John B

Yes BREXIT has not only has ****ed our economy it is likely to **** many other countries too

Yes he did to capture the LEAVE Tory members

I expect the EU Trade Commissioner knows what she is talking about but whatever happens as the EU is democratic all other 27 members have to ratify the trade deal after they agree it but why would they start with a trade deal if the UK was trying to get some deal on the single market? Of course if the single market deal does not happen then a trade deal will have to take place I am not an expert on Trade Deals I dont know if you are but they do take a long time from what I see as he EU is in charge on trade policy. Trade negotiations with non-EU countries are conducted by the European Commission on the basis of a negotiating mandate from the member countries' trade ministers.

Why should there be no austerity budget what makes you think that. Do you think that the Government since 2010 has not done a good job as Osborne has had loads of austerity type budgets reducing the size of the state and causing many to vote LEAVE as there living standards have not risen much but the top few percent have If there is a slowing of the economy due to people like vote for OUT what should be done to get the country's finance under control it is highly likely this will happen as described in project Fear. I think asking the hopefuls what their immediate plans for the economy is the most important thing at the moment otherwise the things you mention may not happen but I think all of the four will have your concerns under control but not today's economy. Carney cant do much more so it will be up to Politicians to stimulate the economy

Just because he is not going to be PM in September surely does not mean he did not join BREXIT to enhance his chances of being PM which he clearly did

Who is going to be Gove or May? Wont be Bonking Boris the Serial Liar I would have thought

I think you will have to wait until November before the post BREXIT budget when we have a new PM and Chancellor and the OBR see how much tax revenue will be lost this year and what the figures for growth are for the future. If they are less than what was expected in April which is highly likely taxes will have to be raised or public spending cut GDP figures for the first three months of the year were less than expected due to the concern of BREXIT and the next figures come out at the end of July for the second quarter of the year It will not be until the end of October that we know the figures for the first quarter of BREXIT so that is another reason I think you will have to wait until November for the budget. Of course they could stimulate the economy like Labour did after the Banking crash in 2008 by reducing VAT and increasing investment but that will increase borrowing and this Government has passed a law probably for political reasons to ensure that the budget is balanced by 2020. I think Lamont stimulated the economy after the Tory ERM crisis and that worked quite well as money was paid back by 2001 when Labour were in power after two of the very few years the budget has ever been balanced. With this potential Financial Crisis and the one in 1992 I feel that the Tories are not that good with the country's finance

I keep hearing the EU needs reforming I say it myself but what do you think needs reforming apart from the CAP but even with that I dont know what needs to happen. However I do know the UK needs reforming Austerity needs to stop there needs to be more houses built there needs to be more investment in infrastructure and public services better productivity less exploitation of people in lower paid jobs and more tax collected from tax dodgers and multi national countries. These are things which are in the hands of the UK government nothing to do with Europe although most of Europe could do the same

I think most OUTERS with any economic knowledge that of course does not include Farage think the consequences will be horrific so are not taking your advice It is the foreign investment which is key because if it continues as it has your scenario is probably correct but if it is not there is less employment being in the single market is key I just cannot emphasise it enough it is the largest single market in the world and will grow even when we leave. I knowit is exhilarating to win: to sit up in the palm tree, survey the turmoil below and feel a sense of empowerment. After a while though, a palm tree is an uncomfortable place. It’s easy to poke holes in the status quo. It’s easy to promise people the moon (assuming one has the requisite pragmatic attitude to telling the truth). But now the Leave camp must lead both its supporters and the British people as a whole down from the palm tree. The problem is there is no ladder. More fundamentally there is no clarity whether to go North, South, East or West of the tree. So far all the Bexiteers have managed to do is to own up that many promises will remain unfilled. But that will have to change soon. Otherwise, like a coconut, one simply falls out of the tree.

Yes we have got control back MP Nigel Evans has admitted immigration will not fall significantly as a result of Brexit, claiming the referendum result only means “control” rather than a reduction in numbers. The Conservative MP told BBC Radio 5 live there had been “some misunderstanding” about the consequences of Brexit on immigration. When asked to say if migration to the UK would fall significantly now the country was leaving the EU, Mr Evans answered: “No." That will please many no doubt http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-immigration-uk-nigel-evans-eu-referendum-latest-news-what-will-happen-migrants-a7104021.html

I feel sorry for him some of the passing was rubbish

Out of Europe twice in a week must be record

What would you do if you thought the will of the people was a dangerous leap in the dark and obtained by deception and does not have a credible economic plan I think it probably is a dangerous leap in the dark but as I am 70 I will not have to suffer for very long the problems with the leap but my children will so bring it on whatever it is

I think if Cameron thought that the LEAVE had won fairly without promising impossible things and lied about him personally he may well have continued further as PM. allthough perhaps not as he he knows being out of the EU is going to lead to a recession. Even though I think him incompetent untruthful and arrogant I am not cheering about his departure.

Do you think it is right that Scotland has voted to remain but is now out of the EU The LEAVE team dont seem to have have no plan at the moment and are retracting that £350000 per week is to be spent on the NHS They are saying that there is going to be a recession but it is nothing to do with BREXIT and there probably will not be a reduction of immigration from the EU. I wanted REMAIN but LEAVE won so they should get on with it and get us out of the EU but others think it will lead to serious problems especially as voters may have been completely misled by LEAVE leaders on the points mentioned above. But they seem like a fair number of LEAVE voters that perhaps LEAVE was not a good idea especially as Boris could have easily been on the REMAIN side but went LEAVE as it may have enhanced his position to become Tory leader. Interesting times as Labour have no credible leader to take over from Corbyn who is a decent man with a social conscience but should never have become leader of the party

The result is accepted but there are consequences of it so lots of people are worried You are not because perhaps you do not understand the economic situation we find ourselves in today it is not a criticism but if you dont follow these things like I do you will not know Like you I follow the Saints avidly since 1962 but I also follow economics as I did it at school at the same time and politics as I really liked Harold Wilson a Huddersfield Town supporter by the way I have just read this which interests me The ratings agency Moody’s has lowered the outlook for the UK’s credit rating from stable to negative amid what it said would prove a prolonged period of uncertainty following Britain’s vote to leave the European Union. Moody’s said the unpredictability of British decision-making had factored into its move, as had the likelihood of lower economic growth that it said would outweigh any savings the UK might hope to get from not having to contribute to the EU budget. “Over the longer term, should the UK not be able to secure a favourable alternative trade arrangement with the EU and other countries, the UK’s growth prospects would be materially weaker than currently expected,” the agency’s note said. Standard and Poor’s has also warned Britain’s top “AAA” credit rating was now at risk. Britain’s vote on Friday to leave the EU has sparked widespread turmoil and uncertainty, forcing prime minister David Cameron to resign and wiping more than $2tn of value from markets around the world. An austerity budget was never ever going to happen after BREXIT because as usual Osborne's econimics would have led us to sure recession however he was clumsily trying to highlight that after BREXIT GDP would reduce and there was going to be blackhole in the finances of the country. But there are other ways apart from austerity to fill the black holes which the next right wing Tory Government will have to fill as well as funding the NHS. There is also the Political Law supported by Gove Grayling Johnson IDS Patel etc which commits the governmentto balance day-to-day spending by eliminating the structural deficit sometme soon to navigate around I cannot remember the exact date because it is always changing as Osborne's policies continually raise the debt of the country Some cause for thought With hours of the result on Friday morning, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, had distanced himself from the claim that £350m of EU contributions could instead be spent on the NHS. On another front, Liam Fox has cast doubt on the necessity of triggering the article 50 clause of the Lisbon treaty that sets out the legal process for a country’s EU withdrawal. “A lot of things were said in advance of this referendum that we might want to think about again and that [invoking article 50] is one of them,” said the Conservative MP. Tory MEP Daniel Hannan told the BBC: “Frankly, if people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the EU, they are going to be disappointed which probably means there is still going to be a lot. PS I distrust most Tory Politician with a passion as well as ones from other parties but really like Caroline Lucas

I doubt that Out would win if there was another Referendum in 2017 as people will be poorer there will be more unemployment possibly a small recession and promises not acted upon. But we are where we are so we will have to make the best of it but there will consequences with Law firms will be making a packet

I agree nobody really knows but money has been lost the FTSE250 which contains more British companies than the FTSE100 as it contains many US companies who report profits in Dollars are happy with the 7% fall in the pound dropped 7% as did many European and Asian Stock Markets. The UK has had its credit rating outlook downgraded to "negative" by the ratings agency Moody's after the country voted to leave the EU. Moody's said the result would herald "a prolonged period of uncertainty". But only time will tell Yesterday was a bad day lets hope next week is not a bad week as each and everyone of us will become poorer if it is This explains what happened yesterday on the Stock Markets http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/06/25/when-do-you-decide-its-time-to-worry/

Congratulations Duckie on your win I know how it feels when you achieve something that you want I wanted to Remain but not as desperately as you wanted to Leave But dont be nasty to people with opposite opinions I think analysis will show that most people of working age voted remain and those over sixty voted out so loads of people work in and around London but many are not well off as they pay high transport and housing costs and work for foreign companies like my daughter and are worried that they will move to mainland Europe.. Of course the austerity setup by the Tories caused a great deal of resentment which I fully agree with but I cannot see the Tory party addressing that . I want to see a fairer and equal society and I am like one of those nice Remain tellers you met last night so lets have a constructive conversation of how we want to move forward and what society we want we live in changing times globalisation climate change huge refugee problems poverty inequality intolerance and the key one for me how to manage an aging population as I am 70 years old but hope to survive for many years to come like all my friends and associates. As a former member of the Labour Party I know it was what they want to happen not policies formulated by focus groups like New Labour but polices formulated by the grass roots. PS who is going to pay for my extra diesel cost as prices go up and I see I may have lost 10% on my holiday euros

How can that be done here with all the cross checking carried out to see that votes cast equals the votes counted Perhaps you are suggesting that some of the returning officers are corrupt but if they are the electoral clerks will know and they will be be corrupt too. Having been involved with lots of political counts I just cannot see it happening in the UK because of the way things are done here

FTSE 100 hits two-month high, pound keeps rallying Britain’s blue-chip FTSE 100 index has just hit its highest level in two month The Footsie jumped by 110 points to 6371 points, a gain of 1.5%. That’s its highest level since 21 April, before the EU referendum campaign came to the boil. Betting now 5/1 for leave at Paddy Power The pound has just hit a new 2016 high too, up 1.5 cents at $1.4862.

Very true but being influenced by Politicians who are economical with the truth and the Press who exaggerate and lie has not helped the decision process in my opinion

It is also the opinion of many This from my favorite Economist The waves of economists, businessmen, scientists, university leaders, doctors, historians and more shouting loud that Brexit would be harmful has been incredibly impressive. It reflects the fact that this is not a debate with decent arguments on both sides, but a pretty open and shut case. But I think it reflects as well the nature of the pro-Brexit campaign. Not just that Leave have lied openly and repeatedly. Not just that they have used lies to provoke fear (Turkey). It is that they are trying to deflect the blame for failing to adequately fund public services on to migrants who are just looking for a better life. And it is working. More people feel they have personally benefited from migration than otherwise, but most people also ‘know’ that migration has been bad for the NHS. Such incorrect beliefs appear immune to expert opinion because large parts of the media shut that opinion out, and ideologues deride experts. Of course these lies play on basic fears about unfamiliar people. But the way our society used to respond to this in the past was by uniting behind truth and humanity, and through patient explanation. If some politicians tried to fan fears of migration by, for example, talking about rivers of blood they were quickly slammed down by the majority, and it has to be said also by the media. And our society was better for it. Today those politicians talking about a breaking point in front of pictures of refugees are given large amounts of air time by the broadcast media. Those pretending we are about to be swamped by Turkish migrants are cheered on by nearly all of the tabloid press. Populist politicians are about to lead once proud centre right parties on both sides of the Atlantic. And one brave Yorkshire politician that argued against all this was shot dead in the street. We cannot continue to let this pass. It will not stop with Brexit. When Brexit fails to improve our public services or our economy there will be other scapegoats. Maybe migrants already here, or nasty foreigners who failed to give the beneficial trade deals the Leave campaign pretend we will get.

How is Ruth going to be PM she not even an MP but I agree she seems pretty good but yes Cameron is usually a lying toad but on the EU he happens to be right. Turkey about to join the EU is a complete lie they may well well do so later but not in our lifetime not only does the UK have the veto but other countries do too Both France and Austria will put the question of Turkish accession to a referendum, so Turkey it would need to get approval from the popular vote in each country. So it is not going to happen

Trade costs matter what about this is that wrong too “New EU trade deal raises admin burden for UK exporters”. Cue gasps of outrage from Eurosceptics, but, if we leave the EU, this headline will be entirely of our own making. The EU could offer us the best trade deal on the planet and it would still increase the cost of regulation for UK exporters, reducing their ability to compete. As exporters are typically our most productive and most innovative firms, and more than 80% of them trade with the EU, this could be bad for our long-term prosperity. The reasons for increased regulation are simple – the EU is structured precisely to keep the costs of crossing a border down. This means that taking away even one component of that structure raises the regulatory costs of trading with the EU. As highlighted below, examples of this are how EU structures deal with tariff evasion, as well as reducing regulatory costs through passporting. Tariff evasion Governments oppose tariff evasion, meaning any trade deal needs a mechanism to ensure it cannot happen. Under the EU’s common trade policy, the tariffs due on imports from third countries are the same throughout the EU. Therefore there are no opportunities for firms to avoid tariffs, so goods can move freely throughout the EU without the need for special documentation. However, this is not the case for the movement of goods between the EU and countries with a trade deal allowing them preferential access to EU markets (such as Switzerland and Norway), because the existence of separate trade deals with third countries creates opportunities for tariff evasion. For example, if following a vote to leave the UK and EU introduced a free trade agreement, but the EU also had separate deals with third countries that did not have agreements with the UK, then exporters from those countries could ship their goods to the EU first (to take advantage of tariff free entry to the EU) and then from the EU across the border to the UK, so avoiding UK tariffs. This is not something the UK government would allow, and governments in the remainder of the EU would be similarly concerned. For this reason all preferential trade agreements contain what are known as rule of origin regulations. These set out how companies must demonstrate that enough of the production of the goods they are shipping originated in their home market and are therefore eligible for the reduced tariffs. Rule of origin regulations are complex and depend on the product. There are several different ways in which the rules can be specified and for some products more than one type of rule will apply. ‘Notice 828: tariff preferences – rule of origin for various counties’ sets out the rules for imports and exports covered by the trade agreements between the EU and Albania, Norway and Switzerland amongst others (including some parts of trade with Turkey). In other words, it covers the main alternatives to EU membership, at least if we do not want to pay tariffs. Notice 828 runs to 140 pages and is extremely detailed. For example, if you are a bicycle manufacturer, whoever is responsible for administration will need to understand the manufacturing process, because the rules set out in Chapter 87 include a separate set of rules for bicycles without ball bearings, including what materials are allowed and the maximum share of non-originating materials. Complying with rule of origin regulations is therefore costly, particularly as you may need to keep track not only of what you are doing, but also where inputs from all of your suppliers come from. Furthermore, as the EU is the biggest cross-border market for intermediate inputs in the world, costs could be increased at multiple stages in the value chain. Estimates suggest that the rule of origin regulations for EU trade deals increase compliance costs by 8% and general administrative costs by 6.8%. The cost of these rules will be particularly high for small and medium sized firms, who typically lack the scale to justify sophisticated tracking systems, meaning some may conclude that it is simply easier pay any tariffs due, rather than fill out the paperwork. Either way the increased costs of trading will undermine the competitiveness of UK exporters and push up the cost of UK imports from the EU. As over 80% of UK exporters export to the EU, the impact on some of the UK’s most productive firms will be widespread. The CEPR has calculated that the increase in costs from having to apply rule of origin regulations to trade with the EU will reduce UK exports by 1.3% of GDP per annum. Reducing regulatory costs through passporting For exporters one of the big costs is the need to meet different standards and talk to different regulators. The EU aims to reduce these costs through the Single Market, by ensuring that standards are common. Common rules mean that governments do not need to worry about whether different standards create risks, including the risk of unfair competition. Therefore a firm regulated in one part of the EU can operate elsewhere under the same rules. While the Single Market is not complete, many of the gaps reflect our preferences. For example, enabling a UK pension provider to sell the exact same product in both the UK and Germany would require the harmonisation of pension tax regimes across EU states, and this is something that politicians have preferred not to tackle. However, in other areas the Single Market has had a significant beneficial impact on how markets function. This is particularly true in sectors such as financial services, where passporting rights can allow firms to serve multiple EU markets while only dealing with one regulator. The use of passporting is pervasive. Almost 50% of authorisation requests for firms’ activities received by the Prudential Regulation Authority between March 2014 and February 2015 related to passporting, roughly two-thirds of which were requests from UK financial services firms wanting to passport their services elsewhere in the Single Market. Over 60% of firms operating in the UK’s general insurance market are headquartered in another European market and passport in under the EU Third Non-Life Directive and almost 50% of those operating in the UK’s life insurance market do the same under the EU Third Life Directive. If passporting did not exist, then these firms would have to decide whether they can still compete in the UK after the additional expense of dealing with two sets of regulators, the relevant UK regulator and their domestic regulator. The alternative will be for them to withdraw from the UK market, reducing competition and choice. The same will be true for UK firms currently operating in the rest of the EU under passporting rules. Passporting rights are associated with the Single Market, and are possible because membership of the Single Market depends on applying an equivalent set of regulatory rules. If the UK did not want to be part of the Single Market after it left, these rights would not be available. Without passporting UK financial services firms would need to set up a separate entity, domiciled in the EU, to handle any EU business, with all the inefficiencies entailed in duplicating regulatory processes and increasing the costs of managing capital requirements. It is not hard to suspect that the UK’s withdrawal from the Single Market could bring significant disruption. Summary Historically the 11% of UK firms that export have been responsible for 60% of our productivity growth – hardly surprising as in general they are our most productive and most innovative firms. Unfortunately for our future prosperity, leaving the EU would increase costs for these firms, reducing their ability to compete. While a depreciation of sterling might help compensate for these cost increases, it will do so at the cost of rising import prices, with the associated fall in living standards, and a reduction in the value of our assets. Politicians may bemoan its structure, but the reasons that the EU is structured the way it is are precisely to keep the cost of crossing internal EU borders down. It is one case where the maxim “rules are there for a reason” holds true.