromising but so, too, did Keith Jarrett’s unplayable piano.

First written for the FT’s “Future of Britain” project."
 
Bruce Wayne said:
As if by divine providence, this from Tim Hartford just arrived in my feed reader.

"In 1975, the American jazz pianist Keith Jarrett found himself in an unenviable position. Shortly before beginning one of his improvised solo performances, he discovered that some backstage bungle had left him with an old rehearsal piano. It was out of tune, tinny and had sticky keys and pedals. After protesting and realising nothing could be changed, he decided to play anyway. The flaws in the piano pushed him to play in a new style, discovering fresh ways to express himself. And against all expectations — certainly against Jarrett’s — the result was a masterpiece: The Koln Concert album.

I have been thinking about the unplayable piano a lot since Britain voted to leave the EU. By any conventional analysis Brexit was an act of economic self-harm. But by any conventional analysis, a creaking little piano does not make for great music either. Might the UK economy somehow burst into a display of unexpected virtuosity in unpromising circumstances? Let us review the sticky keys and see what fresh tunes might be playable.
First, immigration. The debate on this has taken a xenophobic turn but the pure economics of tighter immigration also looks challenging, particularly for agriculture, catering, the National Health Service and higher education. Since EU migrants have more than paid their way, discouraging them will also weigh on public finances.

Second, trade. We don’t know what the post-Brexit trade landscape will look like but the UK will find it harder to remain an open economy. It will be more difficult to integrate with pan-EU supply chains, the costs of imports will rise and, while exporters benefit from a weaker pound, they may find themselves facing higher tariffs and, more important, non-tariff barriers.

Third, financial services. London will be a less attractive financial centre hub if it cannot be used as a base to provide financial services across the EU. US banks, in particular, may find Dublin, Frankfurt, Paris or New York to be more sensible vantage points to serve the EU market.

These, then, are the obstacles. What are the opportunities? As labour markets tighten, companies may invest more in skills and particularly in capital: better tools, smarter software and more robots. We may see a more productive economy with higher wages, at least for those who can manage the robots rather than be replaced by them.

If the UK economy cannot integrate smoothly with EU suppliers, that will raise costs but it may also stimulate more local networks. This import-substituting strategy is often associated with the policies of Latin American strongmen but it has occasionally worked.

Is there a bright side from a weaker City? Perhaps. A country that exports a lot of a commodity such as oil can start to suffer from the “Dutch disease”, a condition resulting from a currency so strong that it becomes almost impossible to do anything except pump oil and spend the earnings. In principle, the same thing might occur with a very concentrated industry such as the high finance of the City of London. If the oil — or the high finance — dries up then the exchange rate weakens and other industries can flourish. Perhaps this is part of what we are seeing now as the pound falters, and perhaps the misfortune of the City will be beneficial to other industries such as software or high-tech manufacturing.

There is also the possibility of building affordable houses. Once the country’s tabloid press can no longer blame Brussels about red tape, they may turn their fire on the British regulatory thicket holding back the economy: land use restrictions. If we had built more houses where people wished to live, fewer people would be feeling left behind and blaming Lithuanians for troubles that were engineered in Westminster.

All this suggests a British economy with a larger presence as a producer and consumer of high-tech software and robotics: the Japan of Europe, although hopefully without the quarter-century of economic stagnation. It is not impossible. Data collected by Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Atlas of Economic Complexity project suggest that the UK has untapped capacity in industries such as cars and precision engineering.

I do not believe in “economic models”. Models are all very well when we are talking about Lego. When it comes to a major 21st-century economy, things are too complicated for that. We will have to see what emerges. The situation looks unpromising but so, too, did Keith Jarrett’s unplayable piano.

First written for the FT’s “Future of Britain” project."
Click to expand...

Backstage @Bungle ???

We're all doomed
 
gonetomorrow said:
I reckon it's a disaster we're leaving the EU. In these uncertain times we should be joining things rather than splitting away on our own. We need all the friends we can get.

It's clear the politicians can't handle the situation and that's a worry too.
Click to expand...

A White flag might help......which politicians in your opinion can handle any of the situations then......
 
The Esk said:
Hard Brexit would mean patients waiting years for new drugs

A hard Brexit would lead to the loss of scientific funding for the UK drug industry and would mean patients waiting much longer for life-changing medicines, a thinktank has warned.

The report by the Public Policy Projects notes that patients, taxpayers and drugmakers benefit from a shared clinical trials and drug approvals process between the UK and the EU. This would be lost under a hard Brexit, which could mean years of delays before vital new drugs come on to the UK market – and £144bn of lost sales for the UK life sciences industry by 2020. A hard Brexit would mean the UK having no access to the single market.

Stephen Dorrell, a former Tory health secretary who heads the thinktank, said the government must be equally focused on Brexit’s implications for the pharmaceutical and biotech industries as it was on banking and the car industry. Life sciences contribute £60bn a year to the UK economy and employ 220,000 people.
Click to expand...

Funding from where ?, how much per year ? Perhaps the £144bn per year lost sales might make the producers think of making up any shortfall.....desperate stuff.....
 
Bruce Wayne said:
None of the sources I regularly read think there are many positives. That isn't to say things are perfect and I've posted many times about the challenges of globalisation, automation and so on. It's just that few think the medicine that Brexit is offering will help at all.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should try different sources......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top