Brexit discussion thread II

3/4 of Europe's financial markets today are based in London.

Do you think that that proportion is likely to stay that high?

You must understand that this is a dynamic situation, banks moving to EU centres is actually in their own interest as it protects them against political ineptitude.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

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

Good morning!

My response to that is it obviously isn't. Bread and butter economics teaches that if another country or countries are suffering economically it has an impact on other countries who depend on trade from these countries.

It isn't in the EU's interest to offer a punitive deal and the area where you will see it most pronounced if it does is in access for EU countries to key financial services.

Favourable trading terms are good for both parties. There's no scenario where a bad deal for the UK is a good deal for the EU. It doesn't exist.

Julia Wailing Pedal: Yes for two reasons. The EU are going to give the UK regulatory equivalence under MiFID II I suspect. To protect their own access.

Even in the wild scenario that they don't - the UK is a global financial services centre. It is as much involved in USD clearing as it is Euro clearing and it is an ideal centre for Asian markets due to its standing, infrastructure and timezone straddling Asia and the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My response to that is it obviously isn't. Bread and butter economics teaches that if another country or countries are suffering economically it has an impact on other countries who depend on trade from these countries.

It isn't in the EU's interest to offer a punitive deal and the area where you will see it most pronounced if it does is in access for EU countries to key financial services.

Favourable trading terms are good for both parties. There's no scenario where a bad deal for the UK is a good deal for the EU. It doesn't exist.

Julia Wailing Pedal: Yes for two reasons. The EU are going to give the UK regulatory equivalence under MiFID II I suspect. To protect their own access.

Even in the wild scenario that they don't - the UK is a global financial services centre. It is as much involved in USD clearing as it is Euro clearing and it is an ideal centre for Asian markets due to its standing, infrastructure and timezone straddling Asia and the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It is very much in the EU's interest to ensure that leaving the EU is punitive for the UK. They have stated very clearly that the deal the UK will get must be demonstrably worse than the existing deal they have. They must make an example of the UK.

This silly wishful thinking that we are all good friends and jolly good company is simply pitiful hypocrisy. Having spent decades mocking and undermining the EU, the Tories, having begun to finally see some realities despite persisting Little Englander delusions, are now they are trying to cosy up while the press continues its xenophobia. It won't work. Already, the UK has bent the knee to many EU demands whereas the EU has acquiesced on precisely zero of the UK's demands.

The UK will be told what deal they will get. That's because it's just business, there is no goodwill towards the UK and because it is in the EU's interest to ensure the best possible exit conditions that maximise EU needs while minimising a future competitor's opportunities. The UK has far more to lose than the EU and the EU doesn't want (maybe didn't want) the UK to leave which means that the EU doesn't care if there is no deal. It would be an inconvenience. The more the UK ignores those realities the more the EU's position is strengthened. So keep on thinking that the EU wants the UK to have a good deal. Keep on thinking that Blighty will give Johnny Foreigner six of the best. The longer the UK deludes itself and the clock ticks, the stronger the EU's position becomes.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My response to that is it obviously isn't. Bread and butter economics teaches that if another country or countries are suffering economically it has an impact on other countries who depend on trade from these countries.

It isn't in the EU's interest to offer a punitive deal and the area where you will see it most pronounced if it does is in access for EU countries to key financial services.

Favourable trading terms are good for both parties. There's no scenario where a bad deal for the UK is a good deal for the EU. It doesn't exist.

Julia Wailing Pedal: Yes for two reasons. The EU are going to give the UK regulatory equivalence under MiFID II I suspect. To protect their own access.

Even in the wild scenario that they don't - the UK is a global financial services centre. It is as much involved in USD clearing as it is Euro clearing and it is an ideal centre for Asian markets due to its standing, infrastructure and timezone straddling Asia and the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It is very much in the EU's interest to ensure that leaving the EU is punitive for the UK. They have stated very clearly that the deal the UK will get must be demonstrably worse than the existing deal they have. They must make an example of the UK.

This silly wishful thinking that we are all good friends and jolly good company is simply pitiful hypocrisy. Having spent decades mocking and undermining the EU, the Tories, having begun to finally see some realities despite persisting Little Englander delusions, are now they are trying to cosy up while the press continues its xenophobia. It won't work. Already, the UK has bent the knee to many EU demands whereas the EU has acquiesced on precisely zero of the UK's demands.

The UK will be told what deal they will get. That's because it's just business, there is no goodwill towards the UK and because it is in the EU's interest to ensure the best possible exit conditions that maximise EU needs while minimising a future competitor's opportunities. The UK has far more to lose than the EU and the EU doesn't want (maybe didn't want) the UK to leave which means that the EU doesn't really care if there is no deal. It would be an inconvenience. The more the UK ignores those realities the more the EU's position is strengthened. So keep on thinking that the EU wants the UK to have a good deal. Keep on thinking that Blighty will give Johnny Foreigner six of the best. The longer the UK deludes itself and the clock ticks, the stronger the EU's position becomes.

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

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.

It's so strong that every single bank in London is moving staff into various European cities from London to work with European customers instead.. Let's be blunt here; we can have a "hard Brexit" and every bank will still scramble to deal with European business and bonds from a European country instead because the market is way to big to ignore.

Hence the result for Europe will be pretty much nil, for UK however we're already looking at thousands of very well paid works leaving London along with all related tax revenues and all other business that benefited from having them there. The banks are now international; London happened to be convenient but don't kid yourself that it's somehow magical esp. with harsher immigration policies. All centers come and go and money is more than ever international so sorry to burst your bubble on that one.

solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is very much in the EU's interest to ensure that leaving the EU is punitive for the UK. They have stated very clearly that the deal the UK will get must be demonstrably worse than the existing deal they have. They must make an example of the UK.

This silly wishful thinking that we are all good friends and jolly good company is simply pitiful hypocrisy. Having spent decades mocking and undermining the EU, the Tories, having begun to finally see some realities despite persisting Little Englander delusions, are now they are trying to cosy up while the press continues its xenophobia. It won't work. Already, the UK has bent the knee to many EU demands whereas the EU has acquiesced on precisely zero of the UK's demands.

The UK will be told what deal they will get. That's because it's just business, there is no goodwill towards the UK and because it is in the EU's interest to ensure the best possible exit conditions that maximise EU needs while minimising a future competitor's opportunities. The UK has far more to lose than the EU and the EU doesn't want (maybe didn't want) the UK to leave which means that the EU doesn't really care if there is no deal. It would be an inconvenience. The more the UK ignores those realities the more the EU's position is strengthened. So keep on thinking that the EU wants the UK to have a good deal. Keep on thinking that Blighty will give Johnny Foreigner six of the best. The longer the UK deludes itself and the clock ticks, the stronger the EU's position becomes.

Good morning!

It's worth pointing out that it only might be in the EU's interests, politicially. It definitely is not in the EU's interests economically.

In pretty much every election I vote in - I vote for the party who I think has a better grasp of economics and therefore a better grasp of what to do with my taxes, and who will use them most effectively for good to ensure prosperity into the future. It's the overriding consideration. It would take a lot of political will to change that.

A good deal with a generous free trade deal for the UK is good both politically and economically for it from what I can see. A good Brexit will sate the desires of the Brexiteers, provide certainty and reassurance for business, and allow the UK to pursue global economic opportunities.

But, and this is the clincher, that depends on a good deal with the European Union. I'm confident that that is possible, and I'm confident that people will start thinking economically when the rubber hits the road. The Cabinet this week are interestingly starting to think economically in respect to the transitional details coming in whereby they will permit continued freedom of movement for 4 years after Brexit to ensure continued trade with the EU. This is sensible, and it's a sign that people are starting to think economically rather than politically.

That is very welcome. The same will happen in Brussels in due course, I'm very sure of it. Political posturing is meaningless, it's the bread and butter practical issues that people care about really.

Edit: Nody - only to set up small subsidiaries in the event of Brexit going pear shaped. There has been no major movement yet. When you claim the impact on Europe will be nil. You're very wrong. A bad Brexit will be very costly for the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

embraer170

We see 110 aircraft leaving the UK aviation register (EasyJet). That is lots new work (and fees) for the Austrian aviation authorities, and a loss for the UK CAA. Of course, the line in the UK is still "no impact on UK jobs"... fantasy.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

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

Amsterdam was once the preeminent financial city in the world. Things can change, especially with modern communications. London will not explode but it will rather slowly wither as banks pick EU hubs for new investment. It'll be a drip drip effect. The single market is what makes London what it is today. The other trading centers are all electronic now too more or less!

sondagefaux

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My response to that is it obviously isn't. Bread and butter economics teaches that if another country or countries are suffering economically it has an impact on other countries who depend on trade from these countries.

It isn't in the EU's interest to offer a punitive deal and the area where you will see it most pronounced if it does is in access for EU countries to key financial services.

Favourable trading terms are good for both parties. There's no scenario where a bad deal for the UK is a good deal for the EU. It doesn't exist.

Julia Wailing Pedal: Yes for two reasons. The EU are going to give the UK regulatory equivalence under MiFID II I suspect. To protect their own access.

Even in the wild scenario that they don't - the UK is a global financial services centre. It is as much involved in USD clearing as it is Euro clearing and it is an ideal centre for Asian markets due to its standing, infrastructure and timezone straddling Asia and the US.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You're still not getting the point - the UK is a global financial centre because of its membership of the EU.

Once it leaves the EU, it will gradually cease to be so.

And what's with this 'punitive' nonsense?

The UK chose to leave the EU.

If there are negative effects from that, it's because of a choice the UK made, not as a result of punishment from the EU.

If I'm a member of a gym and I choose to leave the gym, is the gym behaving in a 'punitive' way towards me when it tells me I can no longer use the gym's facilities?

In the absence of continuation of the UK's participation in the Single Market, the UK will become what the EU calls a 'third country', a term it uses for countries that are not in the EU or which do not participate in the Single Market as part of the EEA arrangements.

The best the UK can hope for as a 'third country' is set of bilateral arrangements comparable to the arrangements that Switzerland has with the EU, which include freedom of movement for EU citizens who want to work in Switzerland.

If the UK is not prepared to accept this at a minimum, then it will not have advantageous trading arrangements with the EU and it either trades with the EU on WTO-only terms (which would be a disaster for the UK's economy) or via a bilateral EU-UK trade agreement.

Even if it can agree a bilateral EU-UK trade agreement, let's say similar to the bilateral EU-Canada trade agreement (known as CETA), the terms of trade will be far worse than the terms it currently enjoys as a member of the EU, and it would also have to negotiate many additional arrangements which go far beyond CETA (for example, the European Common Civil Aviation Agreement, a Customs Union Agreement similar to or better than the EU-Turkey Customs Union Agreement) to secure a future for key sectors of its economy.

Do you really think the EU is going to give the UK a trading deal that replicates
the benefits it enjoys as an EU member without the UK accepting the responsibilities of EU membership?

There is no guarantee that the EU will even want to negotiate a trade agreement with the UK after it leaves, especially if no agreement is reached on the withdrawal arrangements.

In addition, the UK would no longer be party to the trade agreements that the EU has negotiated with dozens of other non-EU countries (71 non-EU countries covered by these agreements to date, 72 when CETA comes into provisional force in September).

After Brexit, the UK will have to revert to WTO-only trading with 72 non-EU states plus 27 EU states, a total of 99 other states.

By the time the UK leaves the EU, a Japan-EU trade agreement is likely to be in force, bringing the total to 100 other states that the UK will no longer have preferential trading arrangements with.

How long do you think it will take for the UK to negotiate trade deals with 100 other states?

Months? Years? Decades?

Over those decades, the EU is going to continue to negotiate free trade deals with non-EU states and is likely to have free trade agreements with almost every state on the planet by then, with the exception of North Korea, Bhutan and other states that have chosen not to be part of the global economy.

As it stands now, the UK has not 'taken back control' of its future, and it will be at the mercy of the EU when it comes to future trading arrangements with the EU.

I note your posts are quite long on generalities and very short on specifics.

For example, I haven't seen you respond at all to my posts on the EU's controls on food products from countries outside the Single Market. These controls apply even to countries the EU has trade deals with, including Canada.

Therefore, the UK's export of food products to the EU will be severely hampered unless it remains in the Single Market, even if it gets a trade deal with the EU.

Have you got anything to say about this?

Nor have you responded to my posts on the EU's civil air transport arrangements.

Do you think that withdrawing from these arrangements will help the UK's air transport sector?

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's worth pointing out that it only might be in the EU's interests, politicially. It definitely is not in the EU's interests economically.

In pretty much every election I vote in - I vote for the party who I think has a better grasp of economics and therefore a better grasp of what to do with my taxes, and who will use them most effectively for good to ensure prosperity into the future. It's the overriding consideration. It would take a lot of political will to change that.

A good deal with a generous free trade deal for the UK is good both politically and economically for it from what I can see. A good Brexit will sate the desires of the Brexiteers, provide certainty and reassurance for business, and allow the UK to pursue global economic opportunities.

But, and this is the clincher, that depends on a good deal with the European Union. I'm confident that that is possible, and I'm confident that people will start thinking economically when the rubber hits the road. The Cabinet this week are interestingly starting to think economically in respect to the transitional details coming in whereby they will permit continued freedom of movement for 4 years after Brexit to ensure continued trade with the EU. This is sensible, and it's a sign that people are starting to think economically rather than politically.

That is very welcome. The same will happen in Brussels in due course, I'm very sure of it. Political posturing is meaningless, it's the bread and butter practical issues that people care about really.

Edit: Nody - only to set up small subsidiaries in the event of Brexit going pear shaped. There has been no major movement yet. When you claim the impact on Europe will be nil. You're very wrong. A bad Brexit will be very costly for the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

None so blind. Like I said, that self-deluding mantra simply plays into the EU's hands. The jobs are leaving now. That suits me and it doesn't suit you. But keep the faith.

sondagefaux

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's worth pointing out that it only might be in the EU's interests, politicially. It definitely is not in the EU's interests economically.

In pretty much every election I vote in - I vote for the party who I think has a better grasp of economics and therefore a better grasp of what to do with my taxes, and who will use them most effectively for good to ensure prosperity into the future. It's the overriding consideration. It would take a lot of political will to change that.

A good deal with a generous free trade deal for the UK is good both politically and economically for it from what I can see. A good Brexit will sate the desires of the Brexiteers, provide certainty and reassurance for business, and allow the UK to pursue global economic opportunities.

But, and this is the clincher, that depends on a good deal with the European Union. I'm confident that that is possible, and I'm confident that people will start thinking economically when the rubber hits the road. The Cabinet this week are interestingly starting to think economically in respect to the transitional details coming in whereby they will permit continued freedom of movement for 4 years after Brexit to ensure continued trade with the EU. This is sensible, and it's a sign that people are starting to think economically rather than politically.

That is very welcome. The same will happen in Brussels in due course, I'm very sure of it. Political posturing is meaningless, it's the bread and butter practical issues that people care about really.

Edit: Nody - only to set up small subsidiaries in the event of Brexit going pear shaped. There has been no major movement yet. When you claim the impact on Europe will be nil. You're very wrong. A bad Brexit will be very costly for the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If people put economics before politics, there would never have been a war in human history, and the UK would never have left the EU.

Furthermore, ensuring that the integrity of the EU27 remains intact after the UK leaves is not putting politics before economics - it's putting economics first and politics second.

Like many Brexiteers, you seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that there are 27 other countries who are looking out for their own economic interests and they see their interests best served by being part of the EU.

Anything which could potentially undermine the EU's Single Market, such as giving the UK a trade deal with the EU which the UK thinks is good, is not going to be accepted.


That's not out of any desire to punish the UK, it's out of a desire to secure the economic interests of the EU27.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

I don't agree that London is only a financial centre because of the EU. I pointed out that London was a financial centre before the EU and I also pointed out "the big bang" under Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson.

I accept that access to EU markets was a factor but it isn't the only reason, that would be revisionist history.

I agree that 27 countries are looking after their economic interests. That's why when the rubber hits the road quite a number will be looking for good arrangements with the UK.

On the UK front - I accept that there were good economic reasons to vote remain. It's the only reason why I really did in the end. However, there are lots of opportunities with Brexit too. If Britain is going to leave the EU, it should do so whilst grabbing these new opportunities with both hands.

Financial services will be the lynchpin.

Professor Moriarty - I'm hardly blind for presenting facts about London's place in a global financial world and the EU's need to have continued access to it. A small proportion of jobs are moving to small subsidiaries I accept this, but let's not overblow it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Do you earnestly believe that without EU membership London would be what it is today?

Earnestly?

embraer170

solodeogloria wrote: »

A small proportion of jobs are moving to small subsidiaries I accept this, but let's not overblow it.

BoA will have their EU base to Dublin. In the long run, this will not be a "small subsidiary".

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you earnestly believe that without EU membership London would be what it is today?

Earnestly?

Good afternoon!

Can I suggest that you read what I wrote?

EU participation has been a factor in London's growth as a financial centre.

It is not however the only reason as some people suggest. That would be revisionist history and it would ignore the impact of Thatcher and Lawson's reforms on City regulation in the 80's.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

sondagefaux

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Can I suggest that you read what I wrote?

EU participation has been a factor in London's growth as a financial centre.

It is not however the only reason as some people suggest. That would be revisionist history and it would ignore the impact of Thatcher and Lawson's reforms on City regulation in the 80's.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The Single European Act came into force in 1986, the same year as the 'Big Bang' reforms...

sondagefaux

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Can I suggest that you read what I wrote?

EU participation has been a factor in London's growth as a financial centre.

It is not however the only reason as some people suggest. That would be revisionist history and it would ignore the impact of Thatcher and Lawson's reforms on City regulation in the 80's.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Here are some questions for you. If you choose not to respond, your rather marginal credibility reduces to zero.

By the time the UK leaves the EU, a Japan-EU trade agreement is likely to be in force, bringing the total to 100 other states that the UK will no longer have preferential trading arrangements with.

How long do you think it will take for the UK to negotiate trade deals with 100 other states?

Months? Years? Decades?

Over those decades, the EU is going to continue to negotiate free trade deals with non-EU states and is likely to have free trade agreements with almost every state on the planet by then, with the exception of North Korea, Bhutan and other states that have chosen not to be part of the global economy.

As it stands now, the UK has not 'taken back control' of its future, and it will be at the mercy of the EU when it comes to future trading arrangements with the EU.

I note your posts are quite long on generalities and very short on specifics.

For example, I haven't seen you respond at all to my posts on the EU's controls on food products from countries outside the Single Market. These controls apply even to countries the EU has trade deals with, including Canada.

Therefore, the UK's export of food products to the EU will be severely hampered unless it remains in the Single Market, even if it gets a trade deal with the EU.

Have you got anything to say about this?

Nor have you responded to my posts on the EU's civil air transport arrangements.

Do you think that withdrawing from these arrangements will help the UK's air transport sector?

Good afternoon.

solodeogloria

sondagefaux wrote: »

Here are some questions for you. If you choose not to respond, your rather marginal credibility reduces to zero.

Good afternoon!

Yeah - I won't just because you wrote this.

I'm entitled to hold a different view to you and I only tend to discuss with people who hold me with the same respect by which I hold them.

All the best,
solodeogloria

sondagefaux

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Yeah - I won't just because you wrote this.

I'm entitled to hold a different view to you and I only tend to discuss with people who hold me with the same respect by which I hold them.

All the best,
solodeogloria

I didn't think you'd answer the questions.

Rather than pointlessly engaging with you, I'll simply ignore you from now on.

Quite frankly, if you choose to participate in a thread, you should answer points put to you.

If not, then what's the point in participating?

Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

And playing the 'you were rude to me so I won't answer' card is childish and a transparent ploy to avoid responding to points that you find difficult.

Now, back on topic:

The latest financial institution making plans to relocate jobs away from the UK is Morgan Stanley, which has announced that Frankfurt will become its post-Brexit EU hub, a move that could shift an initial 200 jobs to Germany.

Morgan Stanley joins Standard Chartered and Nomura, both of which also picked Frankfurt as a new EU base, and JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, which are moving jobs out of London to various other centres. Morgan Stanley’s asset management arm is to relocate to Dublin, as several European cities woo jittery banks that will not hang around to see what final deal is hammered out between the UK and Europe before they start looking elsewhere. A competition to host the UK’s bankers post-Brexit would have as its slogan: “Better in than out.”

The key for banks is regulation. The moment it was announced that the UK would leave the single market, the die was cast. Even if Brexit goes smoothly from a regulatory standpoint, which is wishful thinking, certain financial institutions that cater to Europe would need to move onshore, since conducting business would be more expensive otherwise. In some cases, it is mandatory from a compliance perspective that transactions are onshore. The beginning of a flight to Europe is not necessarily a hedge against uncertainty. In many instances, there is no choice.

Not long ago the threat of bankers leaving London en masse – often deployed by financial institutions such as HSBC – was considered an idle one. Leave London, with its favourable regulation and amenable political class, its convenient red-eye flights to New York and thriving cultural scene? Sure, the option was there if the climate ever became too hostile, but few really expected it to do so.

Not long ago the threat of bankers leaving London en masse – often deployed by financial institutions such as HSBC – was considered an idle one. Leave London, with its favourable regulation and amenable political class, its convenient red-eye flights to New York and thriving cultural scene? Sure, the option was there if the climate ever became too hostile, but few really expected it to do so.

During the 2009 furore over the government’s plans to levy a supertax on bankers’ bonuses, I recall colleagues in the private investment firm where I worked scoffing at their own industry’s threats to relocate from the UK due to the punitive legislation. “Where are they going to go?” a co-worker observed. “Geneva?”

Colleagues in the private investment firm where I worked scoffed at their industry’s threats to relocate from the UK
Everyone smugly tittered. The joke was that Geneva was boring, and not even keeping more of your pay would make you move there. This was the conventional wisdom in the City of London: apart from London’s strategic location and convenient regulatory infrastructure, there were intangible benefits that meant that only the most philistine would consider moving for financial gain – not to mention the massive headache and cost of moving. The bottom line, as far as banking institutions are concerned, is not only financial.

These attitudes were turned on their head by Brexit. But like all Brexit-related fiascos, it is not being confronted. The responses have taken the now familiar route from denial (it won’t happen), via minimisation (if it does happen, it won’t be that bad), to steeliness in the face of self-harm (it will happen and it will be painful, but it will be worth it).

Moreover, because bankers as a breed have been vilified by both the right and the left, it is even less likely that anyone would argue their case in the court of public opinion. A simplistic stereotype has been swallowed whole by the majority of the electorate. A bunch of fat-cat non-dom taxpayer-bailed bankers – probably foreign to boot – leaving town is not the hill anyone wants to die on. Good riddance. But not all people who work in a bank are “bankers”. In fact, at a place like Morgan Stanley, where I worked, bankers are not even the majority: lawyers, brokers, accountants, receptionists, personal assistants and cleaners are.

Financial services employs 7.3% of the UK workforce and, the year before the Brexit vote, contributed a record £71.4bn in taxes, almost 12% of total government tax yield. This puts the Tories in a most awkward position. The party that is supposed to represent clear-sighted financial acumen must now put Brexit ideology before financial sense as far as popular messaging is concerned – while also desperately trying to implore bankers not to leave.


Theresa May’s government has until now focused on criticising corporate elites and signalled that banks will not be a priority in the Brexit talks. But at Davos earlier this year, May said: “I value financial services in the City of London, and I want to ensure that we can keep financial services in the City of London. I believe that we will do just that.”

It is too late for that sort of talk now. It is highly unlikely that the drain can be limited only to EU-serving financial services. As talent and infrastructure move and become embedded elsewhere, so a sense that the centre is shifting develops. A practical adjustment will be followed by a psychological one. The question isn’t if Brexit is going to damage the UK’s financial services industry. It is how bad will that damage be.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/21/brexit-banking-exodus-theresa-may-morgan-stanley

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I don't agree that London is only a financial centre because of the EU. I pointed out that London was a financial centre before the EU and I also pointed out "the big bang" under Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson.

I accept that access to EU markets was a factor but it isn't the only reason, that would be revisionist history.

I agree that 27 countries are looking after their economic interests. That's why when the rubber hits the road quite a number will be looking for good arrangements with the UK.

On the UK front - I accept that there were good economic reasons to vote remain. It's the only reason why I really did in the end. However, there are lots of opportunities with Brexit too. If Britain is going to leave the EU, it should do so whilst grabbing these new opportunities with both hands.

Financial services will be the lynchpin.

Professor Moriarty - I'm hardly blind for presenting facts about London's place in a global financial world and the EU's need to have continued access to it. A small proportion of jobs are moving to small subsidiaries I accept this, but let's not overblow it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

This steady leakage of jobs is before the talks have begun to address the serious issues. In reality, do you think the the rate of loss of jobs will accelerate or decelerate as the EU lays out its stringent terms or as the UK sleep walks towards Brexit?

sondagefaux

This was last November. I wonder how much worse it will get after the UK has actually left the EU.

The cost of Brexit to UK households has been put at $1.5 trillion (£1.2 trillion), according to a new report.

Household wealth in the UK slumped by 10 per cent, in the 12 months through June 2016, as a “direct result” of the Brexit vote, Swiss bank Credit Suisse revealed in its latest Global Wealth report on Tuesday.

This means wealth per adult has already dropped by $33,000 to $289,000 since the end of June.

This represents one of the biggest drops in wealth among major economies, with households in Turkey and Colombia faring better than those in the UK. Only households in Mexico, Egypt Russia, Ukraine and Argentina suffered from bigger losses than those in the UK.

The report, which is issued annually by Credit Suisse, said that the decline in wealth had a negative effect on the total number of millionaires in the UK. The country had lost 15 per cent, or about 400,000 people, of its millionaires during the period.

The dramatic plunge in wealth was driven by a fall in the value of the pound, which has lost about 18 per cent following UK’s decision to leave the EU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-uk-finances-pound-value-stocks-2016-credit-suisse-a7431366.html

An Ciarraioch

British holidaymakers only offered 88 cents for their pound at airport exchanges, although surely everyone just sticks to their ATM card and high street banks these days?

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

ancapailldorcha

sondagefaux wrote: »

Here are some questions for you. If you choose not to respond, your rather marginal credibility reduces to zero.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Rather than pointlessly engaging with you, I'll simply ignore you from now on.

Quite frankly, if you choose to participate in a thread, you should answer points put to you.

Now, back on topic:

Cut out the sniping and backseat modding. If you want to ignore someone then do it, the posturing is neither necessary nor welcome here.

Junkyard Tom

I wrote this over a month ago.

Today Gove met DUP MP Paul Girvan in South Antrim:

https://twitter.com/PaulGirvanMP/status/888781935887167488

Very concerning.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I don't agree that London is only a financial centre because of the EU. I pointed out that London was a financial centre before the EU and I also pointed out "the big bang" under Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson.

I accept that access to EU markets was a factor but it isn't the only reason, that would be revisionist history.

I agree that 27 countries are looking after their economic interests. That's why when the rubber hits the road quite a number will be looking for good arrangements with the UK.

On the UK front - I accept that there were good economic reasons to vote remain. It's the only reason why I really did in the end. However, there are lots of opportunities with Brexit too. If Britain is going to leave the EU, it should do so whilst grabbing these new opportunities with both hands.

Financial services will be the lynchpin.

Professor Moriarty - I'm hardly blind for presenting facts about London's place in a global financial world and the EU's need to have continued access to it. A small proportion of jobs are moving to small subsidiaries I accept this, but let's not overblow it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Tip of the iceberg. I read a comment from a poor gentleman working in fintech in London. Small company, still a a start up really, with 88 employees told during last week that the entire company is moving to Dublin. He reckons venture capital is moving out of London as it's seen as too risky to put seed capital into a company that may not be able to trade from there in 2 years, so the money is heading elsewhere.

I suspect both Dublin and Berlin will benefit from this. As a developer in Berlin where there are already plenty of dev jobs this obviously pleases me.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Tip of the iceberg. I read a comment from a poor gentleman working in fintech in London. Small company, still a a start up really, with 88 employees told during last week that the entire company is moving to Dublin. He reckons venture capital is moving out of London as it's seen as too risky to put seed capital into a company that may not be able to trade from there in 2 years, so the money is heading elsewhere.

I suspect both Dublin and Berlin will benefit from this. As a developer in Berlin where there are already plenty of dev jobs this obviously pleases me.

Good evening!

I'm not particularly surprised at this happening at a small scale.

As a software developer myself in London - I'm not seeing a massive slowdown in available positions, or of people contacting me on Linkedin. This is particularly true in the banking sector.

There's a big difference between saying that some small firms are moving, and others are setting up subsidiaries in the EU to saying that the end is nigh though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm not particularly surprised at this happening at a small scale.

As a software developer myself in London - I'm not seeing a massive slowdown in available positions, or of people contacting me on Linkedin. This is particularly true in the banking sector.

There's a big difference between saying that some small firms are moving, and others are setting up subsidiaries in the EU to saying that the end is nigh though.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I was quite surprised tbh. I expect a big bank to make contingency plans but for a start up to up sticks and relocate, well that sends an altogether different message to me: ie, London is no place for start ups.

I admire your optimism, but I don't share it. I think medium to long term London is in big trouble.

The knock on effects for Ireland could be very significant, both positively and negatively and a mixture of the two. If we can pick up enough of London's crumbs we can offset the damage done to our agri-food sector, so I have no qualms about us aggressively targeting UK firms to relocate.

We didn't ask for this but now it's here we have to make the best of a bad situation.

I think Brexit has the capacity to have very profound effects on Ireland, including increasing our population to pre-famine levels as Brits relocate, especially the middle class who would wish for their children to be able to move freely within the EU (5 years in Ireland and a relocated family of Brits can get citizenship and reclaim free movement). Such people would be most welcome in Ireland.

Our infrastructure needs investment to facilitate mass relocations but that's a nice problem to have. We have space: Ireland is the size of England with one tenth the population!

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't in the EU's interest to offer a punitive deal and the area where you will see it most pronounced if it does is in access for EU countries to key financial services.

Financials are already offshoring to the EU as a plan-B

The UK snoopers charter and new EU data protection laws mean that a lot of EU data processing business currently done in the UK will have to be offshored too.

Favourable trading terms are good for both parties. There's no scenario where a bad deal for the UK is a good deal for the EU. It doesn't exist.

From the EU point of view Brexit is bad news. Neither side will benefit. The best that can achieved is some damage-limitation.



The UK wants a transition period. If given would also give plenty of time for the EU to make other financial arrangements. The UK doesn't win this.


BTW when the UK exits won't Deutsche Boerse be back on track to merger buy the London Stock Exchange again because the EU monopoly rule won't apply.

it is an ideal centre for Asian markets due to its standing, infrastructure and timezone straddling Asia and the US.

as are all the major exchanges in the EU.

The UK's reputation may take a hit if they break the rules to allow the Saudi's to list.

Capt'n Midnight

sondagefaux wrote: »

If people put economics before politics, there would never have been a war in human history,

Most wars are about economics.

Removing the economic barriers to Iron and Coal to prevent justification of a war is what led to the EU.


India went to war with Pakistan because they reckoned it was cheaper than housing 10 million refugees from East Pakistan. And that led to Bangladesh gaining independence.

Japan attacked the US because the US refused to sell more scrap steel to them. There were hawks on both sides but the trigger was the economic embargo that meant that Japan would either have to cave in or go to war. At least with Brexit the UK still has the option to eat humble pie and step back from the abyss.


Actually there's a question
If sterling has dropped so much and the UK economy is falling back doesn't that mean they'd have to pay less into the UK for a good few years ?
That and actually exercising the existing EU laws allowing them to deport EU citizens would address some of the issues that led to Brexit.

( They'll still have to obey a lot of EU laws , if they want to trade goods or services there )

Sand

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I don't agree that London is only a financial centre because of the EU. I pointed out that London was a financial centre before the EU and I also pointed out "the big bang" under Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson.

I accept that access to EU markets was a factor but it isn't the only reason, that would be revisionist history.

I agree that 27 countries are looking after their economic interests. That's why when the rubber hits the road quite a number will be looking for good arrangements with the UK.

On the UK front - I accept that there were good economic reasons to vote remain. It's the only reason why I really did in the end. However, there are lots of opportunities with Brexit too. If Britain is going to leave the EU, it should do so whilst grabbing these new opportunities with both hands.

Financial services will be the lynchpin.

Professor Moriarty - I'm hardly blind for presenting facts about London's place in a global financial world and the EU's need to have continued access to it. A small proportion of jobs are moving to small subsidiaries I accept this, but let's not overblow it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You seem to cling to the hope that good terms for the EU implies good terms for the UK. It doesn't.

I'd point out that London does not have a natural monopoly on financial business in the same was that Saudi Arabia does on oil. Rome used to be the greatest city in the known world. Its not anymore. The EU does not need access to the City of London. The City of London needs access to the EU and will move to get it. The City of London arose because it was the centre of a global empire. When that empire fell, it secured free access to one of the biggest and richest trading blocs and economic unions, largely on its own terms. Underpinning this was a system of government that was seen as stable and predictable, a safe place to invest. The UK has cut itself off from that trading bloc, and has revealed itself to be a hugely unstable and unpredictable place to invest. The conditions which enabled the City of London's rise as a leading financial centre have been deliberately destroyed by the UK itself.

I don't expect the City of London to disappear suddenly, but a trend is being established where investors must determine if they should invest in a market of 60 million, or 500 million. Should they invest in a stable and trusted system of government throughout the EU, or a regime driven by the cranks and swivel eyed loons of the British political class and Daily Mail. The trend is they are choosing the EU over the UK. I fully understand why you are in denial of this and why you grasp desperately to imagined 'opportunities'. I sympathise. But this is something you have done to yourself. You cant harm yourself so stupidly and then hope others will save you from yourself.

sondagefaux

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If sterling has dropped so much and the UK economy is falling back doesn't that mean they'd have to pay less into the UK for a good few years ?
That and actually exercising the existing EU laws allowing them to deport EU citizens would address some of the issues that led to Brexit.

I think GDP would have to shrink before their net annual contributions to the EU would fall.

And yes, there's ample evidence that a majority of British would happily stay in the Single Market, with freedom of movement for EU/EEA citizens if they were restricted and subject to deportation weren't able to support themselves several months after arriving in the UK.

EU law (and UK law) already permits this - the UK has regulations, in line with EU law, in place since 2006 which permit EEA citizens who can't support themselves to be expelled:

Initial right of residence
13.—(1) An EEA national is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom for a period not exceeding three months beginning on the date on which he is admitted to the United Kingdom provided that he holds a valid national identity card or passport issued by an EEA State.
(2) A family member of an EEA national residing in the United Kingdom under paragraph (1) who is not himself an EEA national is entitled to reside in the United Kingdom provided that he
holds a valid passport.
(3) But—
(a) this regulation is subject to regulation 19(3)(b); and
(b) an EEA national or his family member who becomes an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom shall cease to have the right to reside under this regulation.

The UK regulation, again in line with EU law, permits the UK to refuse admission to EU citizens for stated reasons:

REFUSAL OF ADMISSION AND REMOVAL ETC
Exclusion and removal from the United Kingdom
19.—(1) A person is not entitled to be admitted to the United Kingdom by virtue of regulation 11 if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health in accordance with regulation 21.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1003/pdfs/uksi_20061003_en.pdf

It's a bit of a myth that EU freedom of movement laws are a free for all - EU states can refuse admission to EEA citizens in the first place on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health, and they can expel EEA citizens (and their families) after three months if they become an unreasonable burden on the social security (welfare) system of their host country.

Even tougher restrictions were to be introduced under the deal David Cameron negotiated in February 2016 but only if the vote had been to Remain in the EU.

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-limiting-residence-rights/

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-emergency-brake/

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Professor Moriarty - I'm hardly blind for presenting facts about London's place in a global financial world and the EU's need to have continued access to it. A small proportion of jobs are moving to small subsidiaries I accept this, but let's not overblow it.

Without full access to the EU, London looses it's advantage over NY and Singapore. If I'm going to have to work with a subsidiary inside the EU in any case I may as well using the one owned by my NY or Singapore bank rather than add an extra hop that does not add value by going via the UK. Likewise if I'm seeking services out of the EU, London overs me nothing I can't get in NY or Singapore.

NY offer me a gateway to the Americas, Singapore Asia and London will offer a gateway to ????? Decline is enviable in the long run.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

It's worth saying that claiming that the EU doesn't need access to the City doesn't mean that it doesn't.

You need to substantiate your claim as I have done by citing numerous people including Schäuble and even Barnier themselves saying they will need access to it. Never mind Carney at the Bank of England showing how crucial London is to EU member states.

You claim that I'm imagining things for assessing the facts. The UK has a very good negotiating position with the EU, there's no point watering that down. Yes, the UK needs a good deal with the EU but it is manifest that the EU needs a good deal with the UK.

There's no point claiming otherwise. There's also no point claiming that there aren't opportunities from Brexit when there are.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Solo, do you think the banks won't find ways to ensure the EU continues to access their money? It's money belonging to private banks we're talking about. It doesn't belong to the City of London! The money will find a way to where it's wanted, believe me.

The EU can continue to use London but then introduce legislation which forces more and more of that business to the EU. And why shouldn't we when we are competing?

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

You need to substantiate your claim as I have done by citing numerous people including Schle and even Barnier themselves saying they will need access to it. Never mind Carney at the Bank of England showing how crucial London is to EU member states.

I'm looking at it as a customer. If London is no longer the gateway to the EU, then I have no reason to keep them in the mix as they provide no advantage over NY or Singapore, that is unless they compete on a cost basis. And when it comes time to issue corporate bonds, what can London offer me that NY or Singapore... no special access to EU investors!

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Solo, do you think the banks won't find ways to ensure the EU continues to access their money? It's money belonging to private banks we're talking about. It doesn't belong to the City of London! The money will find a way to where it's wanted, believe me.

The EU can continue to use London but then introduce legislation which forces more and more of that business to the EU. And why shouldn't we when we are competing?

Good morning!

My point is the EU will make a way for clients to access the services they need in London.

I mean, do you not realise that you're talking about the EU taking a knife to itself and making rather heavy wounds to itself for the sake of politics?

New York and Singapore are options, but are we suggesting that the EU would give favourable terms to the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong for nothing in return just to punish Britain (sorry, that is what it is) for the sake of politics.

I doubt it. But, if you want to cheer on while the EU gives itself a bloody nose, by all means do so.

Britain's priority is a good deal that benefits both. If the EU wants to beat itself up over politics, it can do so. I doubt it will ultimately.

The EU won't be able to force business into the EU. If anything they'll reward all of the non-EU cities on the top 20 instead of any of their own.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My point is the EU will make a way for clients to access the services they need in London.

I mean, do you not realise that you're talking about the EU taking a knife to itself and making rather heavy wounds to itself for the sake of politics?

New York and Singapore are options, but are we suggesting that the EU would give favourable terms to the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong for nothing in return just to punish Britain (sorry, that is what it is) for the sake of politics.

I doubt it. But, if you want to cheer on while the EU gives itself a bloody nose, by all means do so.

Britain's priority is a good deal that benefits both. If the EU wants to beat itself up over politics, it can do so. I doubt it will ultimately.

The EU won't be able to force business into the EU. If anything they'll reward all of the non-EU cities on the top 20 instead of any of their own.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

They can force an awful lot of business into the EU if they want (and they do...they were already trying to force business into the Eurozone from London and the only thing that stopped them was the UK's membership of the EU!

Sorry solo, you're not being realistic. Long term London is going to leak business to European centres and indeed New York.

By the way, Britain's priority is a good deal for itself. That's the whole point of Brexit! They don't give a tinker's curse for the EU.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is the EU will make a way for clients to access the services they need in London.

I mean, do you not realise that you're talking about the EU taking a knife to itself and making rather heavy wounds to itself for the sake of politics?

New York and Singapore are options, but are we suggesting that the EU would give favourable terms to the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong for nothing in return just to punish Britain (sorry, that is what it is) for the sake of politics.

I doubt it. But, if you want to cheer on while the EU gives itself a bloody nose, by all means do so.

Britain's priority is a good deal that benefits both. If the EU wants to beat itself up over politics, it can do so. I doubt it will ultimately.

The EU won't be able to force business into the EU. If anything you'll reward all of the non-EU cities on the top 20!

First off, Britain's priority will be a good deal for the UK. If it means the EU burns they will not think twice about it. They have already shown this by voting to leave the EU. You yourself has said it makes economic sense to stay in the EU, but it seems even this isn't enough for some.

Secondly, you are looking at the situation as if it will be static after the UK exits the EU. I agree with you that the EU still need London in the short term, but it is exactly this that will cause problems for the UK and London. Why should the EU be so beholden to a city that is not part of the EU?

Would you agree it makes no sense for the EU to have itself to reliant on a city outside of the EU? Do you think that this reliance will stay like that forever or will the EU repatriate some of the reliance to cities inside the EU that will benefit their own countries?

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

They can force an awful lot of business into the EU if they want (and they do...they were already trying to force business into the Eurozone from London and the only thing that stopped them was the UK's membership of the EU!

Sorry solo, you're not being realistic. Long term London is going to leak business to European centres and indeed New York.

By the way, Britain's priority is a good deal for itself. That's the whole point of Brexit! They don't give a tinker's curse for the EU.

Good morning!

I'm not being unrealistic. The Financial Times is highly sceptical of Euro clearing moving after Brexit and sees it as largely French posturing.

Moving one piece of infrastructure to a place without other forms of infrastructure won't help you get banking business. The reason why London is key is because it is the only city in Europe with clearing for yen, dollar, euro, yuan, zloty etc clearing amongst other things.

It will take a long time to build up a global trading centre in Europe. The only other city in Europe on the list is Zürich at number 9.

I think the more the discussion goes on, it's amazing to see how so many posters are willing for the EU to take a knife to itself, rather than look for a progressive relationship with the UK.

If that's your ideological bent, it's your ideological bent, I can't stop a masochist when I see one!

Edit:

First off, Britain's priority will be a good deal for the UK. If it means the EU burns they will not think twice about it. They have already shown this by voting to leave the EU. You yourself has said it makes economic sense to stay in the EU, but it seems even this isn't enough for some.

No it hasn't. Saying you want to leave the EU to pursue a more appropriate relationship is not the same as saying that they want the EU to burn. It's in Britain's interest to have a strong European Union on it's doorstep, and it's in Britain's interest to make sure that it's trading partners grow.

This kind of hyperbole is not helpful and it isn't an accurate depiction of what Brexit is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is the EU will make a way for clients to access the services they need in London.

This is what we are all saying.

But we've been saying that some of those services are already moving from London. Obviously all services won't move. But what will replace those that do ?

If the mountain won't come to Muhammad, Muhammad must go to the mountain

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

No it hasn't. Saying you want to leave the EU to pursue a more appropriate relationship is not the same as saying that they want the EU to burn. It's in Britain's interest to have a strong European Union on it's doorstep, and it's in Britain's interest to make sure that it's trading partners grow.

This kind of hyperbole is not helpful and it isn't an accurate depiction of what Brexit is.

Look what I posted. You said it is in both the EU and UK interest for a fair deal. I disagree and think if the UK is given the opportunity to have a deal at the detriment of the EU it will take it. At the same time if the EU gets a deal that is good for its members and has the UK worse off I would be apoplectic if they don't take it. This is not because I want to see the UK suffer, but I want the EU to prosper as it will most likely mean Ireland will prosper as well.

I am not saying the UK is out to hurt the EU, which you are reading.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

Look what I posted. You said it is in both the EU and UK interest for a fair deal. I disagree and think if the UK is given the opportunity to have a deal at the detriment of the EU it will take it. At the same time if the EU gets a deal that is good for its members and has the UK worse off I would be apoplectic if they don't take it. This is not because I want to see the UK suffer, but I want the EU to prosper as it will most likely mean Ireland will prosper as well.

I am not saying the UK is out to hurt the EU, which you are reading.

Good morning,

Such a deal doesn't exist. Surely you should be acutely aware of that from an Irish perspective.

A punitive deal for the UK will not be good for the EU and vice versa. There's no point pretending otherwise.

Perhaps we're referring to two concepts. Politically good, versus economically good. It might be politically good for a season, but it would be certainly economically harmful.

That's why I suggest that we should be supporting a good deal for both parties rather than cheerleading for the EU to self-harm.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

I am not saying the UK is out to hurt the EU, which you are reading.

Brexit is non a zero sum game.

It's one in which both sides will loose.

And because of that the UK for it's own selfish reasons is on a path that will hurt the EU. So yes the UK is out the hurt the EU.


As I've said from the EU point of view the negotiations are damage limitation. If the UK gets too good a deal it might risk the integrity of the EU. Conversely if the UK economy tanks completely it might end up costing the EU. So there are some hard limits to the deal.




As the UK will no longer be a member and is rebelling against the core principles of the EU, the EU has no more obligation to be nice than the UK has displayed so far in the negotiations.

Look at this from an EU point of view.
What would the EU version of "having your cake and eating it look like"

embraer170

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm not being unrealistic. The Financial Times is highly sceptical of Euro clearing moving after Brexit and sees it as largely French posturing.

That FT article you linked to is more than a year old (29 June 2016). Things have evolved quite a little bit since that time with the EC publishing a proposal that would require Euro denominated clearing to take place inside the EU. Even the Telegraph has recently reported on the real threat to Euro clearing in London:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/23/ecb-bids-control-euro-clearing-threat-city/

This is more recent FT article on the issue:
https://www.ft.com/content/8888e560-57e5-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f

embraer170

solodeogloria wrote: »

A punitive deal for the UK will not be good for the EU and vice versa. There's no point pretending otherwise.

It is true that a punitive deal for the UK may not be good for the EU. At the same time, a good or very good deal for the UK is not going to be good for the EU. The UK will become a third country so I am not exactly sure why people think the EU needs to be charitable or consider anything but the combined best interests of its Member States.

ancapailldorcha

Interesting snippet from this week's issue of The Economist. It seems that while most people are happy to accept the referendum result, they also prefer a softer Brexit with single market access.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Perhaps we're referring to two concepts. Politically good, versus economically good. It might be politically good for a season, but it would be certainly economically harmful

Like Brexit?

Water John

Very clear graph, Anca.
Liam Fox getting upset with BBC for not putting out positive Brexit stories.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/bbc-is-ignoring-positive-brexit-stories-says-liam-fox-799098.html

Simple problem,Liam, there aren't any.

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Look at this from an EU point of view.
What would the EU version of "having your cake and eating it look like"

I am not sure as I have never thought about it. I have been hoping that the damage will not be too bad, but aware that there will be damage. I think the EU negotiators have been talking this way as well, its going to be bad because its a crazy decision, but we will make the best of it. Some attitudes from the UK seem to be, it will be fine and we will be GREAT Britain again because the EU has screwed us for years.

Nody

Can anyone explain why EU would agree to an extended grace period period or transition periods on rules (i.e. UK remaining for X years in a hybrid version)? I see it flaunted in articles by various UK sources how many months of cross over rules etc. should be in place but from an EU perspective why bother? Brexit means Brexit and simply let UK go and do their own thing; why would they allow a 2 to 4 year carry over period? What's the benefit for EU that I'm missing beyond "EU needs UK so will bend over for them" argument?