Off Topic The Politics Thread

[KPDHoopster]

Of course they exist. They stopped the previous practise (as you wrote back in 84!) of these Companies (PWC etc) doing their Clients Accounts,their tax work, and other work at the same time as they are their Auditors.

You are losing what you are arguing about, I never said that PWC did accounting work for audit clients ? That has nothing to do with my point all.

I was questioning your assertion that PWC's forecast should be taken as gospel and, not questioned like any other institution that publishes forecasts.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

You are losing what you are arguing about, I never said that PWC did accounting work for audit clients ? That has nothing to do with my point all.

I was questioning your assertion that PWC's forecast should be taken as gospel and, not questioned like any other institution that publishes forecasts.

...forecasts indeed, that favour the case of the client commissioning and paying for it

 

[KPDHoopster]

No. Unless they are Cowboys they are also qualified Auditors.

What are you arguing about here ? not sure ?

 

[QPR Oslo]

[QUOTE

I was questioning your assertion that PWC's forecast should be taken as gospel and, not questioned like any other institution that publishes forecasts.[/QUOTE]

I never said that! And as I can't be bothered to write it a 3rd time go back and read them again if you are really interested.

 

[Chaz]

If a company is hired to perform a financial audit, they are legally barred from having any involvement in preparing the company accounting, tax returns, or anything else that falls under the auditing remit.

Oslo, just thought it would be worth someone else stating it as well. I starting reading the thread and would have said exactly the same at the point you said it.

 

[KPDHoopster]

If a company is hired to perform a financial audit, they are legally barred from having any involvement in preparing the company accounting, tax returns, or anything else that falls under the auditing remit.

No one disagreed this, it is not what the discussions was about. It was all about placing trust/belief in any forecast.

Auditing/qualifications/accountants/accounting standards/bullshit/whatever is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Just shows how gullible some people can be.
Just because a reputable "big name" firm comes out publicly stated they are able to look into a crystal ball and predict the future, is frankly laughable. If the IMF and US Federal Reserve cant do it, neither can PWC.
Did PWC come out predicting the biggest ever Financial Crisis of the last 80 years ? NO, they didn't have a clue it was coming.
So you want to believe they can accurately predict the effects of a Brexit ? NO they cant

 

[sb_73]

No one disagreed this, it is not what the discussions was about. It was all about placing trust/belief in any forecast.

Auditing/qualifications/accountants/accounting standards/bullshit/whatever is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Just don't say that to the good men of the Crimson Permanent Assurance!

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Chaz]

No one disagreed this, it is not what the discussions was about. It was all about placing trust/belief in any forecast.

Auditing/qualifications/accountants/accounting standards/bullshit/whatever is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Hardly irrelevant. The Brexit camp are disagreeing with figures that harm their side. Understandable, but PwC are one of the best and most respected audit firms in the world. Their ability to do the job and do it well is unarguable, and no number of anti EU conspiracy theorists can change that.

 

[sb_73]

Look, I'm no Brexiter, but I wouldn't trust these suspiciously convenient numbers at all. This is what the authors said about them:

“As with any economic modelling exercise, our estimates are subject to many uncertainties,” said PwC.

The estimate is based on the assumption that there is no trade deal with the EU. Which is a pretty big assumption and one which must be based on a degree of pig headedness on the UK side and vindictiveness on the EU side that is very unlikely to be the case. There will be a trade deal, though it won't be as advantageous to either the UK or the EU as remaining members would.

 

[Chaz]

Bringing the focus back onto this thread where it belongs...

Lots of Brexit supporters have mentioned Schengen. Here's some facts about Schengen.

First of all, the UK is NOT signed up to Schengen.

Of the EU member states, six are not in Schengen. Four of those (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania) are legally obliged (and want) to join the area. The other two, the UK and Ireland, have opted out and will remain out. This means that we do not allow free access without documentary checks at our borders as a pre-requisite of being n the EU.

Secondly, there are four nations in the European Free Trade Association that are not EU members. These are Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Every single one of these HAS signed up and is a member of Schengen. So EU nationals can pass into the non-EU countries far easier than they can into the UK.

The Brexit camp are looking for us to leave the EU, and become a member of the EFTA. Which would make it far more likely that we will fall into line with our new trade colleagues and less likely that we will remain outside of the Schengen Agreement.

And they think that leaving the EU would make our borders more secure?

 

[QPR Oslo]

Bringing the focus back onto this thread where it belongs...

Lots of Brexit supporters have mentioned Schengen. Here's some facts about Schengen.

First of all, the UK is NOT signed up to Schengen.

Of the EU member states, six are not in Schengen. Four of those (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania) are legally obliged (and want) to join the area. The other two, the UK and Ireland, have opted out and will remain out. This means that we do not allow free access without documentary checks at our borders as a pre-requisite of being n the EU.

Secondly, there are four nations in the European Free Trade Association that are not EU members. These are Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Every single one of these HAS signed up and is a member of Schengen. So EU nationals can pass into the non-EU countries far easier than they can into the UK.

The Brexit camp are looking for us to leave the EU, and become a member of the EFTA. Which would make it far more likely that we will fall into line with our new trade colleagues and less likely that we will remain outside of the Schengen Agreement.

And they think that leaving the EU would make our borders more secure?

I'll just add that I regularly enter a Schengen country Norway with my wife a Thai national and it is no easy process at all for someone wirh no EU/EEA passport. Certainly no easier to obtain a visa for a Schengen country than it is for the UK. We'll find out how actual entry to the UK compares to Norway next month.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Bringing the focus back onto this thread where it belongs...

Lots of Brexit supporters have mentioned Schengen. Here's some facts about Schengen.

First of all, the UK is NOT signed up to Schengen.

Of the EU member states, six are not in Schengen. Four of those (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania) are legally obliged (and want) to join the area. The other two, the UK and Ireland, have opted out and will remain out. This means that we do not allow free access without documentary checks at our borders as a pre-requisite of being n the EU.

Secondly, there are four nations in the European Free Trade Association that are not EU members. These are Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Every single one of these HAS signed up and is a member of Schengen. So EU nationals can pass into the non-EU countries far easier than they can into the UK.

The Brexit camp are looking for us to leave the EU, and become a member of the EFTA. Which would make it far more likely that we will fall into line with our new trade colleagues and less likely that we will remain outside of the Schengen Agreement.

And they think that leaving the EU would make our borders more secure?

Schengen makes it easier for would-be terrorists to make it to Calais or another Channel port without being detected and attempt unauthorised entry to the UK. The UK is a prime target for ISIS.

In the event of Brexit and the negotation of trade agreements, it would be a condition insisted upon by the UK that it would not join Schengen, thus maintaining the status quo. Our bargaining power, particularly as regards our huge imports from Germany, is immeasurably greater than that of Norway or Switzerland.

 

[QPR Oslo]

Look, I'm no Brexiter, but I wouldn't trust these suspiciously convenient numbers at all. This is what the authors said about them:

“As with any economic modelling exercise, our estimates are subject to many uncertainties,” said PwC.

The estimate is based on the assumption that there is no trade deal with the EU. Which is a pretty big assumption and one which must be based on a degree of pig headedness on the UK side and vindictiveness on the EU side that is very unlikely to be the case. There will be a trade deal, though it won't be as advantageous to either the UK or the EU as remaining members would.

What you say about it being based on a no trade deal with the EU is not as the BBC report / quote: "In its report for the CBI, accountancy firm PwC examined what would happen if Britain signed a free trade agreement with the EU within five years of an exit vote or decided to conduct business as a member of the World Trade Organisation. In that instance, it said negotiations could "prove more difficult and prolonged". The whole thing is here: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35855869 . This is also as reported by the Guardian, the Telegraph and others.

 

[Chaz]

Schengen makes it easier for would-be terrorists to make it to Calais or another Channel port without being detected and attempt unauthorised entry to the UK. The UK is a prime target for ISIS.

In the event of Brexit and the negotation of trade agreements, it would be a condition insisted upon by the UK that it would not join Schengen, thus maintaining the status quo. Our bargaining power, particularly as regards our huge imports from Germany, is immeasurably greater than that of Norway or Switzerland.

OK, let's take those points in sequence.

1. We're not in Schengen now, and the terrorists can get here. Our leaving the EU will make no difference to that, so anyone that cites immigration as a reason for leaving clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

2. How do you KNOW that will be a condition? Nobody has even started thinking about what happens in the event of an Exit vote, so you cannot say for certain what will happen. The choices are either between the status quo (so why vote to leave?) or a situation where our borders are LESS secure (so why vote to leave?)

3. Bargaining power doesn't enter into the equation, when you're talking about bargaining with a group of nations you've just rejected. I am not sure where this rose-tinted view of the future comes from , because I don't see it in any of the arguments put forward by any of the Brexit supporters on here. But we're not as powerful a nation as you imagine, and our influence in gaining European advantage (which the Brexit argument seems to hang on) will be severely lessened if we reject their club and try to go it alone.

 

[finglasqpr]

Bringing the focus back onto this thread where it belongs...

Lots of Brexit supporters have mentioned Schengen. Here's some facts about Schengen.

First of all, the UK is NOT signed up to Schengen.

Of the EU member states, six are not in Schengen. Four of those (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania) are legally obliged (and want) to join the area. The other two, the UK and Ireland, have opted out and will remain out. This means that we do not allow free access without documentary checks at our borders as a pre-requisite of being n the EU.

Secondly, there are four nations in the European Free Trade Association that are not EU members. These are Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Every single one of these HAS signed up and is a member of Schengen. So EU nationals can pass into the non-EU countries far easier than they can into the UK.

The Brexit camp are looking for us to leave the EU, and become a member of the EFTA. Which would make it far more likely that we will fall into line with our new trade colleagues and less likely that we will remain outside of the Schengen Agreement.

And they think that leaving the EU would make our borders more secure?

BINGO. Wake up and smell the coffee folks.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

OK, let's take those points in sequence.

1. We're not in Schengen now, and the terrorists can get here. Our leaving the EU will make no difference to that, so anyone that cites immigration as a reason for leaving clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

2. How do you KNOW that will be a condition? Nobody has even started thinking about what happens in the event of an Exit vote, so you cannot say for certain what will happen. The choices are either between the status quo (so why vote to leave?) or a situation where our borders are LESS secure (so why vote to leave?)

3. Bargaining power doesn't enter into the equation, when you're talking about bargaining with a group of nations you've just rejected. I am not sure where this rose-tinted view of the future comes from , because I don't see it in any of the arguments put forward by any of the Brexit supporters on here. But we're not as powerful a nation as you imagine, and our influence in gaining European advantage (which the Brexit argument seems to hang on) will be severely lessened if we reject their club and try to go it alone.

1. It's good to see you concede that Schengen is a problem to us. The immigration problem is

(1) that if a citizen in the EU want to come into the country, then unless we can show that person is on a wanted list or using a false passport, we have to let them in, whereas non-EU members face considerable hurdles. We can have suspicions an EU citizen is a terrorist or has ill intentions, say from a notorious area of Brussels, but that's not enough to refuse them entry. Leaving the EU would give us back the power to reject them, and also to bring in highly skilled immigrants from the rest of the world without having to comply with EU conditions and red tape.

(2) our population is increasing by 1 million people every 3 years which is unsustainable. Leaving the EU would mean we can control the numbers.

2. If the UK votes for Brexit, two of the reasons will be control over immigration and increased security. It stands to reason that the UK Parliament is not then going to agree to the free movement of people into the UK under Schengen.

3. We're the 5th biggest economy in the world, and I get tired of people continually talking this country down. We are one of Germany's biggest customers, so they are not going to cease trading for reason of spite. Merkel would be under huge pressure from her industrials. It won't happen.

 

[Chaz]

1. It's good to see you concede that Schengen is a problem to us. The immigration problem is (1) that if a citizen in the EU want to come into the country, then unless we can show that person is on a wanted list or using a false passport, we have to let them in, whereas non-EU members face considerable hurdles. We can have suspicions an EU citizen is a terrorist or has ill intentions, say from a notorious area of Brussels, but that's not enough to refuse them entry. Leaving the EU would give us back the power to reject them, and also to bring in highly skilled immigrants from the rest of the world without having to comply with EU conditions and red tape. (2) Our population is increasing by 1 million people every 3 years which is unsustainable. Leaving the EU would mean we can control the numbers

2. If the UK votes for Brexit, two of the reasons will be control over immigration and increased security. It stands to reason that the UK Parliament is not then going to agree to the free movement of people into the UK under Schengen.

3. We're the 5th biggest economy in the world, and I get tired of people continually talking this country down. We are one of Germany's biggest customers, so they are not going to cease trading for reason of spite. Merkel would be under huge pressure from her industrials. It won't happen.

1. Schengen itself isn't a problem for us because we are not part of it. Schengen is a major problem for the countries that have signed up to it. Us leaving the EU won't change that. And as you are fully aware, the problem of terrorism isn't just confined to EU nationals. It's to do with Middle-East nationals - for whom an effective Schengen would be an irrelevance - and home grown, British nationals - for whom again, an effective Schengen is an irrelevance. If you want an example of an EU national terrorist, have this one: if an Iraqi or Syrian terrorist wants to travel to an EU country, wait five years, apply for citizenship, gain that citizenship, and then travel to the UK and blow himself up, I can't see any way of stopping that, either inside or outside the EU. If you can see a way - and please don't just repeat 'effective border controls', as this guy's been a model German citizen for five years - please enlighten us all. I know many people in Government and the security forces that would love to hear your insights.

2. If the UK votes for Brexit on those two issues, then it'll be clear that it was a vote based on fear and ignorance - and it's a vote that will have been utterly ineffective. Whether or not we are in the EU makes no difference to the ability of a determined terrorist to enter the country. I really think that you understand this as well as I do.

3. Yes, we're one of the world's strongest economies. Why would you risk that by throwing away the trade relationships with our biggest trade partner that has got us to that point, and then hope that something nearly as good can be negotiated - and negotiated by the very people that you feel have been poor negotiators up to now?

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

1. Schengen itself isn't a problem for us because we are not part of it. Schengen is a major problem for the countries that have signed up to it. Us leaving the EU won't change that. And as you are fully aware, the problem of terrorism isn't just confined to EU nationals. It's to do with Middle-East nationals - for whom an effective Schengen would be an irrelevance - and home grown, British nationals - for whom again, an effective Schengen is an irrelevance. If you want an example of an EU national terrorist, have this one: if an Iraqi or Syrian terrorist wants to travel to an EU country, wait five years, apply for citizenship, gain that citizenship, and then travel to the UK and blow himself up, I can't see any way of stopping that, either inside or outside the EU. If you can see a way - and please don't just repeat 'effective border controls', as this guy's been a model German citizen for five years - please enlighten us all. I know many people in Government and the security forces that would love to hear your insights.

2. If the UK votes for Brexit on those two issues, then it'll be clear that it was a vote based on fear and ignorance - and it's a vote that will have been utterly ineffective. Whether or not we are in the EU makes no difference to the ability of a determined terrorist to enter the country. I really think that you understand this as well as I do.

3. Yes, we're one of the world's strongest economies. Why would you risk that by throwing away the trade relationships with our biggest trade partner that has got us to that point, and then hope that something nearly as good can be negotiated - and negotiated by the very people that you feel have been poor negotiators up to now?

1. No one is saying that leaving the EU will remove the terrorist threat, but it will reduce the risk by allowing authorities here to choose who comes in legally.

You have stated that "anyone that cites immigration as a reason for leaving clearly doesn't know what they are talking about." So please address my point that 1 million immigrants are coming in every 3 years. Are you saying these are sustainable increases, and anyone who disagrees, does not know what they're talking about?

2. See above - leaving the EU will not remove the threat but will improve how we handle it.

3. You're contradicting yourself, Chaz. First you say we're not a powerful nation, then you accept we are one of the world's strongest economies. What makes this country great is the people in it, not the EU. We will continue to trade with Europe and enhance our trade with countries outside

 

[Chaz]

1. No one is saying that leaving the EU will remove the terrorist threat, but it will reduce the risk by allowing authorities here to choose who comes in legally.

You have stated that "anyone that cites immigration as a reason for leaving clearly doesn't know what they are talking about." So please address my point that 1 million immigrants are coming in every 3 years. Are you saying these are sustainable increases, and anyone who disagrees, does not know what they're talking about?

2. See above - leaving the EU will not remove the threat but will improve how we handle it.

3. You're contradicting yourself, Chaz. First you say we're not a powerful nation, then you accept we are one of the world's strongest economies. What makes this country great is the people in it, not the EU. We will continue to trade with Europe and enhance our trade with countries outside

1. Actually, many people are saying that leaving the EU will solve many problems, terrorism being just one of them. When people say they want to "take control of our borders" that's exactly what they mean. If they don't, then they are probably being racist, not wanting any foreigners to come in. As for your very loaded question, I'm going to ignore that, because that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people who thing leaving the EU will make any difference doesn't know what they are talking about.

2. I've probably answered this already, but to make it clear: If someone is determined to come in - and I think that you can class all terrorists, suicide bombers etc. as 'pretty determined' - then all the border controls in the world won't stop them. Being able to work together with the governments and authorities of the countries they travel through to get here - that will help. Washing our hands of the ability to work across Europe with the intelligence and security forces of twenty eight other nations will do nothing but harm.

3. I'm not contradicting myself. Point to where I said we were not a powerful nation. Actually, point to where I said we were a powerful nation. What I actually said is that we're "the fifth biggest economy in the world" and that we're "not as powerful as you think we are". I never said we were powerful, but we are economically thriving. And I never said we were weak, just not as powerful as you think we are. I think you need to maybe re-read what I'm saying, otherwise your responses will not be as coherent as you want them to be.

Finally, also on point 3, there's yet another rose-tinted view of this situation. If the people of this country are what makes it great, why is leaving the EU so important? Because many of the people in this country, working to keep this country great, are EU citizens.

 

[TootingExcess]

most immigrants to the uk are from non-EU countries, and we have full control over this already - so leaving won't have any effect.

i personally don't see the issue with (generally) white Christian European migrants in this country. They integrate well, and quite often return home after a few years. the beloved market will dictate the number of these migrants we get - they won't come if the work isn't there, and they are an important part of the workforce. More red tape and visas is not the answer.