EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[najaB]

So Lord Heseltine was sacked after voting for and helping to pass a plan to give Parliament, and not Downing Street, the final say over Brexit.

And after all the smoke and noise about Parliamentary sovereignty being paramount.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And after all the smoke and noise about Parliamentary sovereignty being paramount.

Theresa is taking back control

 

[Barn]

That's why Murdoch loves Brussels - he has no control over Downing Street, only Brussels.


Oh wait, it's the complete opposite.

Murdoch is part of the media. The real lobbyists are from businesses like automobile manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, internet companies, energy companies etc.

They love the EU parliament because of its remoteness (which members of the press really cover what goes on there?) and because of its willingness to regulate.

Ironically, big corporations love regulation because they find it easier to comply with than smaller, more innovative enterprises and it further establishes their position.

In some ways, not fearing the press can be dangerous: it means that there isn't really anybody watching over you.

 

[AM9]

Perhaps environmental regulations and product safety standards. Awful meddling things that prevent honest companies from being competitive.

In all seriousness, if we have to become best buddies with the USA we may well have to lower our standards in order to be competitive.

Despite the absence of an emoticon against the comment in your second paragraph, I assume that you have as much concern as I do about the race to the bottom that many unscrupulous business persons and their sympathetic right-wing politicians have.

 

[najaB]

Ironically, big corporations love regulation because they find it easier to comply with than smaller, more innovative enterprises and it further establishes their position.

An interesting opinion and at complete odds with what I've observed. How does that square with the fact that DJT is has promised to remove regulation in the USA (two old regulations have to be removed for every new one)?

 

[Barn]

An interesting opinion and at complete odds with what I've observed. How does that square with the fact that DJT is has promised to remove regulation in the USA (two old regulations have to be removed for every new one)?

It's not for me to explain or defend what Donald Trump does. I'm no fan of his and I'm not sure of his relevance.

It's not just my opinion. Here's a bit of reading if you're interested:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/of-course-big-business-loves-regulation

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...in-campaign-shows-us-whats-wrong-with-the-eu/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/davies-and-mccarl-how-big-business-benefits-regula/

I accept it is initially counter-intuitive but think about it. Why wouldn't a large corporation like regulation which bites on others but which they can handle through compliance teams, or perhaps through lobbying to get just the right type of regulation in the first place?

 

[Jonny]

The same problem with lobbyists exists with Westminster.

They have a much smaller jurisdiction than the European Parliament - one island vs most of a continent. There is much less to gain, and even outside the EU there won't be much more.

What are the ideas that aren't so good?

We can consider whether they are really necessary, and in any unique circumstances etc. that apply differently to Britain.

Perhaps environmental regulations and product safety standards.

The British legal systems handle this surprisingly well; there were British Standards long before European ones. Also, the threat of being sued will still be there and that will help to keep manufacturers etc. in check.

It's not for me to explain or defend what Donald Trump does. I'm no fan of his and I'm not sure of his relevance.

It's not just my opinion. Here's a bit of reading if you're interested:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/of-course-big-business-loves-regulation

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...in-campaign-shows-us-whats-wrong-with-the-eu/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/davies-and-mccarl-how-big-business-benefits-regula/

I accept it is initially counter-intuitive but think about it. Why wouldn't a large corporation like regulation which bites on others but which they can handle through compliance teams, or perhaps through lobbying to get just the right type of regulation in the first place?

That is exactly how big businesses work in the regulatory sphere; often with licensing schemes and/or "grandfather rights" (often the former being part of the latter) that cost (about) the same total amount to comply with; the cost-per-unit is smaller for a big business and quite simply it hurts them less, and they are able to adapt more easily.

I'm no fan of Trump either (OK I would have gone for Gary "What's Aleppo?" Johnson), but Donald Trump has a point about getting rid of regulations. Besides, America has a good consumer protection system based on the threat of being sued when things go wrong. It works well.

 

[najaB]

It's not for me to explain or defend what Donald Trump does. I'm no fan of his and I'm not sure of his relevance.

The relevance is that US large businesses have actually been cheering his stated aim of removing regulation. Just look at the fact that one of his first executive actions was to remove the prohibition on coal mines dumping spoil into streams and the repeal of the Dodd-Frank rules put in place to reign in the bank's reckless practices after the financial crisis.

He's also trying to remove the fiduciary rules that would require financial advisors to act in their client's best interests rather than their own.

 

[EM2]

We can consider whether they are really necessary, and in any unique circumstances etc. that apply differently to Britain.

Yes, but what *are* they?
Let's put it another way. What will I, as an individual, be able to do when we exit that I can't do now?

 

[Barn]

The relevance is that US large businesses have actually been cheering his stated aim of removing regulation. Just look at the fact that one of his first executive actions was to remove the prohibition on coal mines dumping spoil into streams and the repeal of the Dodd-Frank rules put in place to reign in the bank's reckless practices after the financial crisis.

He's also trying to remove the fiduciary rules that would require financial advisors to act in their client's best interests rather than their own.

There are regulations and there are regulations. Obviously some regulations are disliked, if they stop big businesses from doing what they wish to do.

The regulations that crony capitalists really like are those that create barriers to new entry, those that create (as Jonny says) costs across the industry which they can more readily absorb than newer competitiors, or those that prefer their product over other products.

It is expected that big businesses will be cheerleaders for removing regulations that get in the way. Their affection for the latter type of regulation is not something that they shout about; it is something however that causes them to spend millions on Brussels lobbyists to talk about behind closed doors.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's not just my opinion. Here's a bit of reading if you're interested:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/of-course-big-business-loves-regulation

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/0...in-campaign-shows-us-whats-wrong-with-the-eu/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/12/davies-and-mccarl-how-big-business-benefits-regula/

I accept it is initially counter-intuitive but think about it. Why wouldn't a large corporation like regulation which bites on others but which they can handle through compliance teams, or perhaps through lobbying to get just the right type of regulation in the first place?

Your argument is plausible. But I do notice that of the three articles you quote, the only one that gives any possible examples is the Washington Times one - and those are instances within the USA, so not necessarily relevant to the EU. (And I feel somewhat sceptical about it's Uber example, since it paints Uber basically as a good, innovative, but wronged, startup - ignoring that there are legitimate questions about safety, licensing, training, etc. there.

The two articles that pertain to the UK appear to me to be contain almost nothing but speculation that ranges from the possibly plausible (but unsubstantiated) to obvious gross overgeneralisations such as this:

What is big business doing for the economy, by contrast? Awarding itself huge pay rises at the same time as destroying shareholder value. The fact that so many underperforming corporate fat cats are so firmly in the ‘remain’ camp isn’t an argument for staying in; it is a symptom of what is wrong with the EU.

(Of course, in reality, 'big business' comprises thousands of individual companies, some of which may well be performing poorly or behaving unethically. The above quote is the kind of tarring-everyone-with-the-same-brush stereotyping that I'd expect to see in political propaganda, but which hardly inspires to take an article seriously).

So what we have is a very plausible argument that large established companies benefit from some regulations, through less competition, and an assumption based on that that 'big business' is making a concerted and successful effort to lobby the EU to introduce regulations whose main effect would be to stifle innovation. That begs the question, if that's the case, where are the examples where this has been found to be happening? And if examples do exist, is it really not possible to minimize the problem with some kind of reform of lobbying/decision-making/etc.? And what's the guarantee that when we Brexit, that same lobbying won't simply transfer to Westminster with basically the same results?

 

[NSEFAN]

Despite the absence of an emoticon against the comment in your second paragraph, I assume that you have as much concern as I do about the race to the bottom that many unscrupulous business persons and their sympathetic right-wing politicians have.

Oh of course, hence my point about reducing regulatory standards in order to be competitive, despite the whole point of these standards being to maintain quality and safety levels that we have come to expect. As a random example, consumer electronics manufacturers would not use more efficient power supplies and standby modes unless forced to do so by regulation.

The British legal systems handle this surprisingly well; there were British Standards long before European ones. Also, the threat of being sued will still be there and that will help to keep manufacturers etc. in check.

Indeed there were standards before the EU ones, however my concern is that we will lower our own once out of the EU to allow companies from the US/our other trading partners to sell lower quality products here in the UK, as well reducing the quality of British-made products to sell them in return (since many regulatory requirements add design and manufacture costs, making them more expensive and less competitive). Also, I don't think the US free-market approach of "If I die, I'll sue!" is preferable over agreed standards that products have to meet.

 

[najaB]

There are regulations and there are regulations. Obviously some regulations are disliked, if they stop big businesses from doing what they wish to do.

So, in other words, big businesses are like small businesses - they like some regulations, they don't like others.

 

[AM9]

So, in other words, big businesses are like small businesses - they like some regulations, they don't like others.

The main difference is that big businesses understand the regulations, they take them on board and integrate them into their business model. *

* Assuming they intend to stay in business and aren't in for a quick kill, (which is much more likely to be a small business's strategy).

 

[Barn]

So what we have is a very plausible argument that large established companies benefit from some regulations, through less competition, and an assumption based on that that 'big business' is making a concerted and successful effort to lobby the EU to introduce regulations whose main effect would be to stifle innovation. That begs the question, if that's the case, where are the examples where this has been found to be happening??

Probably the most serious example is the lobbying by the car lobby for strict emissions regulations which disproportionately focussed on CO2. This effectively caused Europe (and pretty much only Europe) to develop a love for diesel engines in private cars coinciding the development of new turbodiesel engines (such as Volkswagen Group's TDI engines). Coupled with the cheating scandal that has contributed to thousands of early deaths.

Pharmaceutical companies lobbied hard for the introduction of regulation on herbal remedies and alternative medicines.

And if examples do exist, is it really not possible to minimize the problem with some kind of reform of lobbying/decision-making/etc.? And what's the guarantee that when we Brexit, that same lobbying won't simply transfer to Westminster with basically the same results

The major vulnerabilities that the EU Parliament and Commission have is that they are big, physically remote from the population, complicated and technical. Crucially, there just isn't the media interest in what it is doing (save for the occasional bendy banana story). Whatever its faults, you cannot accuse the British media of being disinterested with what goes on at Westminster.

To make lobbying more transparent you need registers of authorised lobbyists, freedom of information law and (ideally) formal public consultation exercises with published questions and published summaries of respones rather than ad hoc meetings. We're not perfect but we're relatively good at this stuff in the UK.

 

[Barn]

So, in other words, big businesses are like small businesses - they like some regulations, they don't like others.

Regulations can occasionally help an industry - for example, by increasing consumer confidence in purchasing from that industry. Usually this benefit is felt across the whole industry. Let's call this Type 1.

Regulations usually hurt industries (but they may have other worthwhile social / environmental aims).

Sometimes a regulation hurts the whole industry fairly evenly. (Type 2).

Often, however, the harm is more acutely focussed on smaller, newer industry players. (Type 3).

Big businesses would typically lobby:

• for Type 1,
• against Type 2, and
• for Type 3.

Small businesses tend not to be able to afford lobbyists, but if they could they would lobby:

• for Type 1,
• against Type 2, and
• against Type 3.

 

[Grimsby town]

Regulations can occasionally help an industry - for example, by increasing consumer confidence in purchasing from that industry. Usually this benefit is felt across the whole industry. Let's call this Type 1.

Regulations usually hurt industries (but they may have other worthwhile social / environmental aims).

Sometimes a regulation hurts the whole industry fairly evenly. (Type 2).

Often, however, the harm is more acutely focussed on smaller, newer industry players. (Type 3).

Big businesses would typically lobby:

• for Type 1,
• against Type 2, and
• for Type 3.

Small businesses tend not to be able to afford lobbyists, but if they could they would lobby:

• for Type 1,
• against Type 2, and
• against Type 3.

The problem is if there was no regulation at all big business would be in an even better position than small business as they would simply use economies of scale and predatory pricing to create extremely high barriers to entry.

 

[Barn]

Even if that were true, "no regulation" isn't really an option in the EU. Lots of lobbying isn't about introducing completely fresh regulation, it's about spotting that the European Commission is working on a policy area and trying to influence it so it works for the big business.

 

[najaB]

Often, however, the harm is more acutely focussed on smaller, newer industry players. (Type 3).

Smaller players can usually adapt to change faster than large.

 

[Howardh]

Interesting to note that the Tories promised not to increase national insurance, so they haven't by increasing it for the self-employed.

BTW I think the self-employed should have a choice, either pay the smaller amount but receive fewer benefits, or pay the full amount and get everything - pensions, sick-pay, the lot.

Anyhow, it has been increased for some, and (a) is the opposite of what they put in their manisfesto and (b) affects those most likely to vote Tory.

And you're trusting this lot to steer us through the Brexit waters? Yeah, right.

 

[Barn]

And you're trusting this lot to steer us through the Brexit waters? Yeah, right.

Everything is relative!

 

[Dave1987]

Interesting how the Pre A Manger management have said that only one in 50 applicants for vacancies are British. Does that not tell them that their pay and working conditions are rubbish?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Interesting how the Pre A Manger management have said that only one in 50 applicants for vacancies are British. Does that not tell them that their pay and working conditions are rubbish?

It might well be telling the same story as applicants for crop pickers in the rural areas. One farm manager said that many of British people that he knew felt that such work was "beneath them"...:roll:

 

[EM2]

Interesting how the Pre A Manger management have said that only one in 50 applicants for vacancies are British. Does that not tell them that their pay and working conditions are rubbish?

They don't look too bad to me:
http://www.pret.co.uk/en-gb/pret-team-members
£8.50 an hour on a 35-hour week is £15,470 p.a.

 

[Barn]

Interesting how the Pre A Manger management have said that only one in 50 applicants for vacancies are British. Does that not tell them that their pay and working conditions are rubbish?

What's the incentive to improve them when:

1. there is a limitless supply of people who are happy to work at that level of pay; and
   
2. not applying for that job is evidently an economically viable course of action for Britons to take?

 

[najaB]

They don't look too bad to me:
http://www.pret.co.uk/en-gb/pret-team-members
£8.50 an hour on a 35-hour week is £15,470 p.a.

That's only in London (and the south east) though - other places are likely closer to £7.50/h which is £12K in your hand pa.

 

[Howardh]

It might well be telling the same story as applicants for crop pickers in the rural areas. One farm manager said that many of British people that he knew felt that such work was "beneath them"...:roll:

If you are picking crops it would be beneath you *said in the style of Bernard Woolley*

Unless it's fruit picking off trees....

 

[EM2]

That's only in London (and the south east) though - other places are likely closer to £7.50/h which is £12K in your hand pa.

That's a grand a month. Taking Exeter as an example, you can rent a studio flat for £500, leaving £500 to live on. Fairly easy I'd say, especially when you bear in mind that you get free food while you're at work, so reducing your food spend.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting how the Pre A Manger management have said that only one in 50 applicants for vacancies are British. Does that not tell them that their pay and working conditions are rubbish?

Would that by extension mean that British people won't lower themselves to be paid minimum wage?

 

[AlterEgo]

That's a grand a month. Taking Exeter as an example, you can rent a studio flat for £500, leaving £500 to live on. Fairly easy I'd say, especially when you bear in mind that you get free food while you're at work, so reducing your food spend.

Less council tax, less utilities, less TV licence, less contents insurance...

You're looking at almost nothing left over once your basic costs are met. It's not a great existence; I would live with my parents if I was that badly off.