• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Foreign investment has fallen 92% since 2016"

Collapse

  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    It is curious that after years of complaining about foreigners coming and taking their jobs, they're not rushing into the fields to reclaim their birthright.
    That’s because a few weeks/months of temporary picking work would result in benefits being cut, the system isn’t geared towards short-term work being available.

    Which is odd, because we keep being told that migrants are both taking our jobs, and being on benefits. Yet they can’t be doing both.

    It’s almost as if people have been lied to all this time to suit an agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    Can’t have innovative jam without someone picking the fruit. :-)
    It is curious that after years of complaining about foreigners coming and taking their jobs, they're not rushing into the fields to reclaim their birthright.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Cheeky monkeys.
    Can’t have innovative jam without someone picking the fruit. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    Nope, that's the actual front page of the Times.
    Cheeky monkeys.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Is this a spoof?
    Nope, that's the actual front page of the Times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    The Times is even better, because why have a manufacturing job when picking fruit is so much fun?!?

    Is this a spoof?

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    The Times is even better, because why have a manufacturing job when picking fruit is so much fun?!?

    Oh dear it's worse than I thought. And aerospace was one of the UK's success stories. Oh well, never mind - onward and downward.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    The Times is even better, because why have a manufacturing job when picking fruit is so much fun?!?

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Foreign investment has fallen 92% since 2016

    A lot of Brexiters say that businesses need to adapt and change, become leaner and meaner and more innovative to drive competitiveness after Brexit.

    So they can’t really complain when businesses adjust their supply chains and business model to adapt to Brexit.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/politics...-brexit-impact

    The aerospace multinational firm Airbus is preparing to withdraw major investment from the UK due to concerns over Brexit negotiations, putting thousands of jobs at risk.

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    Eh? How do you spin that?
    Let's say 50% of the UK's investment in 2015 came from foreign investors, and let's say that they invested £50 billion.
    So that means 50% of the UK investment in 2015 was from within the UK, and totalled £50 billion.
    The total amount invested was £100billion.

    If the foreign investment drops to £25 billion, then if the internal investment stays at the same level of £50 billion, the total investment has dropped to £75 billion.
    That means statistically, the inward investment has increased from 50% to 67%. It hasn't changed in terms of £, but it has in %.


    Playing the figures game is a favourite of Brexit supporters. £350 million a week sounds like a lot of money, but as a % of the UK Gov spend, it's less than 3%

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by WTFH View Post
    Brexit spin: UK inward investment has increased statistically.
    Eh? How do you spin that?

    Leave a comment:


  • WTFH
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/foreign-...ince-2016-why/

    "The 2016 UK figure is much, much higher than it would usually be because of a huge merger of two of the world’s biggest alcohol companies, and as one of the companies is headquartered in London (despite selling globally) that figure counted as FDI, meaning the UK figure was hugely inflated versus its usual level. That could mean that everything was fine, and things had just got back to usual: but they haven’t. The UK’s $15 billion investment [in 2017] is only around a third of its average level since 2011 – a figure which represents the lowest investment into the UK since 2005. That’s a bad sign."
    Brexit spin: UK inward investment has increased statistically.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Send a gunboat!

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    That's what I keep saying - hard Brexit now!
    The people should get what they voted for
    The civil service is preparing...

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    Technically though, the outcome is correct. The vote was to leave the EU - a negative proposition that has been interpreted as leaving all EU trade deals, institutions, legal systems, etc.

    There was no vote on how or what to “join” with the EU. No vote on whether or not we wanted a trade deal with them, no vote on what institutions we wanted to still remain a part of.

    The only logical outcome from the vote is that the people voted for “No Deal”. This does not mean “no deal and we won’t pay the divorce bill”, because the divorce bill is the negotiated cost of leaving. “No Deal” as what was voted for means settling up any debts, leaving the EU, and that’s it. Any future relationship was not part of the vote.

    So saying that “No Deal” is a negotiating position is incorrect, it’s what the people voted for.
    That's what I keep saying - hard Brexit now!
    The people should get what they voted for

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X