back to article Spinning that Brexit wheel: Regulation lotto for tech startups

The reality of running a new business or doing something innovative is that you're hunting for cracks and niches that others have not yet filled – spaces too small for the big girls and boys already in the market. And many of those niches are fragile, formed in part by chance, opportunistic spaces in the current markets and …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The uncertainty is the key issue

    I'm in the process of setting up a business which was originally planned to have a subsidiary in the UK.

    Due to Brexit, I now no longer have certainty about this subsidiary also handling EU sales, nor am I certain I can place EU sourced staff there without all sorts of extra complications - it may prove more efficient and cost effective to set up an extra office elsewhere in the EU like Netherlands, Belgium or Germany, at which point the very viability of maintaining a UK office becomes questionable, especially since I myself am not a UK national. Now, we don't have big plans, but that's again some 10 people not employed in the UK, irrespective of their nationality.

    I lived for 20+ years in the UK before I moved abroad, and I'm rather sad to see Brexit happen.

    1. Moonunit

      Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

      Have to agree with you on almost all counts. Winding down my UK operation and moving lock, stock and IP to Canada where there is a touch more promise for us/it. There is no benefit for us specifically in moving to continental Europe (Germany etcetera) - and as over 50% of the body total (six at this stage) are non-EU nationals, there is no real reason to stay. There was, but that has kinda evaporated.

      Such is life.

    2. Jess

      Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

      I'm wondering if Ireland will benefit from this uncertainty of whether the UK will remain in the EEA.

      Since the whole British Isles has freedom of movement, predating the EEA, this should continue.

      It would seem logical to me that new UK investments are located near the border, with short leases, so that they can simply move down the road, if the worst happens.

      Alternatively they might set up in Ireland, removing any uncertainty.

      1. Slx

        Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

        The major problem we're having in ireland is a lack of housing and office space.

        There's a hangover in the cities due to the property bust which kind of saw the banks go from one extreme to the other - lending to absolutely any daft scheme in the middle of nowhere to refusing to lend to anyone on a remotely sensible basis. The construction sector is only starting to catch up again in the last year or so, but it probably can scale up very quickly if necessary - probably based on plenty of flexible immigration from Eastern Europe and by calling some of the ex-pats who are in Australia and so on home.

        As far as I can see here, most people are quite comfortable with Eastern European immigration. We know it works both ways and most of us have been on the other side of that story ourselves / our families in the past. The influx of people from countries like Poland, the Czech Republic has actually opened up huge business opportunities. We networked the feck out of the situation and it has genuinely opened up huge business and cultural links.

        There are some major projects underway in Dublin and Cork in particular, and I'm pretty sure we can probably accommodate any influx of Brexit escapees.

        I don't think though any city anywhere in Europe would be able to instantly accommodate a huge influx without a few bumps, but we'll get there! It's not like any functioning property market has supply vastly exceeding demand, at least not where anyone actually wants to live anyway.

        But, don't worry we'll save all your IT companies, banks and anything else you care to send this way from the whims of the Tories and UKIP, and it seems we also allow cloud-based tax residency. Or, at least that's what the European Commission is alledging and we're about to defend to the hilt... So, more or less the same shinangans that you're used to in the City of London, just with a different accent and more craic.

        Also, passports! If you have an Irish granny, or if you think you might have one, or if you're resident there for a period of time for any legal purpose, or you're particularly good at football (in which case we will find you an Irish granny ...) you can take up citizenship.

        It's not that we wish don't wish the UK well. It's just that we have to take every opportunity to protect against the knock-on effects of Brexit and we're not likely to be shy about rolling out the red carpet.

      2. ex_ussr1

        Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

        EVEN BETTER, SCOTLAND gets independence, Ireland reunifies, both remain in the EU, and thumbs its nose at London.

        The entire Banking community ups sticks and moves to a smoky rainy suburb of Edinburgh, while the English in London quietly continue to lose the plot repeopling millions more retirement homes on the jolly Costa Geriatrica in Brighton & the lovely south of England.

        Border controls are then established on the old site of Hadrians wall, which should suit the occupants of Sunderland rather nicely with nice solid lightly stressed paper pushing employment into retirement.

        Sounds like Nirvana except for a distinct lack of oil, gas, and electricity.

      3. Yes Me Silver badge

        Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

        Sure. Want an English-speaking base in the EU? That would be in Ireland. Easy. Ten years from now, Scotland would be a choice too. England? Not so much. Unless May comes to her senses and drops the whole nonsense. Write to your MP.

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

      to set up an extra office elsewhere in the EU like Netherlands, Belgium or Germany

      Not Belgium. Having worked there for the European HQ of a German multi-national, I wouldn't recommend it. Loved living there, but we opened our head office with the plan of openining a bunch of stores there - 3 years later the first one was still in the planning and permits stage, and the Belgian subsidiary was still not off the ground.

      Germany has some complex and annoying labour laws, but it's nothing on Belgium. I'd suggest the Netherlands, except, can you really be certain they'll still be in the EU in ten years time? I think it's a high probability that they will, but it would be a brave man who called it a certainty.

      If the UK market is important, Ireland has got to look attractive. Low taxes, easy to start companies. If there's space. They'll do well out of Brexit, unless it goes wrong, in which case they could suffer badly.

      At the moment serious European politicians are talking about giving Britain a "worse" deal simply because they don't want to make leaving the EU look attractive. And they're saying this out loud, in public and deliberately! What the hell does that say about the EU and how it's viewed? Voters will not put up with that kind of shit forever.

      For me, the Eurocrisis is the central issue. Until that can be solved, the EU has no long-term certainty itself. It could implode tomorrow, it could limp along in a disastrous economic slump for another ten years, or the problems might magically go away. But that last seems unlikely, as the solutions are breaking up the Euro (currently unacceptable), or closer union (also currently unacceptable). I wouldn't have voted for Brexit without it (the treatment of Greece was the final straw for me) - and I suspect the referendum would have been won without it. Italy's banking system could implode tomorrow and take the Euro with it. Or not. Greece is economically unimportant, but politically makes the Eurozone look awful - incomptenent, indecisive and cruel. As well as being a moral stain for which many politicians will need to atone.

      Unfortunately because nobody agrees what to do, and there's so many competing interests, it's really hard to change the EU. But I think almost everyone now agrees that urgent change is needed. That creates its own uncertainty.

      1. Slx

        Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

        I think in all likelihood the EU and the Euro will simply plod along and keep going without much in the way of major meltdowns. It tends to just continuously fumble its way out of crisis and keep going somehow.

        There are fundamental questions about what the future of the EU and whether there is even a shared vision of where it's headed. The idea that you can just have "ever closer union" doesn't really add up as there isn't really the willingness to even discuss making it a federal democracy or even use the word "federal" without having half the room start fainting in horror.

        So, without being a federal democracy the concept of any process of "ever closer union" is really a bit of a non-starter.

        So, I think ultimately it just has to stay as some kind of halfway house between federation and intergovernmental organisation and probably jettisoning members who don't want to be in either.

        I still think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

          I think in all likelihood the EU and the Euro will simply plod along and keep going without much in the way of major meltdowns. It tends to just continuously fumble its way out of crisis and keep going somehow.

          Eventually that will just stop happening. I specifically refer to the Euro here. The Euro cannot work in its current form. This is basic economics. It doesn't matter how hard people try to wish it away, the system cannot work as designed.

          There are ways to fix the problems, but they require massive political changes - that so far the electorates hate. There's only so long you can continue to stumble from crisis to crisis, before something gives.

          I was living in Belgium in 2001, and there was lots of discussion about the Euro, and its future. And much of that concentrated on these problems. The UK and US types tended to talk about how the system would fail - William Hague famously described it as like a burning building with no exits (see Greece for details). But I remember reading many pro-Euro commentators and politicians too, and they admitted the Euro had flaws, and that there would be crises, and those flaws would get fixed. I think that they couldn't imagine a future in which they wouldn't be running the EU, and most of the governments, with quite a lot of popular support. But that generation of politicians retired. And the public mood changed. And now the solutions are not politically possible.

          Greece's problems are Greece's fault. But the only solutions to Greece's problems involve them leaving the Euro, or being given debt forgiveness. As they can't pay the debt, forgiveness was the only option, but the other politicians and electorates are simply sticking their fingers in their ears, and hoping the problem will go away. They'll never get paid back. Greece cannot.

          But Ireland and Spain were running large budget surpluses into the crisis. They still had inflation and property booms, because Eurozone interest rates were too low for them, to help the ailing German economy, so they had property booms and debt crises.

          Finland had no property boom, or debt crises, or government overspending, but changes in their export markets mean the've been in recession for ten years - the solution is devaluation. But they can't, they're stuck in the Euro.

          Italy has a competitiveness problem, and is trying to solve it by repressing wages. But with negative inflation this has had a disastrous effect on their government detb levels. If Germany encouranged 3% inflation in the Eurozone core (impossible now, might have worked in 20010), then these countries could deflate without the huge problems of negative inflation rates. Now they can't. And so the only solution to their crisis is years of misery, and the hope that they might scrape by without their banking systems collapsing, and only 20% youth unemployment. And growth might save them in ten years.

          The Euro is the disease, not the cure. The Euro will inevitably kill the patient, unless they're willing to do like the US or UK and pay government money around the system in order to counteract the effects of different areas being at the wrong interest and exchange rates. If that happens you've got a United States of Europe. Seeing as nobody will vote for that, the only other solution is the get rid of the Euro.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

            The Euro is the disease, not the cure. The Euro will inevitably kill the patient, unless they're willing to do like the US or UK and pay government money around the system in order to counteract the effects of different areas being at the wrong interest and exchange rate.

            Although I agree in principle, I would not hold up the example of the US as one to follow. The only way they get away with what they're doing is being too big to fail. The whole Federal Reserve gig will at some point be up, and then we will have a global crisis that will make the ones we've had so far pretty trivial. Frankly, if there is one thing ANY government in the world ought to do it's lessening any dependency on the US and the US economy because especially the Chinese are calmly busy sawing the legs from underneath it.

            I think we can say in summary that it's a bloody mess, and I'm not quite sure how we'll ever get out of it - normally such pressures lead to war :(

            1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

              Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

              The US economy is doing great. There's certainly plenty of stuff they need to fix. Education / health / pension / national infrastructure / the tax code for the easiest wins I can think of.

              But their flexibility, ease of doing business and ease of access to finance mean that they always recover from recessions quicker than European countries. They've been growing faster than the EU for the last 20 years, and I'm not sure I see that changing any time soon.

              With shale oil and gas they've become energy independent, and may even start to export gas. This is allowing some US industries to shart "onshoring" jobs again.

              They've got decent to excellent global positions in pharmaceuticals, electronics, (a massive global lead in) software, hardware design, architecture/engineering, financial services, chemicals, aerospace, etc. All industries with big futures.

              Great top universities and a continuing ability to attract some of the top graduates and people to come and live/work there. Where's the disaster in all that?

              Sure they've got lots of debt, but then people keep wanting to buy that debt. And remember that part of that is because China was unwilling to take our money as its economy grew in the last two decades, and so lent the West the money to buy its goods. This was to keep their workers poor, and their wages as low as possible, so they could keep growing the economy quickly - as the alternative was to repatriate the profits and cause inflation, and more imports of Western luxuries. That's not so true now, and China's not such the behemoth people were talking about even 5 years ago. Sure they're still growing well, but they will not be a bigger economy than the US by 2030 - and they don't have the political system to be able to manage a fully modern economy. The state sectore is fucking up the growth of the private sector, and pissing away much of China's savings on unproductive heavy industrial output that nobody in the world wants, and is depressing world prices and causing global deflation - one of the reasons the world economy is struggling to recover. So in order to keep the party bosses happy, they run this massively inneficient system that damages the very markets they need to sell their exports to - making the whole world poorer and their normal citizens less rich, so less happy, so making them more worried about revolution. I'm not sure I think a dictatorship (well maybe oligarchy) can manage to keep a fully functioning modern economy going - and growing.

              Long term predictions are little better than guesswork. But I saw some interesting projections that had the UK as the 3rd biggest economy in the world by 2040. It assumed continuing high levels of immigration and population rising to 85 million - Japan not taking any, so their population continuing to fall, as with Germany's (this was before they took a million refugees and another million migrants in 1 year!). So the UK would have the largest population in the EU. Oops! Brazil and Russia aren't the glowing heroes of BRICS days, and are in economic trouble. Was a bit silent on India though, which is growing fast - and ought to overtake us - but I guess they assumed that would all fall apart in bureaucracy, protectionism and corruption, as so often before.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

                but I guess they assumed that would all fall apart in bureaucracy, protectionism and corruption, as so often before.

                I see no particular signs that India is following the European example...

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

                But their flexibility, ease of doing business and ease of access to other people's finance mean that they always recover from recessions quicker than European countries.

                Fixed that for you - and that is the exact problem. The US' ability to just print new money is now so massively abused that there is not much 'give" left in the system, and their own history hints at what can happen when you milk both the peasants and your friends too much without anything but abuse in return.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The uncertainty is the key issue

        Not Belgium. Having worked there for the European HQ of a German multi-national, I wouldn't recommend it. Loved living there, but we opened our head office with the plan of openining a bunch of stores there - 3 years later the first one was still in the planning and permits stage, and the Belgian subsidiary was still not off the ground.

        Oh, I know. Belgium is sort of the least favoured option, but not because of the sluggishness of things happening, but for two other things, one current and one in the immediate near future.

        The current issue is the eternal instability caused by the Flemish part generating most of the GDP and the Walloon part getting (and wasting) most of it, with the Walloons being very good at making the government fall the moment anyone dares to raise the idea of addressing that inequality. The most irritating side effects of that are the eternal strikes - anyone who has ever had to deal with the French will feel instantly at home.

        The future issue is that there has been a very high level diktat (think cabinet level or just below) to go entirely Microsoft, which means that government services will eventually simply be replaced by daily excuses as everything grinds to a halt for profit. To me, that's a case of deja vu - I've seen this happen in the UK, and the UK is still busy cleaning up the mess. That's strike two.

        I've dealt with a number of companies in Germany and yes, their labour laws make choosing the Netherlands almost inevitable. I just have to make up my mind where.

  2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    Your Spanish mate

    seems to be living in another world if he thinks the UK will be able to have both less regulation and full access to single market. From what he says I know where he's coming from, but we all have somewhat limited perspectives:

    I have close knowledge of several instances in Spanish industry where the regulations force them out of business to the benefit of some large German firms (regulations are tailored to suit these firms). Also I think that EU subsidies, whether in the form of grants, research projects or direct subsidies, destroy competitiveness. I know many companies and institutions living out of EU subsidies.

    Here's he complaining about EU standards being based on DIN (German industry standards, many of which are drawn up by the industries themselves.). Well, in a game of standards the first one with a complete set tends to win. And the EU is a great example of how common standards can lower barriers to trade. Germany understands this game better than Spain. On the flip side it also has a much more open market than Spain: the Spanish government intervened a few years ago to stop German utility companies buying Spanish ones, which would have advanced much needed deregulation in the area as is already the case in Germany. A more competitive environment in Spain would be the best way to compete with German companies.

    As for subsidies: I don't really know of any large industrial economy that doesn't have them on a large scale. In America DARPA's projects are basically a trough for the military industrial complex, withdraw them and a lot of companies would go to the wall.

    There are, of course, cushy projects out there but the EU doesn't provide that much funding (when compared with what national governments tend to provide) and it does have a pretty good record with projects that might otherwise never have happened (CERN, Ariane, ITER, etc.). But the main point is: the UK would be in a much better place to reform this stuff as a member of the team committed to reform and one trying to reverse the post-expansion navel gazing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Your Spanish mate

      I have to agree with the gentleman above. Rafael seems to have it for the Germans. From my business experience in Spain, what I found is that the vast majority of Spanish businesses in certain sectors of industry are utterly uncompetitive and rely on an unlevel playing field to stay afloat. The amount of political interference in Spain is just unbelievable.

      With that said, he clearly is an experienced entrepreneur and I wish him the best of luck in his current endeavours.

      1. h4rm0ny

        Re: Your Spanish mate

        And to add to the above posts, I'd like to see some specific examples of these "German standards" that are so problematic. I've seen several cases where people complain about "bureaucracy" or "standards" encumbering their business only to find that the specific requirements are there for a very good reason (worker's safety, environmental standards, et al.). Whilst it could just be the hassle of certification and I'm not accusing this person specifically, complaints about "regulations" by employers have often turned out to be complaints about "not being able to treat people / environment / safety however the Hell I want" on examination.

      2. hammarbtyp

        Re: Your Spanish mate

        Also the Germans are world leaders in certain areas such as industrial automation, so the idea that Germany is somehow a difficult place to start up seems questionable. In my area we have dealt with a number of small start-ups.

        If anything Germany seems to be more innovative than the UK

    2. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

      Re: Your Spanish mate

      So how did the Spanish Government prevent their energy companies from being taken over by German companies? I thought such intra-EU protectionism Was Not Allowed? (cf., EDF, Deutsche Post, etc)

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Your Spanish mate

        I thought such intra-EU protectionism Was Not Allowed?

        "National interest" can always be invoked. I this card is even being played by the UK's planned massive nuclear subsidy aka Hinckley point

        Here's your example Spain blocks takeover. This was later made into a full <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/apr/03/spain>Club Med deal</a>.

    3. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

      Re: Your Spanish mate

      the UK would be in a much better place to reform this stuff as a member of the team committed to reform ...

      But what if the rest of the team has very clearly not only rejected reforms, but is refusing to even acknowledge that there's any issue to be reformed, and the only possible way forward is even faster towards that iceberg that everyone but the bridge crew can see clearly on the horizon ?

      That is the problem. We've been trying to reform from the inside, we've been trying to steer the ship onto a better course - but we've been rebuffed at all stages. Sooner or later you have to accept that the iceberg isn't getting out of the way, and we'll be better off if we've left the ship before the crash happens. Because that's what's going to happen - the under-reported problems in Greece aren't a Greek problem (OK they share some of the responsibility), but a symptom of trying to impose something that pretty well anyone with a few brain cells switched on could see in advance would not work - a huge part of the Greece problem is them being in the Euro and so not being able to take the normal sorts of measure that they could have taken. But then, given how many (current or ex) Goldman Sachs people there are doing nicely out of Greece's problems, I don't see it being likely that we'll see any admission of that.

      I voted leave, not because I think it will be "good" for us, but because I think it will be "less bad" than staying.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Your Spanish mate

        We've been trying to reform from the inside

        Really? Certainly didn't look like that. One of Cameron's first moves was to break away from the EPP grouping in the European Parliament. This immediately irked the centre right parties in the larger countries and was the first of many attempts by Cameron to pacify Tory backbenchers.

        Ever since Thatcher the rest of the EU has learned to work around any of the UK's more outlandish demands and just given them opt outs. This has steadily reduced the influence of the UK within the EU, much to the distress of the Netherlands or the Nordics. Grandstanding simply doesn't work. Tony Blair, who shouldn't ever be forgiven for messes in Iraq and Afghanistan at least understood this and was considered a skilled dealmaker.

        But it was when it came to bailing out the Eurozone that the British approach was most shown up. The legality of the deal can most certainly be called into question but all non-Euro countries like Denmark, Poland and the Czech Republic agreed while the UK fought, and lost, a pointless rearguard action over principles. It's precisely by playing the game better than the Brits that smaller countries like the Netherlands and Ireland get more of what they want.

        A little more skilled negotiation, some give and take and the EU would have adopted a more reformist agenda.

    4. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Your Spanish mate

      I think one of the points the Spanish guy was making is that the EU is as susceptible to lobbying as any government (if not more - due to even less press and public scrutiny) - but it's being lobbied by people with even fewer interests in common with you, if say you're in Malta. Or perhaps Spain. The bigger multi-national companies are likely to do better.

      Worse, most businesses in most countries aren't exporters. So all this harmonisation is imposing costs on them, but they're not getting the full benefits. They obviously do benefit from the single market when they buy stuff - but not so much when they sell.

      International start-ups are even rarer. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't encourage them, just that they're much more of a niche case than your average start-up - which is probably in its local service industry.

      As you say, the UK wants to trade with the single market, so we're going to have to meet its rules - and probably have little say in them. Though we do regain our seat at international standards agencies, which may or may not be helpful (I'm not qualified to judge). However these can now become export regulations (where we want them to) and so not a burden on domestic-only companies. This will take years/decades to sort out of course, but can save the UK some costs.

      We benefit from the single market, even if we're not in it. Just because there's one big market, with common standards. Being in it increases that benefit obviously. The question is what will the bill be? The obvious solution is limited freedom of movement in exchange for single market access with the UK paying a reduced amount into the EU budget and staying in some of the joint programmes, like space, science, higher education etc. Everyone gets the maximum of what they want, with the minimum of things they don't want. But I don't see this as politically likely at the moment. So I suspect a transitional arrangement, moving maybe to a set of complex interlocking deals like the Swiss have. Not ideal for anyone, but maybe politically easier to sell.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "EU is as susceptible to lobbying as any government"

        It is true that Germany has often been able to lobby too much towards its own interests against the more general EU ones - those are errors that Germany risks to pay dearly.

        But it also true that many southern European countries - even big ones like Spain and Italy - put themselves in the position to need soooooooo much Germany approval for their increasing debts and/or monetary aids - usually beyond the very rules they accepted - they were unable (and often unwillingly) to counter Germany lobbying effectively.

        Most (bad) politicians in those countries ignored what some Germany proposal would have effectively meant for their countries and citizens, and just looked at how much more money they could spend to strengthen their personal power and funnel to their friends. They often believed they could have bypassed or ignored new regulations, just finding later they couldn't.

        Germany did a big mistake to accept this game - it gained a lot in the short term, it risks to lose a lot too in the long one. But the ones who accepted that for true selfish interests, are no better, and the real criminal idiots.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Who do you sell "21st technology" to?

    The XXI century IT bubble people still don't understand "21st technology" is very service-oriented, and can't really sustain itself alone. Services needs someone to pay for them.

    All those hardware and software (and services built upon that), you need to sell that eventually to industries that actually build something - or to people that are actually paid by most of those industries. Like finance, IT can't sustain itself for a long time.

    Finance created the 2008 "subprime" bubble when it tried to squeeze out some more money from money easily - without true investment in productive companies which can be medium and long-term investment, and require much more work to find who is good to finance.

    They lent money to people who can't repay those loans because they didn't have jobs paying salaries to buy an house with in the first place. They bet on rising house prices, but of course the more houses on sale...

    If it can't finance the creation of jobs - and thus people who can borrow and repay - , finance will wind upon itself eventually.

    Beware of IT - it can fuel and aid production - but if people start to think that the only industry of the XXI century is IT and some collateral operations, when the bubble will "bang", the awakening will be very hard. When there will be no industries to sell IT products and services to, what will happen?

    Germany is not so stupid to believe you can only live with a service-oriented industry, especially when most services themselves are easily outsourced to cheaper countries. And if you move production offshore, services will follow...

    Germany kept its manufacturing industry, and that put it well ahead of many other countries. Complaining it achieved it - especially from those latin countries who risked to go bust (and I live in one of these) while throwing taxpayer money away to buy consensus- it's really criminal.

    PS: Apple, Google & C. will sustain any government that ensures they don't pay taxes, left, right, up, down...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Who do you sell "21st technology" to?

      I'm with you insofar that I'm no fan of businesses that sell vapour - I like stuff I can touch.

      I do not invest in or engage with businesses that are basically based on deception of make belief - we use a marketing outfit but their brief is to clarify what we do, not to obscure it. That means simplifying a concept that is admittedly complex if you want to know it in depth, not showing some fictitious scene that will only happen if you drink Bacardi (that said, I personally love the Guinness ads and the humour in the SpecSaver ads, but we're not in that sort of business :) ).

      The finance industry exploded in size once they found that by obscuring things they could pretty much get away with everything, including making the tax payer pick up the pieces went it all went wrong because they had become too important to the now service based UK economy to let them get what they richly deserved. The result was confirmation of their ways: they continue to, well, gamble, and you as tax payer will continue to pick up the bill. At least Iceland had the right idea by locking up a bunch of them.

  4. Version 1.0 Silver badge
    Pint

    What's next?

    If you are worried about Brexit then simply moving to Ireland - or even Scotland - would seem to be an easy precaution. No real need to move any further at this stage and both counties have decent beer which is more than you can say for Canada.

    1. Moonunit

      Re: What's next?

      Ah yes ... beer ... while there are some passably good microbrewing setups in Canuckland, I will grant you that the base beer options are indeed woefully poorer than Ireland or Scotland! Cheers to that!

      On a more serious note, Brexit per se is not the issue (we may be a little principled, but moving ops/asset/IP base simply because of Brexit itself would be a bit stupid) - the specific regulatory environment and related are just better for us in Canada. Not the US, Canada. Opportunistic? Of course.

      BTW, I am guessing "counties" was a small slip ;-) ....

    2. Paul Shirley

      Re: What's next?

      If beer is a key factor, you already know you're going to Belgium!

    3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: What's next?

      Version 1.0,

      Not Scotland. Sadly the EU aren't flexible enough to just let them in (stay in) as the R-UK leaves - even if Scotland did vote for independence (which current polling isn't suggesting they will). And that's ignoring the problems of the Euro.

      Also did someone say Irish beer was good? Are you sure? I thought Ireland was still the land of the choice between Guiness and Carlsberg? I'm sure there are micro-breweries - but I thought they were still pretty micro. I'm amazed that even the worst pub in my South East England market town now has one tap dedicated to the local (now no longer micro) brewery, Rebellion. And a few pubs have many more choices.

      I still miss living in Brussels though. The business environment sucked (and mostly so did the customer service). But once you've got your beer, steak and frites, who cares?

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: What's next?

        "I thought Ireland was still the land of the choice between Guiness and Carlsberg?"

        It also has this thing called whiskey.

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: What's next?

          I like Jameson - but when I did their distillery tour and went to the shop/bar, I was unimpressed. The basic stuff is nice, but when you start laying out extra cash for the older/nicer stuff, it didn't get appreciably better, even as the cost went up.

          So far I've run out of money before I've found the same to be true with my favourite Scottish distilleries.

          I admit I've not seen much other Irish stuff, except Bushmills. So I'm happy to be educated.

          Surely you go to Scotland for the whisky, and get the bonus of some great beers.

  5. Warm Braw

    One day we will revisit this with hindsight

    In the meantime, it seems to me there are 2 possibilities:

    1/ The EU struggles on with low growth rates for another decade but eventually grasps the nettle of reform and turns the corner, leaving the UK relatively worse off than if it had remained a member

    2/ Brexit is the trigger for an EU meltdown, destroying our (presently) largest export market and leaving the UK relatively worse off than if it had remained a member

    Looking at this from the perspective of an outside investor, I'm not sure I'd be betting on the first, since the UK was one of the principal counterweights to the "latin" view of economic policy. I foresee a distinct possibility that Brexit does not so much diminish investment in the UK as diminish investment in Europe as a whole. However, the outlook for the UK either way seems stormy.

    1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

      Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

      In the meantime, it seems to me there are 2 possibilities:

      Downvote for missing the important 3rd option ...

      3) The EU struggles on, still sticking to it's dogma and refusing to admit any possibility that currently entrenched policies are not "110% correct". Meanwhile, while the EU is dragging itself down the toilet, we get one with dealing with the rest of the world and end up in a better (than if we'd stayed) position when the EU finally reaches the handle and flushes itself away.

      Personally, I hope that us voting to leave is a trigger for some introspection and the EU ends up in a "break up or reform" situation, and chooses to reform. What I feel sure of is that had we voted to remain, then option 3 would have been the outcome - except that instead of having made our own way, we'd be whizzing round the U-bend to oblivion along with the rest of the EU.

      Or put another way, leaving will be painful, but I think staying would be even worse.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

        With the UK gone the EU will be able to move much faster in all the directions the UK has tried to block, away from the ones UK wanted. TTIP in it's current form is likely to be the first big win for Europe, with our business friendly, privatisation mad gov now irrelevant it doesn't seem to have any supporters. Bad for the brexiteers and their business buddies, good for the people they pretend to represent.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

          With the UK gone the UK will be able to move much faster in all the directions the EU has tried to block, away from the ones UK wanted. TTIP in it's current form is likely to be the first big lose for Europe, with their big corporate rent seeking business friendly, regulation mad bureaucracy becoming irrelevant as it doesn't seem to have any supporters outside of the ruling oligarchy.. Bad for the EU and their business buddies, good for the people they pretend to represent.

          There. fixed it for you.

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

        The EU struggles on, still sticking to it's dogma and refusing to admit any possibility that currently entrenched policies are not "110% correct".

        Outside the UK media this is never the case. As Alex Stubb, former prime minister of Finland. like to say the EU seems to need to for a crisis before doing just enough to reform things, but reform them it does. Then again, I can think of many national governments that do pretty much the same thing.

        Personally, I hope that us voting to leave is a trigger for some introspection and the EU ends up in a "break up or reform" situation, and chooses to reform.

        And Britain's decision to leave would encourage this kind of introspection because… Throwing your toys out of the pram is not the best way to advance your arguments. While every other EU member is unhappy about the British decision they are frankly more worried by their own national politics and economics.

        The most telling thing about the whole process was the memo from the Japanese government. I saw an interview with the Japanese ambassador to Britain and he really didn't mince words. For anyone with any degree of familiarity with Japanese negotiators will aware, that is very, very unusual it was basically a thinly veiled threat: "stay in the free market if you want Japanese companies to stay in the UK". I think we can expect more of the same. Well, maybe not from Russia or North Korea…

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

      Warm Braw,

      There's a problem. There are many things I think the EU should reform (CAP for one big example), but they're not that important. I believe that many of the EU's rules reduce growth, but not catastrophically so - and those costs of staying in are probably worth the gains of the single market.

      The EU has a huge problem. The Euro. But I don't believe the EU can solve this problem. Which is catastrophic. There are two solutions, kill the Euro, or fix the Euro. Killing it, is politically unaccepable. It's really hard, it's really scary, there's not the public appetite as yet and those few remaining federalists will fight for it with everything they've got.

      Sadly option two is to fix the Euro. But that basically requires a common banking regulatory and bail-out system, a common Eurozone budget of 10%-20% of GDP (the current EU budget is only 1% of GDP) and at the moment for German taxpayers to pay Greek pensions. Which isn't going to happen.

      Impasse. And still no solution in sight. And no-body even knows how to get to one. The Italian banking system could limp on for decades, or implode spectacularly tomorrow, but the Eurozone don't currently have the tools to save it without destroying the Italian economy. They may just ignore the new banking resolution laws (the only sensible option), but what if they don't? They didn't take the sensible option with Greece...

      Greece has experienced an economic collapse both longer and worse than either the US or Germany during the Great Depression. The IMF is predicting a return to growth in 2022 and unemployment to drop below 10% in... 2040!

      Read that again. 2040! The Eurogroup, Commission and IMF run the Greek economy now, and have for the last 4 years (since the third bail-out). this is now their fault.

      This economic clusterfuck is why UK exports to the EU were sitting more-or-less steady at 60% of our exports for thirty years until 2008 - but are now at 43% and plummeting.

      Solve the Eurocrisis, save the EU. Fail, and the EU probably collapses.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

        The real problem of Greece are the Greeks. They just wanted new money to waste without fixing the very issues that brought them in that dire situation. A movie already seen in southern Italy and other places alike.

        The very mistake was to allow them in the Euro because two thousand years ago there was Athens there. That's what happens when you let politicians who made classical studies only take decision about economics. Look at the ancient past, instead of the future, and that what happens.

        The only sensible options with Greece would have been to expel it from Euro and EU - where it doesn't really belong, despite what happened two thousand years ago. Then send in some aids to avoid starving people.

        Italy shouldn't have been allowed in the Euro until it had fixed the monstrous debt. It was one of the parameter required, but again, politicians decided to ignore it. If EU was the "tecnobureaucracy" people believe, it wouldn't be in the actual situation. True technicians would have never allowed Greece and Italy (disclaimer: I live in Italy) nowhere near the Euro. True politicians did, believing the usual promises they would have fixed their issues soon. We saw what happened.... true politician promises. Even worse, they just used the shelter of the Euro to create bigger issues.

        Anyway, most of the Italian banking system is stronger than you believe, because of Italians savings. For the matter, some German banks may be more vulnerable. The stress test methodology is less favourable to Italian banks, which have more leases to the productive system, and less "financial engineering" instruments in their balance sheets. Look at how bad some German banks are performing since the European Central Bank has lowered rates...

        It is true there is a group of Italian banks which is at risk, and because of political interest to save them at the expenses of the healthy ones, can lead to a domino effect - especially if speculations weighs in. But what's the reason of their bad state? Again, being banks with a strong influence by politics - which used them to sustain their consensus. They same politicians who barks against EU which hinders them to save their own butts, and their friends', using taxpayers money, preferably EU taxpayers money, if the local ones are exhausted.

        EU can't be saved because there are too many politicians in some countries that desperately believe they can still suck money from their citizens and EU to avoid to be forced to find a true job and live out of it...

      2. Warm Braw

        Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

        Much of this may be true, but we're not in the Euro and we're not going to take part in any further integration. The EU may fall apart, or it may not. However, the question is whether we gain anything from leaving.

        We will be very little better protected from the internal economics of the EU once we leave than we are now - we have most of the opt-outs from propping up the Euro or the southern european economies that we might want already. If there is a genuine threat to dramatically increase the central EU budget, we can walk away from the EU at that point. If the whole thing goes belly up, we won't be immune from the economic consequences, inside or out.

        And if, as has constantly been claimed, we can expand our trade perfectly well with the rest of the world on the basis of WTO tariffs for as long as is necessary, we can do this as easily within the EU as without while we see what transpires.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

          "And if, as has constantly been claimed, we can expand our trade perfectly well with the rest of the world on the basis of WTO tariffs for as long as is necessary, we can do this as easily within the EU as without while we see what transpires."

          Meanwhile http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37286883

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Jess

            Re: Meanwhile << Ford >>

            > Meanwhile http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37286883

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37248358

            Wales is much closer to Lincolnshire than Eastern Europe is. So couldn't he recruit from the extra 200 people who won't be employed by Ford?

            I seem to remember this scenario being warned about in 'Ukip: the First Hundred Days'. Obviously the people of Wales decided that it was an acceptable sacrifice. (Along with the EU regional grants)

        2. druck Silver badge

          Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

          Warm Brew wrote:

          If there is a genuine threat to dramatically increase the central EU budget, we can walk away from the EU at that point.
          In case you hadn't realised we are leaving now.
          And if, as has constantly been claimed, we can expand our trade perfectly well with the rest of the world on the basis of WTO tariffs for as long as is necessary, we can do this as easily within the EU as without while we see what transpires.
          The deals we want to make are not on the basis of WTO tariffs, and we can't sign up to any sensible trade deal with non EU countries while in the EU.

      3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: One day we will revisit this with hindsight

        Sadly option two is to fix the Euro. But that basically requires a common banking regulatory and bail-out system

        This is already starting to happen. The bail-outs will stay national until the various national funds have built up enough capital. There's a positive side to this: who the hell wants to pay to bail out a merged Deutsche Bank / Commerzbank? German savers have already had to cough more than enough for WestLB, NordLB HSH Nordbank, etc. You can understand us for not wanting to take on the Italians as well.

        Greece doesn't need more money, it needs an effective government and civil service. I'd like to see it leave it this didn't mean a potentially failed state on the edge of the EU next to a newly aggressive Turkey.

  6. hammarbtyp

    The future's so bright we have to wear shades

    Business freedom

    Protection of property rights

    Trade freedom

    Moderate to low taxation

    So basically the idea is that the UK becomes a tax haven, akin to panama, full of shell companies employing 2 or 3 people. What a bright future we have!

  7. JassMan
    Trollface

    Brexit means Brexit

    Says our beloved leader, but now she is saying that she will not guarantee any of the pledges made by the lying politicos who convinced the slightly dimwitted amongst us to vote to leave the EU. I can see her point, in that most of those pledges and promises of what would happen when we leave were unsustainable. Since she is now offering a form of Brexit which is not what the very small majority voted for, then surely she should offer a new referendum based of the new likely terms of exit.

    Don't get me wrong, there is a lot I don't like about having a European superstate but on balance I would say Jeremy Corbin probably got it right by giving the EU 7/10. That's a lot better than the 3/10 muddle the bunch of exit negotiators are going to come up with.

  8. batfastad

    Sigh

    Brexit is now the focus and excuse for failing politicians and policies for the next 20 years. Brilliant.

    If someone presented Brexit to our change board they would have been absolutely fscking torn to shreds. Brexit means Brexit means Brexit? CALL THAT AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN??!!!!

    1. Jess

      Re: excuse for failing politicians and policies for the next 20 years.

      Even better than that, they can quite honestly say that we were warned of the consequences, and we were not frightened of them.

  9. Ken 16 Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    "The UK is a pioneer in regulatory innovation"

    Is that a euphemism for tax avoidance?

  10. Ken 16 Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Sh!t or get off the pot

    I can't understand why, if the UK government mean to leave the EU, they haven't triggered Article 50 and I can't understand what the EU Commission hasn't invoked article 7 to suspend UK voting rights.

    Is their intention to postpone any departure until after the next national election and allow the incoming government to reverse them?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like