Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

Jim2007 wrote: »

Norway has already expressed concerns....

I know. But, hey, if you already have to reach agreement with 27 other countries, does adding a twenty-eighth or a twenty-ninth really make the problem that much more insoluble?

Thomas__

Calina wrote: »

EFTA membership is not the gift of the EU to give the UK.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, of course not.  But that wouldn't stop the UK pursuing EFTA membership as part of a transition-that-might-turn-into-readmission, and if existing EFTA members found that unappealing (and I could see why) then the UK could look for a relationship with the EU analogous to that which the EFTA members enjoy.

Norway has already expressed concerns....

Watching the way the UK govt is performing in this Brexit negotiations, it´s more clear to me that on some EFTA members like Norway the concerns will certainly outweight the considering of mutual benefits with the UK´s re-entry into EFTA. The Brits still have no real guidance and the lack of that and thus the Impression of unreliabilty of the UK govt leaves them in the mess they´ve put themselves in and makes the continuance of the negotiations more harder. I don´t think that EFTA member states have any "appetite" to put themselves in a likewise position the EU is in with the UK, let alone any interest at all.

The present perception of the UK govt in regards of membership in trade organisations is that of the UK´s isolationism and they can´t get any far by that attitude which is on clear display every time. It´s like someone who likes to have all the rights and benefits but refuses or shyes away from taking any obligations in return. Such things neither work nor are they agreeable.

Peregrinus

All of what Thomas_ said.

Plus, as a general principle you can expect existing, permanent members of any organisation to be resistant to admitting a new member who, by their own account, does not see long-term membership of the organisation as desirable, and intends to leave again. And this applies in spades with respect to the notion of the UK joining EFTA for a period, because the UK would, in terms of population, economic muscle, etc, vastly outweigh all the other members of EFTA taken together. Why would EFTA members want the UK to join EFTA for a few years, and then leave again?

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another slice of cake.

the UK wants it's citizens in the EU to have rights they aren't sharing
Current family members
UK wants - Residents above will fall within the scope of the WA as an independent right holder

Criminality commited post exit
UK wants - Expulsion for post-exit
actvity assessed under UK immigraton rules
I may be mistaken but the UK has strict immigration rules for criminals.
- cherry picking

Voting rights
EU says - this arises from EU citzenship rights
(not a difficult concept that non-EU citizens have less rights)**
UK says - UK wants to protect existng
rights of UK/EU citzens to
vote and/or stand in local
electons in their host state in
the WA - yummy yummy cake

Further movement rights
EU says - UK natonals in scope of WA
only have protected rights in
the state(s) in which they
have residence rights on exit
day
UK wants - UK natonals in scope should
be able to change their place
of residence within EU27 as
per Directve 2004/38
WTF ?- so the UK wants free movement within the EU for non-EU citizens ?
really ?




**the fly in the ointment is thatIrish EU citizens can't vote outside the EU.
So about 300,000 Irish citizens living there could be disenfranchised by UK exit
the other side of the coin is the suggestion that Irish citizens could be allowed vote in EU elections abroad. This gets interesting when you consider that this could apply to 1.8m people up north and about 6m overall in the UK with the grandparent rule.

Good morning!

Let's go through these.

On family rights - I agree with the UK government that EU citizens should have equal rights to British citizens. Meaning that if I want to bring a partner from another country I need to acknowledge that will be subject to a marriage visa. The situation that exists today where EU citizens have another right to British citizens isn't acceptable going forward.

Criminal expulsion post-Brexit - I 100% agree with this. This should exist as a condition of freedom of movement for all countries. The UK is right to make this an issue.

Voting rights will be a matter for the British government to legislate for. In the Great Repeal Bill, European Union law (including presumably for the rights of citizens) will be merged into the body of British legislation. Where do you see the desire for the British government to change this?

Further movement rights - I'm particularly not too bothered if a British citizen has to apply for a Schengen Visa after Brexit. I can see why they are pushing hard on it because when they arrived in the EU they had free movement. I think this is a price worth paying for Brexit.

EU elections - This is for a matter for the European Union to resolve. There's no reason why the British government should provide this. The UK will have left the EU. If the European Union wants to provide a postal vote or another provision that is for them to decide.

View - your point about EU treaties is null and void. The UK is leaving the EU, therefore it won't be subject to EU Treaty provisions. It's looking for a third country deal and obviously that will require a new set of paper. On security and intelligence sharing and policing the EU needs the UK and vice versa. I'm sure an arrangement will be made as a third country. I agree with Theresa May when she says the ECJ having oversight is a no, no. Barnier acknowledged yesterday that the end result may be a court of joint arbitration.

The UK have to push hard at this stage. I'm glad they are and I'm glad that the negotiators seem highly skilled and knowledgeable on the issues. Particularly Olly Robbins.

Edit - on passporting I'm surprised nobody has responded to my point about provisions for third countries in MiFID II.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Panicking.

Sorry but you can't seem to see the sh1tstorm coming. Read the posts above...it will be compulsory to send all animal derived food products through an EU customs post when exporting into the EU. France has 2 tiny ones at Least Havre and Dunkirk. They'd need to start expanding them now to be ready for no deal day (you do advocate no deal in some circumstances) but I don't think they've even considered this stuff.... France will be in no hurry to build and staff these posts either.

As for the Maybot taking 3 weeks holidays...

Good morning!

To the bolded claim. Only in the most extreme and imaginative circumstances from Professor Moriarty. In those circumstances I certainly would say sod off to the EU. I'm an advocate of a comprehensive third country free trade deal with a short transition.

Britain is over all a net importer of food and already has an export market in food to non-EU countries. In general it has a trade deficit with the EU. A no deal Brexit would be very bad for the EU. Even in respect to future EU funding it would be very messy to retrieve it in the event if no deal.

From what I've seen reported this week there is a serious engagement of the British position in Brussels. I think a deal is going to be struck with a transitional period.

The fear mongering on this thread does reach new heights on a daily basis.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote:

The headline rate of tax is irrelevant, it's the loopholes that matter.

Every country has tax breaks that make the headline rate irrelevant. Ireland has been pointing this out for years when our low headline rate is brought up.

A "loophole" is where a company is able to manipulate its accounts to take advantage of different tax regimes as in the Apple case. Apple pays full tax on its operations in Ireland. The disputed amount relates to its operations elsewhere.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

View - your point about EU treaties is null and void. The UK is leaving the EU, therefore it won't be subject to EU Treaty provisions. It's looking for a third country deal and obviously that will require a new set of paper.

View is entirely correct. The UK wants far far more than a FTA like CETA. They want something that is almost like EU membership but without the ECJ as highest court. CETA doesn't mention anything about EHIC cards or anything like that! CETA barely mentions services. FTAs rarely if ever do, being concerned with goods. A traditional FTA is useless to the UK, being as it is dependent on service exports to the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

On security and intelligence sharing and policing the EU needs the UK and vice versa. I'm sure an arrangement will be made as a third country. I agree with Theresa May when she says the ECJ having oversight is a no, no. Barnier acknowledged yesterday that the end result may be a court of joint arbitration.

This all costs money. This extra court to duplicate what the ECJ does already is just one thing that needs duplication. It's got to be asked by the EU side...is it actually worth bending over backwards to give the UK EU-lite membership?

Anyway, I don't see there being nearly enough time to get an FTA in place and so a transitional arrangement is a certainty, but I agree with other posters..there is nothing in it for EFTA members like Liechtenstein for the UK to join their ranks as a transitional arrangement to help ease the UK out of the EU. In fact those EFTA states might rightly take offence at even being asked to facilitate such a measure!

It's also far from certain that all 27 remaining EU states would allow them to continue their membership of the EU after March 2019. Some may actually be happy enough for the UK to crash out on WTO terms, not able to export so much as a beef burger to the EU without it going through a border inspection post (of which there are nowhere near enough nor will there be by 2019).

solodeogloria

Good morning,

The CETA court was worth paying for access to a market of 16 million. The UK market is a market of 65 million. I disagree with you when you say a deal for services isn't possible. In financial services there's provisions in MiFID II for it (a point you've not replied to). I don't see any good reason why a FTA can't be agreed on services.

There's no 'membership lite' about it. Policing cooperation and security sharing is something that's agreed bilaterally. It isn't EU membership in any sense.

On citizens both parties are interested in their citizens rights but again this isn't membership. Migration controls will be in place for all new migrants after the implementation period.

Also - I can't see how you're painting the UK offering reciprocal healthcare to those on EHIC as a negative. That's a big concession on their part to even be saying this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

View - your point about EU treaties is null and void. The UK is leaving the EU, therefore it won't be subject to EU Treaty provisions. It's looking for a third country deal and obviously that will require a new set of paper. On security and intelligence sharing and policing the EU needs the UK and vice versa. I'm sure an arrangement will be made as a third country. I agree with Theresa May when she says the ECJ having oversight is a no, no. Barnier acknowledged yesterday that the end result may be a court of joint arbitration.

There's a real tension here that can't be ignored.

On the one hand, obviously both the UK and the EU-27 have a real interest in continued security/intelligence co-operation and information-sharing.

On the other hand, there's a serious issue of human rights protection here. May has made clear her impatience with the constraints imposed on the UK by its adherence to international human rights conventions, and has previously advocated withdrawing from international arrnagement in relation to this (like the European Court of Human Rights). She, or at any rate people around her, seem frequently to confuse the ECtHR and the ECJ, and the European Convention on Human Rights has in any case been incorporated into EU law and is enforced in EU matters by the ECJ. There's an obvious problem with the notion of the EU handing over information to the UK which might then be used in the UK to treat people (who may in some indeed be EU citizens) in ways which would be regarded as breach of their human rights in the EU, and which in the EU would find a remedy in the ECJ. Quite apart from anything else, you don't want to create a regime whereby an EU government which finds itself contstrained by EU human rights law from doing something can circumvent the restraint by passing information to the UK government and getting it to do that thing.

Hence, some degree of submission to the jurisdiction of the ECJ may be a necessary quid-pro-quo for continuation of the current degree of security and intelligence co-operation.

Thomas__

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of what Thomas_ said.

Plus, as a general principle you can expect existing, permanent members of any organisation to be resistant to admitting a new member who, by their own account, does not see long-term membership of the organisation as desirable, and intends to leave again.  And this applies in spades with respect to the notion of the UK joining EFTA for a period, because the UK would, in terms of population, economic muscle, etc, vastly outweigh all the other members of EFTA taken together.  Why would EFTA members want the UK to join EFTA for a few years, and then leave again?

I´m sure that the EFTA members are watching the development of the UK-EU-Brexit-Negotiations very close and very critical in regards of the way the UK is performing herself. As it appears these days, the Brits are going to make things just worse for themselves and not better.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Further movement rights - I'm particularly not too bothered if a British citizen has to apply for a Schengen Visa after Brexit. I can see why they are pushing hard on it because when they arrived in the EU they had free movement. I think this is a price worth paying for Brexit.

Very magnanimous of you to say that a price which won't apply to you is a price worth paying for Brexit to be paid by people who largely didn't want Brexit because they valued the right of Freedom of Movement.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

The CETA court was worth paying for access to a market of 16 million. The UK market is a market of 65 million. I disagree with you when you say a deal for services isn't possible. In financial services there's provisions in MiFID II for it (a point you've not replied to). I don't see any good reason why a FTA can't be agreed on services.

Anything is technically possible but a standard "goods only" FTA with Canada took 7 years to agree. As this would be new territory, it's safe to assume it would not be completed any faster than that. The thing is, the UK wants to "opt-in" to far more than a FTA and its arbitration court. They want "frictionless border traffic" but that entails being in the ustoms union, which they don't want.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Also - I can't see how you're painting the UK offering reciprocal healthcare to those on EHIC as a negative. That's a big concession on their part to even be saying this.

It's hardly a concession! The Great British public want to retain the EHIC as health insurance for many (eg anyone with a pre-existing condition) is prohibitively expensive. The EHIC is a huge benefit to ordinary Brits, but it's another benefit of being in the club.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The CETA court was worth paying for access to a market of 16 million. The UK market is a market of 65 million. I disagree with you when you say a deal for services isn't possible. In financial services there's provisions in MiFID II for it (a point you've not replied to). I don't see any good reason why a FTA can't be agreed on services.

There's no 'membership lite' about it. Policing cooperation and security sharing is something that's agreed bilaterally. It isn't EU membership in any sense.

On citizens both parties are interested in their citizens rights but again this isn't membership. Migration controls will be in place for all new migrants after the implementation period.

Also - I can't see how you're painting the UK offering reciprocal healthcare to those on EHIC as a negative. That's a big concession on their part to even be saying this.

How do you think MiFID ii will affect the UK after they leave the EU? Remember this is rules and regulations from the EU that third party countries has to follow to access markets of its member states. The same rules that the UK had a role in crafting, which they will not now any longer after March 2019. Surely regulation from the EU will use the ECJ in cases of dispute, will the UK accept this? From my quick reading MiFID II isn't comprehensive access to EU markets for third party countries as some access is not covered in full and you will then have to apply to each countries financial authority for access.

So how do you think this will affect the services industry that the UK proved the EU as you seem very bullish about it.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

So how do you think this will affect the services industry that the UK proved the EU as you seem very bullish about it.

The UK wants it so Solo thinks they will get it.

Like the other ingredients of the impossible cake.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

How do you think MiFID ii will affect the UK after they leave the EU? Remember this is rules and regulations from the EU that third party countries has to follow to access markets of its member states. The same rules that the UK had a role in crafting, which they will not now any longer after March 2019. Surely regulation from the EU will use the ECJ in cases of dispute, will the UK accept this? From my quick reading MiFID II isn't comprehensive access to EU markets for third party countries as some access is not covered in full and you will then have to apply to each countries financial authority for access.

So how do you think this will affect the services industry that the UK proved the EU as you seem very bullish about it.

Good morning!

My point is that in the MiFID II regulation there is scope for permitting a third country to passport into the single market provided there is regulatory equivalence. The UK will be fully equivalent as of January 3rd with MiFID II and will be fully equivalent on Brexit day.

The European Commission could deem somehow that the UK doesn't qualify but if it grants it to another third country with less equivalence the UK could take legal action against the EU.

I've explained this before on this thread. You can read more about the directive online. It is actually progresses transparency in pre-trade and post-trade activity and on request for quotes data amongst other things. A common strategy for dealing with third countries was lacking in the earlier directive.

There are two models in MiFID II for third countries - cross border (no branch - passporting is given if deemed compliant by the European Commission) and the branch model (approved by a member state and conducted through a member state)

Zubeneschamali - I'm pretty much in agreement that the UK will pay some price in Brexit and they won't have exactly the same privileges as today. The point is to retain as much as possible and to pursue a global Brexit. Initial discussions are beginning on Monday with the United States on trading arrangements.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is that in the MiFID II regulation there is scope for permitting a third country to passport into the single market provided there is regulatory equivalence. The UK will be fully equivalent as of January 3rd with MiFID II and will be fully equivalent on Brexit day.

The European Commission could deem somehow that the UK doesn't qualify but if it grants it to another third country with less equivalence the UK could take legal action against the EU.

I've explained this before on this thread. You can read more about the directive online. It is actually progresses transparency in pre-trade and post-trade activity and on request for quotes data amongst other things. A common strategy for dealing with third countries was lacking in the earlier directive.

There are two models in MiFID II for third countries - cross border (no branch - passporting is given if deemed compliant by the European Commission) and the branch model (approved by a member state and conducted through a member state)

Zubeneschamali - I'm pretty much in agreement that the UK will pay some price in Brexit and they won't have exactly the same privileges as today. The point is to retain as much as possible and to pursue a global Brexit. Initial discussions are beginning on Monday with the United States on trading arrangements.

But they are rules and regulation set by the EU for access to their own markets, right? The rules are negotiated and written by the various parts of the EU, of which the UK was a part of. So some of the rules would be in there specifically because the UK wanted it. Why would the EU keep those regulations in there if the UK have left already? Why have regulations that govern the market that one member wanted when the said member is not there any longer?

But this ignores the main point, EU regulation that will have the ECJ behind it, right? I have no doubt that in the first few years there will be no problem as the UK will have the regulations implemented because they are part of the EU now, but what about 5 years time though?

I thought it was about taking back control, but they have no control over this, right? So will they submit themselves to the EU in this regard?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'm confused by what you mean. MiFID II is required in all member states by January 3rd.

I see no issue with the UK complying with EU regulations for trading with goods and services with the EU after Brexit in much the same way as I see no issues with complying with US regulations for trading in goods and services.

The UK won't have control over how the EU governs and regulates trade in goods and services. It will have a say in the terms of the free trade agreement.

None of this is earth shattering. The EU has absolute authority under anything that happens within the EU including business conducted in it. The UK will have ultimate sovereignty for what happens in the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm confused by what you mean. MiFID II is required in all member states by January 3rd.

I see no issue with the UK complying with EU regulations for trading with goods and services with the EU after Brexit in much the same way as I see no issues with complying with US regulations for trading in goods and services.

The UK won't have control over how the EU governs and regulates trade in goods and services. It will have a say in the terms of the free trade agreement.

None of this is earth shattering. The EU has absolute authority under anything that happens within the EU including business conducted in it. The UK will have ultimate sovereignty for what happens in the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK has ultimate sovereignty over what happens in the UK, but to the extent the are committed to regulatory equivalence in order to maintain barrier-free access to the EU they won't really have control, will they? If they exercise their sovereignty in a way which causes the regulatory regimes to diverge, they'll lose access to the EU market.

In other words, if they want to maintain access to the UK market they have a choice between (a) keeping their regulatory regime aligned with EU requirements into which they do have an input, if they remain an EU member, or (b) keeping their regulatory regime aligned with EU requirements into which they don't have an input, as an EU non-member.

Anita Blow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Go read about the Dutch Irish sandwich and post again.

The headline rate of tax is irrelevant, it's the loopholes that matter.

You're dead right. In fact pwc & the world bank compared headline tax rates VS the effective/actual tax rates (after all loopholes have been accounted for).
Ireland's effective tax rate was 12.4% which was remarkably close to our headline rate. In contrast, there's France whose headline rate of 33% was nearly 5x higher than it's effective corporate tax rate (7.4%), or Belgium whose headline rate is 34% but actual rate is 6.5%.
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/paying-taxes/pdf/pwc-paying-taxes-2015-high-resolution.pdf

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

I see no issue with the UK complying with EU regulations for trading with goods and services with the EU after Brexit

Theresa May does - the European Court system.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK has ultimate sovereignty over what happens in the UK, but to the extent the are committed to regulatory equivalence in order to maintain barrier-free access to the EU they won't really have control, will they? If they exercise their sovereignty in a way which causes the regulatory regimes to diverge, they'll lose access to the EU market.

In other words, if they want to maintain access to the UK market they have a choice between (a) keeping their regulatory regime aligned with EU requirements into which they do have an input, if they remain an EU member, or (b) keeping their regulatory regime aligned with EU requirements into which they don't have an input, as an EU non-member.

Good afternoon!

Again - I don't see how it is different to having to maintain US regulations for trade in goods and services that goes to America. Yes, Britain doesn't have a say in what those regulations are but it ensures it complies for trading purposes.

Britain could choose not to conduct trade with America on that basis and lose business or it can comply for goods and services traded with America.

Likewise Britain can choose to do this for trading into the European Single Market. I don't see any issue with this. I also don't see it as a lack of control as Britain can elect to comply for what gets traded into the Single Market.

I'm fairly sure that most wouldn't see this as a lack of control. Or perhaps I'm getting more liberal as the thread goes on but I'm definitely for complying with financial services regulations if it provided passporting from outside the EU.

Edit: also of course the ECJ should have authority to punish violations of British firms in respect to their activity in the EU. This is what happens with American firms like Google today, but the ECJ must not have any sole oversight of what happens domestically within the UK. The vote wasn't about controlling what happens in the EU but what happens in the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

PeadarCo

solodeogloria wrote:

Again - I don't see how it is different to having to maintain US regulations for trade in goods and services that goes to America. Yes, Britain doesn't have a say in what those regulations are but it ensures it complies for trading purposes.

It is very different. To cope with different regulations companies have to employ more people and sometimes different it systems. That increases the cost and complexity of doing business. How much depends on the regulations and requirements for specialist staff. Some businesses will be prepared to take the cost others won't. Those that don't absorb them will leave. Even for those that stay have less money to spend on more productive parts of their businesses.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't see any good reason why a FTA can't be agreed on services.

Apart from the inconvenient obstacle that the EU may not want a FTA on financial services.

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

Apart from the inconvenient obstacle that the EU may not want a FTA on financial services.

Good afternoon!

If EU member states weren't so dependent on the City I might agree with you. The reality is that the EU needs good access to London.

Moreover the EU's own regulations allow for passporting by third countries. There's a very strong reason to believe that the UK will win out on this issue even if it loses out elsewhere.

Even Wolfgang Schaeuble agrees.

Those who think the EU will destroy London's financial services centre don't realise how dominant it actually is. London is one of two European cities in the top 20 financial services centres. The other in Zürich at number 9.

Junkyard Tom, I mentioned your post in passing here. It's worth pointing out though that I'm not under automatic obligation to reply to your posts and if you goad for a response it probably means you're less likely to get one.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Junkyard Tom

solodeogloria wrote: »

If EU member states weren't so dependent on the City I might agree with you. The reality is that the EU needs good access to London.

Good afternoon.

Dr Andreas Dombret of the German central bank might disagree with that:

"The current model of using London as a gateway to Europe is likely to end,"

Also, can I ask why you didn't respond to my points earlier in the discussion?

embraer170

Bank of America chooses Dublin as EU base after Brexit

Bank of America has picked Dublin as the main base for its EU investment banking and markets operations after Brexit, chief executive Brian Moynihan told the Financial Times.

(...)

The increase will come from a combination of new hires and moving staff from the bank’s London office, which employs about 4,500. BofA will also look for new office space in addition to the two “very good” Dublin sites it has now, said Alex Wilmot-Sitwell, the bank’s head of Europe, Middle East and Africa.

https://www.ft.com/content/1fff392a-6e17-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa?mhq5j=e3

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Let's go through these.

On family rights - I agree with the UK government that EU citizens should have equal rights to British citizens. Meaning that if I want to bring a partner from another country I need to acknowledge that will be subject to a marriage visa. The situation that exists today where EU citizens have another right to British citizens isn't acceptable going forward.

Criminal expulsion post-Brexit - I 100% agree with this. This should exist as a condition of freedom of movement for all countries. The UK is right to make this an issue.

Voting rights will be a matter for the British government to legislate for. In the Great Repeal Bill, European Union law (including presumably for the rights of citizens) will be merged into the body of British legislation. Where do you see the desire for the British government to change this?

Further movement rights - I'm particularly not too bothered if a British citizen has to apply for a Schengen Visa after Brexit. I can see why they are pushing hard on it because when they arrived in the EU they had free movement. I think this is a price worth paying for Brexit.

EU elections - This is for a matter for the European Union to resolve. There's no reason why the British government should provide this. The UK will have left the EU. If the European Union wants to provide a postal vote or another provision that is for them to decide.

View - your point about EU treaties is null and void. The UK is leaving the EU, therefore it won't be subject to EU Treaty provisions. It's looking for a third country deal and obviously that will require a new set of paper. On security and intelligence sharing and policing the EU needs the UK and vice versa. I'm sure an arrangement will be made as a third country. I agree with Theresa May when she says the ECJ having oversight is a no, no. Barnier acknowledged yesterday that the end result may be a court of joint arbitration.

The UK have to push hard at this stage. I'm glad they are and I'm glad that the negotiators seem highly skilled and knowledgeable on the issues. Particularly Olly Robbins.

Edit - on passporting I'm surprised nobody has responded to my point about provisions for third countries in MiFID II.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Do you know what , I'm not even going to bother giving a detailed reply to this as you've mis-represented most of the points. By using stock answers that don't directly address the issues. But that's been the typical of Brexit so far.


The Criminal Expulsion thing ?

My reading on that is that when UK citizens rights to be in the EU expire the UK won't accept criminals back.

For me that would be a deal-breaker

To give an idea of what might be involved let's look at the current rules for people trying to get back a UK passport after renouncing UK citizenship - say if they needed to work in EU for a while.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-register-as-british-citizen-form-rs1
The guidance form RS1 explains that your application will be rejected if , shock horror !, you've ignored lots of parking ticket fixed penalty notices (page 8)

A non-custodial offence or other out of court disposal that is recorded on a person’s criminal record
Application will normally be refused if the
conviction occurred in the last 3 years
...
e. A “non-custodial offence or other out of court disposal that is recorded on a person’s
criminal record” (i.e. line 4) includes Fines, Cautions, Warnings and Reprimands,
Community Sentences, Civil Orders, Hospital Orders & Restriction Orders and Potential Court Orders.

Capt'n Midnight

Brexit just got a tiny bit messier.

The Carlingford Ferry started today for now it's an internal EU journey.

It may soon need customs posts, just like the Lough Foyle.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Brexit just got a tiny bit messier.

The Carlingford Ferry started today for now it's an internal EU journey.

It may soon need customs posts, just like the Lough Foyle.

Does that mean we can get duty free booze on it?

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Does that mean we can get duty free booze on it?

No.

It won't go out past the 12 mile limit.

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No.

It won't go out past the 12 mile limit.

Oh shame. Perhaps we might get them to go out that far on a Saturday night.

First Up

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

It won't go out past the 12 mile limit.

It could.....

Capt'n Midnight

embraer170 wrote: »

Bank of America chooses Dublin as EU base after Brexit

This is how one of the other Financials described the lack of direction of Brexit. If the deal comes too late the staff will have been moved and the money will have been spent.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40677329

The plans involve taking on more staff in Goldman's European offices to serve EU customers post-Brexit.
...

"The other way to describe the contingency plan is that we're buying insurance, so I'm spending money every single day to make sure that come March 2019 I'm open for business," said Mr Gnodde.

"If I knew today that we would have a significant transition period I could stop spending that (contingency) money because I know I would have time to transition my business.

"If they [the government] tell me in February 2019 there will be a transition period - well, I've already spent all that money, it's not much use to me.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

Does that mean we can get duty free booze on it?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No.

It won't go out past the 12 mile limit.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Oh shame. Perhaps we might get them to go out that far on a Saturday night.

First Up wrote: »

It could.....

Less of this please.

Professor Moriarty

A harbinger of things to come. Britain sidelined by Airbus decision to move hub of business away from UK. Also blindsided by Franco-German axis's decision to cooperate on the building of a new fighter. I think this quote could be representative of the thinking across business and politics in the EU:

"Everyone is now simply acting on the basis that Brexit has happened, and let's get on with life," said former French security adviser Francois Heisbourg, chairman of think-tank IISS.

Capt'n Midnight

More Aerospace news today.

UK wants continued EU Copernicus participationThe UK will remain in ESA but the EU is paying for 70% of the Copernicus while ESA will pay the remaining 30% of which the UK share is 7.9%
So it's likely the UK will be given less of the contracts in future.


Also this sounds like they are greenwashing future cuts.
Farm subsidies 'must be earned' - Michael Gove

murphaph

I said in this thread that Airbus would likely shift production out of the UK in time. I didn't expect to see movement so soon but the UK has 0% ownership of the company while Germany, France and Spain own a good 30% between them IIRC. Airbus in the UK is finished IMO, deal or no deal.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Do you know what , I'm not even going to bother giving a detailed reply to this as you've mis-represented most of the points. By using stock answers that don't directly address the issues. But that's been the typical of Brexit so far.


The Criminal Expulsion thing ?

My reading on that is that when UK citizens rights to be in the EU expire the UK won't accept criminals back.

For me that would be a deal-breaker

To give an idea of what might be involved let's look at the current rules for people trying to get back a UK passport after renouncing UK citizenship - say if they needed to work in EU for a while.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-register-as-british-citizen-form-rs1
The guidance form RS1 explains that your application will be rejected if , shock horror !, you've ignored lots of parking ticket fixed penalty notices (page 8)

Good evening!

I responded to every one of your points with my assessment of the issues. It's rude to claim you won't respond because I don't share your views. I've clearly explained what I think about each issue. If you think I've misrepresented you - it was unintentional and I think you should explain how if so.

On criminals not bring taken back in. I need to see your case for that. I think deportation of criminals should be reciprocal if implemented but it definitely should be implemented.

As for renouncing citizenship - of course you go back to square one if you do that. A regular citizenship of the UK requires things like unpaid parking fines to be disclosed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Junkyard Tom

murphaph wrote: »

I said in this thread that Airbus would likely shift production out of the UK in time. I didn't expect to see movement so soon but the UK has 0% ownership of the company while Germany, France and Spain own a good 30% between them IIRC. Airbus in the UK is finished IMO, deal or no deal.

I'd imagine untangling Airbus manufacturing from Britain would be just too expensive in the short term. Airbus will quietly withdraw by simply letting current production end. Manufacturing of next generation hardware will be planned for France, Germany and Spain unless Britain gets its act together on Brexit or just abandons it.

murphaph

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I'd imagine untangling Airbus manufacturing from Britain would be just too expensive in the short term. Airbus will quietly withdraw by simply letting current production end. Manufacturing of next generation hardware will be planned for France, Germany and Spain unless Britain gets its act together on Brexit or just abandons it.

Yeah that's exactly what they'll do. New lines will go to Airbus home countries and Airbus in the UK will wither away. Crazy stuff. At what point does the emergency brake get pulled.

sondagefaux

solodeogloria wrote: »

If EU member states weren't so dependent on the City I might agree with you. The reality is that the EU needs good access to London.

It's the other way around - the City of London needs good access to the EU.

Have a look at London's share of trade in financial services before 1993, the year the Single Market came into effect, and after 1993.

London took off like a rocket post-1993 because it was part of the EU's Single Market.

If it's not part of the Single Market, firms located there won't be able to operate within the EU from London alone, as their 'passports' will be withdrawn and the EU can decide not to deem UK rules to be equivalent to EU rules.

If firms that are based in London can't operate in the EU, what will they do?

They'll leave London obviously and relocate in the EU.

They may keep some operations in London to service the UK market (and perhaps non-EU markets) but they'll have to move a substantial part of their operations to the EU.

And they won't just be able to have a token presence in the EU either.

The EU's European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) has issued 'recommendations' (in reality, binding rules) to national authorities across the EU telling them not to permit token presences for firms relocating out of the UK - operations will have to be substantial and will have to include senior management and senior executive teams.

Guess what happens when your senior management and senior executive teams leave London?

London is a big player in financial services because of the EU.

Without participation in the EU's Single Market it will shrink.

sondagefaux

Another element of what was dismissed as fear-mongering becomes reality:

David Cameron has claimed family holidays in Europe could be an average of £230 more expensive if the UK votes to leave the EU.

In a speech to airline staff, the PM said a weaker pound, coupled with increased air fares and mobile phone roaming charges, would push up costs.

The claim comes amid mounting anger from Leave campaigners about the exit warnings produced by the government.
Vote Leave accused the PM of "talking down our country".

And UKIP's Nigel Farage said the PM was trying to "turn the truth on its head"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36367943

British holidaymakers heading to Europe for this weekend’s big getaway are being offered what may be the worst ever foreign exchange rates at British airports – in one case, just 88 euro cents for every pound they hand over.

The 88 euro cents offered at Cardiff airport followed a difficult week for the pound on the foreign exchange markets, where sterling fell to its lowest level for eight months to €1.11.

Travellers flying out of Gatwick, Luton and Birmingham on Friday were all being offered less than a euro for each pound, unless they had pre-booked their currency.

As thousands of parents who had been waiting for the start of the school holidays spent yesterday packing suitcases, the pound completed a terrible week falling to its lowest level for eight months – to €1.11.

It means cycling fans using their credit cards at the denouement of the Tour de France in Paris on Sunday will get an exchange rate of around €1.08 once the credit card firm has added its commission.

But it also allowed the airport foreign currency providers to slash rates – on what was set to the busiest day ever at British airports. The Forexchange at Cardiff airport on Friday cut its walk-up rate to the point that a pound would buy just 88 euro cents. Experts said that was possibly the worst euro exchange rate ever seen at any UK airport – traditionally the most expensive places to buy foreign currency.

We have seen how the pound has been subject to volatility since the Brexit referendum

The Travelex foreign exchange booths at Heathrow, Manchester and Glasgow were offering almost exactly €1 to the pound. The foreign exchange industry has blamed higher staff and property costs at airports for the poor exchange rates.

Ian Strafford-Taylor, chief executive of the online currency firm FairFX, said political and economic uncertainty since the vote for Brexit had weakened the pound, and British holidaymakers are now paying the price.

“Time and time again, we have seen how the pound has been subject to volatility since the Brexit referendum and how some currency providers look to be taking advantage of it. Our analysis of airport rates today shows that consumers are routinely being offered as low as 0.96 euros to the pound, well below parity. It couldn’t come at a worse time just as the nation heads off for the great summer holiday getaway.”

He said the pound’s decline since the referendum means that European hotels, meals out and pedalo hires are set to cost British holidaymakers 7% more than they did this time last year, and 21% more than in the summer of 2015. This is before any local price increases are included.

In the first week of the school summer holidays in 2015, Britons travelling to Europe received more than €1.41 for each pound.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/21/britons-travelling-to-europe-offered-just-88-euro-cents-to-the-pound

listermint

Each and every week this goes and it gets more bleak. It's incredible at this point wanting to exit something you were fundamental in creating, something which is so very vital to your economy activity.

Its pure unadulterated brainless self destruction. The type which typical brits would scoff at their American counterparts for making.


Incredible

sondagefaux

An overview of why we have low-cost airlines across the EU:

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/travel/how-low-fares-took-off-a-revolution-in-the-skies-1.3161374

Another benefit of membership that the UK will lose if it doesn't accept EU rules in this area after Brexit.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.6.7.html

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/international_aviation/external_aviation_policy/neighbourhood_en

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5a22ecc1-8bf5-4252-8b6b-5afbc0ad3969

https://www.ft.com/content/57c0c01c-ef9c-11e6-930f-061b01e23655

solodeogloria

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's the other way around - the City of London needs good access to the EU.

Have a look at London's share of trade in financial services before 1993, the year the Single Market came into effect, and after 1993.

London took off like a rocket post-1993 because it was part of the EU's Single Market.

If it's not part of the Single Market, firms located there won't be able to operate within the EU from London alone, as their 'passports' will be withdrawn and the EU can decide not to deem UK rules to be equivalent to EU rules.

If firms that are based in London can't operate in the EU, what will they do?

They'll leave London obviously and relocate in the EU.

They may keep some operations in London to service the UK market (and perhaps non-EU markets) but they'll have to move a substantial part of their operations to the EU.

And they won't just be able to have a token presence in the EU either.

The EU's European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) has issued 'recommendations' (in reality, binding rules) to national authorities across the EU telling them not to permit token presences for firms relocating out of the UK - operations will have to be substantial and will have to include senior management and senior executive teams.

Guess what happens when your senior management and senior executive teams leave London?

London is a big player in financial services because of the EU.

Without participation in the EU's Single Market it will shrink.

Good morning,

It's both. The EU will be badly hit if it doesn't have access to financial services in London. This is why it's in both sides interests to ensure this continues. There's no point claiming it's just bad for London when that isn't true.

It's worth pointing out that London was a major financial services centre before the EU. You're right to say that it grew with access to trade in the EU however.

A lot of London's growth came from what's called "the big bang" when Margaret Thatcher and her Chancellor Nigel Lawson deregulated the City and it moved on to electronic trading very early in the late 1980's putting it ahead of other cities.

So yes, EU access helped London grow but it was a major centre before the EU and Government deregulation was a huge factor also.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

sondagefaux wrote: »

Another element of what was dismissed as fear-mongering becomes reality:

David Cameron has claimed family holidays in Europe could be an average of £230 more expensive if the UK votes to leave the EU.

In a speech to airline staff, the PM said a weaker pound, coupled with increased air fares and mobile phone roaming charges, would push up costs.

If you remember how expensive Dublin-London was back in the day that could be an understatement.

Also if the UK rolls back recent EU rules the credit card surcharge may come back

and remember Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Speaking of increased costs UK borrowing has gone up and the cost of borrowing has gone up
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40679277

Government borrowing increased last month after the state was forced to pay higher interest on its debt.
...
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) - the fiscal watchdog - has forecast that borrowing will be £58.3bn during the current financial year. In the financial year to March 2017, borrowing was £46.2bn according to the latest estimates from the ONS.

That's £12.1Bn extra , even if it's all Brexit related that's still going to remove any savings

The ONS data showed that total government debt, excluding public sector banks, stood at £1.75 trillion at the end of June, which is equivalent to 87.4% of gross domestic product (GDP).

0.5% of that is £8.75Bn
Which is about what the UK pays to the EU each year.

As the UK's credit rating and currency value has been sinking the cost of borrowing is going to go up.



The money saved by not paying the EU may make our "cheap" bailout of the banks look a good deal.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's both. The EU will be badly hit if it doesn't have access to financial services in London. This is why it's in both sides interests to ensure this continues. There's no point claiming it's just bad for London when that isn't true.

It's worth pointing out that London was a major financial services centre before the EU. You're right to say that it grew with access to trade in the EU however.

A lot of London's growth came from what's called "the big bang" when Margaret Thatcher and her Chancellor Nigel Lawson deregulated the City and it moved on to electronic trading very early in the late 1980's putting it ahead of other cities.

So yes, EU access helped London grow but it was a major centre before the EU and Government deregulation was a huge factor also.

If the status quo continues after Brexit then yes, London will remain very important for the EU. However if business's have to start moving their some of their operations out of the UK and the regulations forces a lot of banks to move some of their work out of the UK to continue offering services within the EU then the importance of London to the EU becomes less. Who loses more in that case? The EU or the UK?

This is how the ball is in the EU's hands, at worst everything stays as is with regards to London being a focal point. A more likely scenario is the focus on London becomes less and it moves to other cities around the EU, e.g. Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt.

sondagefaux

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's both. The EU will be badly hit if it doesn't have access to financial services in London. This is why it's in both sides interests to ensure this continues. There's no point claiming it's just bad for London when that isn't true.

It's not both. Your claim is ridiculous.

The EU will continue to have access to financial services. There's no need for these services to be based in London. After the UK leaves the EU, many providers of financial services will have to relocate to the EU.

It's a simple fact that UK-based providers of EU-regulated financial services will lose EU passporting rights if the UK does not participate in the Single Market after it leaves the EU.

That's not an opinion - it's a fact. You may as well argue that 2+2 = 5 if you think it isn't a fact.

The EU will decide if the UK's post-Brexit regulatory regime for financial services is equivalent enough to the EU's for UK-based financial services firms to be allowed to service the EU market.

If the EU decides that the UK rules are not equivalent, UK-based firms will have to relocate to either the EU itself or a jurisdiction which the EU deems to have regulatory equivalence, such as the USA.

Either way, London loses out.

The importance of EU membership to the UK's financial services sector is set out in this Bank of England report:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2015/euboe211015.pdf

solodeogloria

Good morning!

So Wolfgang Schaeuble, the Bank of England, even Michel Barnier amongst others are wrong to say that a lack of access to debt and equity markets in London would be bad for the EU?

The fact is that three quarters of Europe's financial markets are based on London. That's a fact, and one that will remain true when Brexit comes into force.

You don't understand the scale and the importance of London in global financial services if you claim it won't have a painful impact on the EU not to have access. That's cold hard reality - Britain has a very strong hand in this regard as Europe's investment banker.

The reality is Brexit will be very bad for both if it is carried out badly - therefore we should all be supporting a great deal for both parties.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

So Wolfgang Schaeuble, the Bank of England, even Michel Barnier amongst others are wrong to say that a lack of access to debt and equity markets in London would be bad for the EU?

The fact is that three quarters of Europe's financial markets are based on London. That's a fact, and one that will remain true when Brexit comes into force.

You don't understand the scale and the importance of London in global financial services if you claim it won't have a painful impact on the EU not to have access. That's cold hard reality - Britain has a very strong hand in this regard as Europe's investment banker.

The reality is Brexit will be very bad for both if it is carried out badly - therefore we should all be supporting a great deal for both parties.

But what if a good deal for the EU is a bad deal for the UK or vice versa?