Brexit discussion thread II

wes

Leroy42 wrote: »

That why I am in the camp that Ireland should be using this own goal by the UK to drive for a massive takeover of industries etc that have traditionally been the UK's. This is a very rare event, a chance to actually change the dynamic. Yes it requires that we take advantage of the UK, but does anybody really believe that wouldn't be the case if the roles were reversed?

There should be no question about this at all, or any kind of suggestion that it would be wrong to do so. We should go full steam ahead and take advantage of the situation, because as it stand we will be hurt economically, and the UK has show it doesn't care at all. The UK barely cares about the North as it is.

If Ireland can take advantage of the situation, we should do so. No need for any guilt, as we are simply acting in our best interest, and the UK refuses to listen to any reason.

Also, as I stated before Varadkar needs to use his veto. The UK decided to ignore the North and Good Friday agreement. As far as I am concerned the Brexiters happily stabbed us in the back for there crass fantasy Brexit, and its only way to get the to take the situation seriously and engage with reality.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ideally, yes but the fact is that Dublin's infrastructure is medieval when compared with that of London. Instead of shrewdly investing in it during the boom years, the government opted for lavishing a luxurious lifestyle on its civil servants and the public sector.

Here's a piece from the Irish Independent on the subject:

https://www.independent.ie/business/jp-morgan-warns-of-infrastructural-constraints-as-ireland-seeks-brexit-spoils-35713324.html

Nothing to stop us trying to correct that now. Brexit will happen over a number of years, whatever deal they come to, and we should be looking at new ways of doing business.

I have mentioned it before, but investing in the likes of Rosslare to enable is to bypass the UK in terms of freight to Europe. Looking to greater trade with Europe to overcome the lost trade with the UK.

I don't have all the answers (I don't even know the questions!) but I get the feeling that many are just looking to preserve what is in place rather than seeing this as a once off opportunity. If grasped right, this could really change how we go forward as a country.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It's 11 AM!?

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nothing to stop us trying to correct that now. Brexit will happen over a number of years, whatever deal they come to, and we should be looking at new ways of doing business.

Except for time. Businesses will want certainty as soon as possible. Projects will likely take years even to agree upon before the first brick is laid. Moves takes years so any company thinking of moving needs to act now.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's 11 AM!?

It's 11 am in Greenwich, not necessarily where some folks are posting from, though.

Jaggo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It also seems like Barnier is being bit of a jerk again. The more nonsense comments like this are made from the European Commission, the more I want to see the UK leave the EU.

This time implying that Brexit means that the UK hasn't been pulling its weight with ISIS despite being one of the foremost countries involved in the effort to defeat them and being one of the key countries involved in defence and counterterrorism efforts across Europe.

European defence is about much more than the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Honestly solo, how on earth did you read that into this:
From the Guardian article) "Speaking at a security conference in Berlin, the European commission’s chief negotiator in the Brexit talks spoke about the shock across the rest of the EU at the referendum result last year"
“To many of us this came as a great shock. It was a decision taken against the backdrop of a strategic repositioning by our American ally, which has gathered pace since the election of Donald Trump.

“It was a decision that came after a series of attacks on European soil, committed by young people who grew up in Europe, in our countries.

“It was a decision that came six months after the French minister of defence issued a call for solidarity to all his European counterparts to join forces to fight the terrorism of Daesh.

“Never had the need to be together, to protect ourselves together, to act together been so strong, so manifest. Yet rather than stay shoulder to shoulder with the union, the British chose to be on their own again,” he said.

Ends

Your interpretation of that is absolutely rubbish.

Downing St. put the spin on that, and you swallowed.

Water John

Must be in Hawaii, today.
Diff to keep up with these time zones and changes. The EU should insist all its countries operate the one time zone.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's 11 am in Greenwich, not necessarily where some folks are posting from, though.

A humble mistake. T9 predictive text is a terrible feature
If you doubt where I live a mod can check the IP.

Jaggo wrote: »

Honestly solo, how on earth did you read that into this:
From the Guardian article) "Speaking at a security conference in Berlin, the European commission’s chief negotiator in the Brexit talks spoke about the shock across the rest of the EU at the referendum result last year"
“To many of us this came as a great shock. It was a decision taken against the backdrop of a strategic repositioning by our American ally, which has gathered pace since the election of Donald Trump.

“It was a decision that came after a series of attacks on European soil, committed by young people who grew up in Europe, in our countries.

“It was a decision that came six months after the French minister of defence issued a call for solidarity to all his European counterparts to join forces to fight the terrorism of Daesh.

“Never had the need to be together, to protect ourselves together, to act together been so strong, so manifest. Yet rather than stay shoulder to shoulder with the union, the British chose to be on their own again,” he said.

Ends

Your interpretation of that is absolutely rubbish.

Downing St. put the spin on that, and you swallowed.

No spin at all. The implication is that the UK is abandoning European countries in counter-terrorism collaboration. That's not true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

One thing the whole Brexit does show, or at least should, is that by being in the EU Ireland is far stronger than had we never entered it.

The talk from some of the media in the UK (today in the Telegraph they have an article titled "Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands") points to the sort of relationship we would have had we just been two countries.

That why I am in the camp that Ireland should be using this own goal by the UK to drive for a massive takeover of industries etc that have traditionally been the UK's. This is a very rare event, a chance to actually change the dynamic. Yes it requires that we take advantage of the UK, but does anybody really believe that wouldn't be the case if the roles were reversed?

Absolutely. Any and all concerns we might have had would have been simply ignored entirely from the UK side if we did not have allies.

I would not call it taking advantage. It is a negotiation, everyone should be arguing for what they want out of the negotiations. This is what we would do, the veto is part of our case in these negotiations. The UK will try and get the best deal it can within political restrictions, just some seem to get annoyed if anyone else does the same.

The telegraph is a rag alright. That headline is pretty shocking alright and does show the utter contempt a section of the UK holds for this country.

leche solara

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest I think Ireland's suffered more from British immigration than vice versa. Hence the problems with the North.

Think the word there is plantation not immigration

Harika

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!


No spin at all. The implication is that the UK is abandoning European countries in counter-terrorism collaboration. That's not true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That's your interpretation on it, depending on what you want to read you can find the whole speech here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-5021_en.htm

Barnier made it clear, that as Britain is leaving the EU it complicates the cooperation as outlines later:

And this Defence and Security Union will have to be developed without the British, since on 30 March 2019 the United Kingdom will, as is its wish, become a third country when it comes to defence and security issues.
We must draw the appropriate legal and operational conclusions from this:
The UK defence minister will no longer take part in meetings of EU Defence Ministers; there will be no UK ambassador sitting on the Political and Security Committee.
The UK can no longer be a framework nation: it will not be able to take command of EU–led operations or lead EU battlegroups.
The UK will no longer be a member of the European Defence Agency or Europol.
The UK will not be able to benefit from the European Defence Fund the same way Member States will.
The UK will no longer be involved in decision-making, nor in planning our defence and security instruments.

And he is right, that outside of the EU, UK won't be able to work as efficiently on security as it can do it from the inside.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

The implication is that the UK is abandoning European countries in counter-terrorism collaboration. That's not true.

He didn't say that, though, you read that into his remarks.

He said that the union wanted to pull together in the face of attacks and instead the UK voted to leave.

Which is true.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no Brexit that is beneficial for the UK. There is damaging, more damaging or catastrophically damaging.

Oh, I agree.

Brexiters, though, we must acknowledge, do not agree. They think that at least the upper end of the range of possible outcomes for the UK lies in positive territory, not negative. And it is they, not we, who control the UK's positions and attitudes in the Brexit discussions.

My point is that most of them will acknowledge that getting a Brexit outcome at the more favourable end of the spectrum does depend crucially on getting a good trade deal with the EU. It's not just that the UK's EU trade is half of its total trade, and the half that will necessarily be most badly impacted by leaving the Single Market/Customs Union. It's also that the UK's credibility as a negotiator with the other 160-odd countries with whom it does the other half of its trade, and its bargaining position in negotiations with those countries, will be fatally damaged if the UK is seen to be unable to conclude a trade agreement even with the EU.

In short, if the UK leaves the EU without an EU trade deal, that would mark the point at which even Brexiters would agree, for the most part, that the wheels had come off the whole Brexit project. It would be time to dust off the "blood, sweat, toil and tears" speeches, and to talk about how regaining sovereignty and national self-respect was worth any merely economic price, however high, however painful.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He didn't say that, though, you read that into his remarks.

He said that the union wanted to pull together in the face of attacks and instead the UK voted to leave.

Which is true.

Correct; Barnier is looking at the big picture. The UK is just looking (and taking aim) at its feet.

kowtow

Peregrinus wrote: »

...talk about how regaining sovereignty and national self-respect was worth any merely economic price, however high, however painful.

That really is the fundamental difference in the outlook between these two countries.

When it comes down to it a large part of the UK - and this has been the case for many years, has been uncomfortable with the degree to which independent, democratic, sovereignty has been passed away from London.

I hear the argument that some of that concern is a whipped up frenzy.

I hear the argument that the price Britain would pay to regain that sovereignty would not be as large as it may turn out to be in a hard brexit

But I can't help looking at the picture objectively and reaching the conclusion that by and large the British place a higher value on their independence and sovereignty - certainly than we do in Ireland - and arguably more than other nations in Europe.

I've always thought that the EU would ultimately be a generational question - I find a political or federal EU uncomfortable for a host of reasons, but I've always accepted that a younger generation might genuinely feel themselves EU citizens first, and national citizens second, and in due course set about fixing the finance mechanisms and making the place more democratic. Watching the debate here I wonder whether to some extent it is a small vs large nation thing as well - and we already know it's a regional and occupational thing within each nation.

And for those countries that do come to rely on a higher power in Brussels for political management - out of choice - it is interesting to reflect on the impact that might have on the quality of and engagement in domestic politics. One of the most enlightening, shocking conversations I can remember in my lifetime was at dinner with a Spanish fund manager, right in the worst days post Lehman - when we were hunting around banks from Canada to London to take overnight sterling and dollar deposits, there was a real panic on - and he said to me "This is why the Spanish people want Merkel in charge! they want someone competent in charge of the economy".

We really do live, for our sins, in fascinating times. I hope we don't all get so caught up in taking sides not to stand back and ponder the seismic shifts which are taking place.

murphaph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In the background, the EP is taking a gloomy perspective on current negotiations despite the recent positivity in the media. In a letter to Barnier yesterday, Verhofstadt had this to say regarding Citizens' Rights:

Finally, we can only again reiterate our position that in order to guarantee the coherence and integrity of the EU legal order, the CJEU must remain the sole and competent authority for interpreting and enforcing European Union law and not least the citizens’ rights provisions of the withdrawal agreement. It is with great concern that we note that negotiations in this respect are stalled, and even some progress reversed.

On Ireland, there seems to be a red line, especially on regulations:

Concerning Ireland, the BSG believes that the UK must make a clear commitment, to be enshrined in a form which would guarantee its full implementation in the withdrawal agreement, that it would protect the operation of the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, ensure, by means of continued regulatory alignment between the North and the South, there is no hardening of the border on the island of Ireland and that there is no diminishing of the rights of people in Northern Ireland.

If these positions are the EP's bottom line then they are Barnier's bottom line.

Kind of ironic that the UK press regularly criticises the EP as a "toothless" organisation.

Zubeneschamali

kowtow wrote: »

and he said to me "This is why the Spanish people want Merkel in charge! they want someone competent in charge of the economy".

I think the number of British people who might say that has probably gone up since the referendum, but I agree that it is still surprisingly small.

Give it 5 years, and perhaps lessons will have been learned.

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ideally, yes but the fact is that Dublin's infrastructure is medieval when compared with that of London. Instead of shrewdly investing in it during the boom years, the government opted for lavishing a luxurious lifestyle on its civil servants and the public sector.

Here's a piece from the Irish Independent on the subject:

https://www.independent.ie/business/jp-morgan-warns-of-infrastructural-constraints-as-ireland-seeks-brexit-spoils-35713324.html

All true if course. Nevertheless Leroy is spot on that we should be absolutely ruthless in trying to attract quality jobs from the UK to our shores. The UK has a depth to their economy that we still haven't achieved and this could give us a nice boost in this regard.

Plenty of innovative SMEs and these don't need the shockingly still missing infrastructure in Dublin.

An Ciarraioch

kowtow wrote: »

That really is the fundamental difference in the outlook between these two countries.

When it comes down to it a large part of the UK - and this has been the case for many years, has been uncomfortable with the degree to which independent, democratic, sovereignty has been passed away from London.

I hear the argument that some of that concern is a whipped up frenzy.

I hear the argument that the price Britain would pay to regain that sovereignty would not be as large as it may turn out to be in a hard brexit

But I can't help looking at the picture objectively and reaching the conclusion that by and large the British place a higher value on their independence and sovereignty - certainly than we do in Ireland - and arguably more than other nations in Europe.

I've always thought that the EU would ultimately be a generational question - I find a political or federal EU uncomfortable for a host of reasons, but I've always accepted that a younger generation might genuinely feel themselves EU citizens first, and national citizens second, and in due course set about fixing the finance mechanisms and making the place more democratic. Watching the debate here I wonder whether to some extent it is a small vs large nation thing as well - and we already know it's a regional and occupational thing within each nation.

And for those countries that do come to rely on a higher power in Brussels for political management - out of choice - it is interesting to reflect on the impact that might have on the quality of and engagement in domestic politics. One of the most enlightening, shocking conversations I can remember in my lifetime was at dinner with a Spanish fund manager, right in the worst days post Lehman - when we were hunting around banks from Canada to London to take overnight sterling and dollar deposits, there was a real panic on - and he said to me "This is why the Spanish people want Merkel in charge! they want someone competent in charge of the economy".

We really do live, for our sins, in fascinating times. I hope we don't all get so caught up in taking sides not to stand back and ponder the seismic shifts which are taking place.

The real issue, however, is that much of the regional disparity within the UK derives directly from the political and economic policies devised and implemented by Thatcher, and largely maintained by successive governments. By "rolling back the State", and thus removing crucial social services, prosperity generated in London and the SE of England has been inequitably distributed across the rest of UK, with the results clearly visible in the Midlands and North of England. The EEC and later the EU was adopted as a convenient bogeyman for voters, but Corbyn's success in June suggests the argument is finally wearing thin.

Beechwoodspark

The telegraph is a rag alright. That headline is pretty shocking alright and does show the utter contempt a section of the UK holds for this country.[/quote]

Yep. I think even solo would grudgingly concede that point.

There is and perhaps always will be a certain section of British society who wants to denigrate and kick "paddy" at every opportunity, encouraged on by their jingoistic gutter press.

Leroy42

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The real issue, however, is that much of the regional disparity within the UK derives directly from the political and economic policies devised and implemented by Thatcher, and largely maintained by successive governments. By "rolling back the State", and thus removing crucial social services, prosperity generated in London and the SE of England has been inequitably distributed across the rest of UK, with the results clearly visible in the Midlands and North of England. The EEC and later the EU was adopted as a convenient bogeyman for voters, but Corbyn's success in June suggests the argument is finally wearing thin.

Exactly. Whilst the EU has overall regulatory control, each member state still maintains vast powers on how to implement it.

The Euro being the biggest example. An Autocratic, undemocratic EU would have never allowed one or more of its members to opt out, but that is what happened. The will of the UK was followed.

Lack of investment in the north of England is completely down to the government, it has very little to do with EU. Reducing disability payments, increasing use of food banks, Grenfeld Tower. These all sit directly with the UK.

Yet the Tories particularly (but Labour as well) have managed to divert everyone's attention away from their mistakes to blaming the EU for all the ills. The likes of Farrage then jumped on the bandwagon to increase this feeling that somehow the EU was out to get the UK. Yet the very same people argued that the EU needed the UK more than the other way around.

There is certainly a lot wrong with EU, and I have sympathy for many of those that wanted to vote UK out. I feel that EU has failed in securing employment, particularly for the youth. I think the EU needs to be more open and transparent and it needs to increase the engagement of the individual voters. But the best way to change that is from within.

kowtow

murphaph wrote: »

Plenty of innovative SMEs and these don't need the shockingly still missing infrastructure in Dublin.

What takes my breath away in this country, and I say this coming from what would normally be thought of as very high cost countries, is the operating cost at the SME level.

minimum wages / compliance costs / transport / electricity / property all seem to conspire against both the employer and the employed.

flaneur

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The telegraph is a rag alright. That headline is pretty shocking alright and does show the utter contempt a section of the UK holds for this country.

Yep. I think even solo would grudgingly concede that point.

There is and perhaps always will be a certain section of British society who wants to denigrate and kick "paddy" at every opportunity, encouraged on by their jingoistic gutter press.

I note they're running a story insulting Leo Varadkar as if he's some kind of silly little inexperienced person who needs Theresa to take him under her wing or something.

"Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands"

Red lines are of course completely reasonable for the Brexiteers, but anyone else having red lines is obviously completely unreasonable.

I knew this would end up turning nasty and into anti-Irish stories and rhetoric the minute the border reality clashed with the Brexiteers' agenda. Implyimg than Ireland's the party being immature is just beyond ridiculous..

kowtow

flaneur wrote: »

"Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands"

I think we are apt to take that as condescension simply because we are expecting to be talked down to. Varadkar is young and inexperienced, by definition. In negotiation it always helps to give something in order to get the other side off a perceived ledge.

And the same papers regularly call May boring, robotic, obsessive, controlling, inhuman....

Haven't seen the Telegraph today, was it a columnist or the Leader?

There is definitely a softening of the Irish position, it was quite clear from the panel last night on TV3, and so there should be. They have played a very good hand and they should be gracious in victory.

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I've got no issue calling a spade a spade. Claiming Brexit means Britain isn't committed to supporting European defence is insensitive and ignorant nonsense.

Britain has committed military support to Eastern European countries against Russia, committed itself firmly to defeating IS on the ground and in sharing information with other countries.

But you're not calling a spade a spade; you're trying to tell us that this-here-fork is really a spade. What the UK has done is committed military support to fellow NATO members. That they happen to be eastern-european is coincidence in response to Russian adventures.

Much whatever, rhubarb, rhubarb etc.

kowtow

Andreas Dombret from the Bundesbank is doing the rounds making the case for allowing Euro denominated swaps to clear in London post Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/bundesbank-says-brexit-deal-could-keep-swaps-clearing-in-london

This is a practical example of what I was referring to a couple of pages back in the context of the City of London. Clearing houses for derivatives are a new post crisis departure, not yet fully bedded in. There are plenty of reasons why parties to swap transactions will not want trades cleared under the umbrella of political regulation at the core of the eurozone - and if currency exposure can't be hedged comfortably via the derivatives market there is a disincentive for funds to take on € exposure. Given the phenomenal quantity of corporate and sovereign EZ paper currently parked under the auspices of the ECB the last thing anybody wants is to discourage Global investors from exposure to Euro denominated instruments by limiting their hedging options.

The whole 'city of london to be destroyed by Brexit' thing is a lot more complicated than some make it out to be.

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

Andreas Dombret from the Bundesbank is doing the rounds making the case for allowing Euro denominated swaps to clear in London post Brexit

The whole 'city of london to be destroyed by Brexit' thing is a lot more complicated than some make it out to be.

Except if you read the actual article which states:

It would also have to include “far-reaching powers of information and intervention for EU supervisors vis-a-vis” central counterparties in the U.K., he said.

To the extent that this is assured, I am convinced that this could obviate the need for a large-scale relocation of clearing business, at least from an economic standpoint,” Dombret said. “The reverse naturally also applies.”

Also known as EU controlling stuff in the UK which is a red blanket for the Brexiteers who refuse any oversight by EU on anything such basic stuff as controlling radio active materials are not sold to the wrong type of people (which will prevent UK from buying radioactive isotopes for medical treatment post Brexit because they don't want to be part of ANY EU organization).

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

I think we are apt to take that as condescension simply because we are expecting to be talked down to. Varadkar is young and inexperienced, by definition. In negotiation it always helps to give something in order to get the other side off a perceived ledge.

And the same papers regularly call May boring, robotic, obsessive, controlling, inhuman....

Haven't seen the Telegraph today, was it a columnist or the Leader?

There is definitely a softening of the Irish position, it was quite clear from the panel last night on TV3, and so there should be. They have played a very good hand and they should be gracious in victory.

You might have some case except for the fact that they are touting May as the one to teach him. In all reasonableness, not even her own party think she is a capable leader.

ambro25

kowtow wrote: »

Andreas Dombret from the Bundesbank is doing the rounds making the case for allowing Euro denominated swaps to clear in London post Brexit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/bundesbank-says-brexit-deal-could-keep-swaps-clearing-in-london

This is a practical example of what I was referring to a couple of pages back in the context of the City of London. Clearing houses for derivatives are a new post crisis departure, not yet fully bedded in. There are plenty of reasons why parties to swap transactions will not want trades cleared under the umbrella of political regulation at the core of the eurozone - and if currency exposure can't be hedged comfortably via the derivatives market there is a disincentive for funds to take on € exposure. Given the phenomenal quantity of corporate and sovereign EZ paper currently parked under the auspices of the ECB the last thing anybody wants is to discourage Global investors from exposure to Euro denominated instruments by limiting their hedging options.

The whole 'city of london to be destroyed by Brexit' thing is a lot more complicated than some make it out to be.

I don't read Dombret's quotes as anything other than just more aspirational proclamations.

Well-meaning and -intended ones, to be sure.

But aspirational just the same.

They remind me of the aspirational proclamations of so many others to date, still wholly unmaterialised as subject-matter for negotiations (never mind undergoing negotiation), even if only in principle.

Until phases 1 to 3 (withdrawal + framework) are done and dusted, pragmatically and objectively, it's just noise.

kowtow

Nody wrote: »

Except if you read the actual article which states:
Also known as EU controlling stuff which is a red blanket for the Brexiteers who refuse any oversight by EU on anything.

With respect, you may have read the article, but perhaps you don't grasp what his words actually mean.

Such a deal would be built on “intensive cooperation” between European Union and U.K. supervisors, Dombret said in Frankfurt on Wednesday. It would also have to include “far-reaching powers of information and intervention for EU supervisors vis-a-vis” central counterparties in the U.K., he said.

Mutual co-operation between financial services authorities has never posed any problem to the UK, it is part and parcel of financial regulation and has been for a long time.

What I suspect you are referring to is the bit in bold - but counterparty clearing operations have always had to licence in multiple jurisdictions - they are operated by private companies and it is is a matter for the private companies and their shareholders. It doesn't trespass on UK law, and poses no problem whatsoever to 'Brexiteers' or anyone else - if a London bank wants to trade on the CME it gets a seat and provides the necessary capital guarantees, always has, always will, same goes for licensing anywhere.

Instead of the knee-jerk dismissal of quite an interesting statement from the bundesbank, why don't you stop and consider for a moment why he is choosing to say this? Are you really so closed minded that you must look everywhere and anywhere for words which support your view that Brexit is the worst of all evils and that London is doomed? Do you really think that the world is that black and white?

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

I've already touched on lots of reasons on this thread as to why the City will continue to function after Brexit.

Back to back trading is still possible according to what legal and political assurances that UBS received from regulators.

European markets need access to the City - which is why people like Wolfgang Schäuble were saying access to the City was essential for accessing debt and equity markets and why people like Mark Carney in the Bank of England were warning that lacking these services would be very bad for the EU27.

Even if passporting isn't granted there are other options such as equivalence under MiFID II.

The alleged apocalypse of banking in the City is one of the less probable prophesies of doom that we've been offered.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

kowtow wrote: »

When it comes down to it a large part of the UK - and this has been the case for many years, has been uncomfortable with the degree to which independent, democratic, sovereignty has been passed away from London.

The British public have displayed a startling amount of ignorance regarding the EU. People seem to genuinely believe that we live in the Fourth Reich where the amount paid for that privilege is overstated. Obviously, not every Leave voter or anything but this research from last year by Ipsos Mori makes for sobering reading:

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/perils-perception-and-eu

murphaph wrote: »

All true if course. Nevertheless Leroy is spot on that we should be absolutely ruthless in trying to attract quality jobs from the UK to our shores. The UK has a depth to their economy that we still haven't achieved and this could give us a nice boost in this regard.

Plenty of innovative SMEs and these don't need the shockingly still missing infrastructure in Dublin.

Of course. I'm just advocating a degree of realism regarding the scale of poaching that can take place, if any.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You might have some case except for the fact that they are touting May as the one to teach him. In all reasonableness, not even her own party think she is a capable leader.

To be fair, Theresa May has drank from a poisoned chalice. It would take one of history's greatest political minds to reconcile the Eurosceptic and Liberal wings of the Tory party now. I get the impression she is driven by a sense of duty to lead the country during a difficult time when careerists like Johnson & Gove are happy to let someone else take the flak.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've already touched on lots of reasons on this thread as to why the City will continue to function after Brexit.

Back to back trading is still possible according to what legal and political assurances that UBS received from regulators.

European markets need access to the City - which is why people like Wolfgang Schäuble were saying access to the City was essential for accessing debt and equity markets and why people like Mark Carney in the Bank of England were warning that lacking these services would be very bad for the EU27.

Even if passporting isn't granted there are other options such as equivalence under MiFID II.

The alleged apocalypse of banking in the City is one of the less probable prophesies of doom that we've been offered.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nobody is saying that the COL will disappear. The UK itself is big enough to warrant some form.

But if your only argument is that the disaster won't be a total wipeout it isn't a good place to be. There are plenty of potential downsides to Brexit on the COL.

Whether or not these ever come to pass is open to debate, even before we get to the extent of the effect. But to even jeopardize should a lofty position, to even open up the possibility of losing any of it on a misguided and misunderstand notion or breaking free of EU is the point.

Why would anybody want to put that in danger? Yes COL has a very high position at the present time, but the UK Navy used to be the biggest in the world, Things change. Most of it we can do nothing about but in this case the UK has actively asked for these dangers.

kowtow

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've already touched on lots of reasons on this thread as to why the City will continue to function after Brexit.

Back to back trading is still possible according to what legal and political assurances that UBS received from regulators.

European markets need access to the City - which is why people like Wolfgang Schäuble were saying access to the City was essential for accessing debt and equity markets and why people like Mark Carney in the Bank of England were warning that lacking these services would be very bad for the EU27.

Even if passporting isn't granted there are other options such as equivalence under MiFID II.

The alleged apocalypse of banking in the City is one of the less probable prophesies of doom that we've been offered.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You are right.

And if I was banking in the City today I would certainly be upping my presence in Eurozone countries. Apart from anything else they are fighting with each other to roll out a bigger and bigger red carpet, and - no doubt - bigger and better incentives in their domestic markets to attract me.

In due course I'd move as many staff there as could make me additional profits in the countries that were so keen to attract me.

And meantime I'd hold out a big cudgel over the head of the UK government with the threat of jobs moving to ensure that I get the regulatory framework and tax treatments I want post-Brexit so as to continue to maximize my global profits in London.

And just for kicks I'd get them to start taking off the restrictive caps on banking bonuses in London which already seems to be on the table.

Sometimes I think people really don't understand bankers, most of the ones I know claim to have voted for Brexit despite the public pronouncements which their firms made. The same goes for city lawyers.

shesty

flaneur wrote: »

I note they're running a story insulting Leo Varadkar as if he's some kind of silly little inexperienced person who needs Theresa to take him under her wing or something.

"Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands"

Red lines are of course completely reasonable for the Brexiteers, but anyone else having red lines is obviously completely unreasonable.

I knew this would end up turning nasty and into anti-Irish stories and rhetoric the minute the border reality clashed with the Brexiteers' agenda. Implyimg than Ireland's the party being immature is just beyond ridiculous..

I'm popping in from the main page here but they are all coming out of the woodwork today.A couple of breathtakingly arrogant?stupid? statements being made about Ireland's (essentially) interference with Britain getting its own way.The latest being Ian Paisley Jr telling us the border is our problem essentially.I actually don't know if he's right or if it's just so stupid that there's no understanding it.But that said, the more I think about it the more I realise that clearly much of Britain doesn't actually realise the full implications of what it is doing (and that's really coming out now), and more arrogantly - they don't actually care all that much.

Personally for me, Britain can stay or go, whatever, but it needs to understand that it can't just walk off into the sunset without a backward glance.There are too many issues to sort out detail on (and they must be sorted out or else a bigger mess will result), and they are all issues of its own making so it must engage to solve them.And also-their outcomes may not all be to the liking of the British.Those points seems to have gone amiss somewhere along the line......

Leroy42

So let me get this straight Kowtow. You are saying that the banks will actively look to move their business elsewhere and will use that threat to demand, and get, massive reductions in regulations and tax treatments.

And you see this as a positive of Brexit? If they cut regs and taxes who loses? The UK taxpayer, and what will get hit? The likes of education on NHS.

So in effect you are saying that just to maintain the COL at the present level is going to cost the UK huge amounts of money.

Christy42

kowtow wrote: »

That really is the fundamental difference in the outlook between these two countries.

When it comes down to it a large part of the UK - and this has been the case for many years, has been uncomfortable with the degree to which independent, democratic, sovereignty has been passed away from London.

I hear the argument that some of that concern is a whipped up frenzy.

I hear the argument that the price Britain would pay to regain that sovereignty would not be as large as it may turn out to be in a hard brexit

But I can't help looking at the picture objectively and reaching the conclusion that by and large the British place a higher value on their independence and sovereignty - certainly than we do in Ireland - and arguably more than other nations in Europe.

I've always thought that the EU would ultimately be a generational question - I find a political or federal EU uncomfortable for a host of reasons, but I've always accepted that a younger generation might genuinely feel themselves EU citizens first, and national citizens second, and in due course set about fixing the finance mechanisms and making the place more democratic. Watching the debate here I wonder whether to some extent it is a small vs large nation thing as well - and we already know it's a regional and occupational thing within each nation.

And for those countries that do come to rely on a higher power in Brussels for political management - out of choice - it is interesting to reflect on the impact that might have on the quality of and engagement in domestic politics. One of the most enlightening, shocking conversations I can remember in my lifetime was at dinner with a Spanish fund manager, right in the worst days post Lehman - when we were hunting around banks from Canada to London to take overnight sterling and dollar deposits, there was a real panic on - and he said to me "This is why the Spanish people want Merkel in charge! they want someone competent in charge of the economy".

We really do live, for our sins, in fascinating times. I hope we don't all get so caught up in taking sides not to stand back and ponder the seismic shifts which are taking place.

I reckon there is a higher likelihood that they simply don't know what the EU does and it has been scapegoated for years for the failings of the politicians in the UK. Even now they are shocked that even little Ireland can argue it's side of the case against the mighty UK and seem to consider it a betrayal for some reason (see telegraph headline mentioned).

The EU is about deals between countries and aside from shouting sovereignty a lot I have not really been able to figure out what they want.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

So let me get this straight Kowtow. You are saying that the banks will actively look to move their business elsewhere and will use that threat to demand, and get, massive reductions in regulations and tax treatments.

And you see this as a positive of Brexit? If they cut regs and taxes who loses? The UK taxpayer, and what will get hit? The likes of education on NHS.

So in effect you are saying that just to maintain the COL at the present level is going to cost the UK huge amounts of money.

I don't see it as either positive or negative, it is simply the obvious move to make for the City.

I should clarify what I mean by "tax treatments".. as Ireland well knows, attracting FDI by means of tax legislation has little to do with headline tax rates, and is unlikely to reduce the overall tax take of the country (quite the opposite in many cases). If that is true for FDI, with a physical prescence, employment, manufacturing, and so forth, it is even more true for financial vehicles which can locate and relocate at will without any infrastructure. Note, I am not talking about the banks themselves, but the funds and entities which are their clients.

It has more to do with how specific tax treaties are implemented and freedom of movement of capital without restrictive withholding taxes let alone financial transaction taxes. The reason hedge funds often choose to domicile in effectively zero tax jurisdictions is to allow capital and income to accrue outside any tax net, effectively putting taxation back into the hands of the ultimate investors.

How the tax laws of a particular country dovetail with global, usually offshore, financial vehicles makes a big difference to the freedom with which capital moves across borders. Europe has been relatively restrictive in the past (ESD etc., restrictions on interest deduction in captive financing, and - it appears - the dreaded FTT in the future). The UK will be free to provide the best possible environment for funds to avoid the worst of this. It won't escape European provisions altogether particularly where assets are located in the EZ and their financing can be regulated locally, but it will be free to provide the most creative possible solution.

None of this really makes a difference to the UK tax take. The city - for example - trades about 3 trillion of currency a day. There is no appetite in the UK (apart from Corbyn perhaps) to capture any tax from that - or from the derivative instruments which often back it - by way of a transaction tax or anything else. The same cannot be said for the Eurozone.

In the end, the EZ will not wish to have a totally impermeable investment border around the edges, because it will not wish to make it's assets unattractive to global capital flows especially in any future liquidity squeezes.

A good comparison is China which has a very restricted economy even today, and relies on London as the largest clearing and trading centre for RMB outside Asia.

Edit: I might add that as the UK knows from recent experience, over-taxing the bankers themselves has also been counter productive. Gordon Brown's banker tax cost more than it raised, and so was a negative for public spending. In my Father's time in the 1970's when Corbyn's ideological predecessors got their marginal tax rates up to 97.5% a lot of the best brains of that generation simply moved overseas taking their investment with them.

flaneur

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The British public have displayed a startling amount of ignorance regarding the EU. People seem to genuinely believe that we live in the Fourth Reich where the amount paid for that privilege is overstated. Obviously, not every Leave voter or anything but this research from last year by Ipsos Mori makes for sobering reading:

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/perils-perception-and-eu

.

Jingoism aside, the biggest perceptual issue I am seeing in the UK, and this is even from quite well informed people who should know a lot better, is that there's a dichotomy and choice between "EU market access" or "Global Trading".

The reality is that EU countries have the best of both worlds in that regard. We have pretty good and improving access to world markets, built on the size and strength of the EU market being able to influence global rules and negotiate bilateral arrangements. There's absolutely nothing stopping them from trading globally, nor is there anything stopping them from shaping and helping to create new EU-third country bilateral agreements.

Also, the EU is so large that its regulations often operate with de facto universal jurisdiction. Watch what happens when EU competition law is breeched. It's similar to the USA in that regard. Also, a lot of European originated technical standards, simply get implemented in countries around the world voluntarily both for ease of market access and also because they tend to be practical to implement too. The UK will end up no longer being part of shaping any of those rules and probably ending up having to implement most of them anyway, whether it has an agreement or not.

I find the UK is treating the EU as if it's a middle-sized country or perhaps sees the EU as France or Germany. I am not sure what's going on but they are really grossly misinterpreting what the EU actually is and imagining some kind of highly protectionist, closed border, USSR style setup, which is absolutely not the reality at all.

It's an emotional argument based in nationalism, ego and national pride vs a pragmatic argument about economics. Facts and figures don't really matter as there's very little logic being listened to in the aspect of the UK that currently holds all the strings of power.

My view of it is that unless a lot of centrist / pro business Tories start to put country before party and pull the plug, the UK is facing a chaotic exit from the EU and probably a protracted and pretty deep recession.

I'm not gloating about that either as I think it's horrific for the Irish economy and could cause all kinds of chaos in North-South relations.

What I see happening next is the Brexiteers either pushing to oust May or otherwise blocking any progress on the divorce deal and the time simply running out. The Northern Ireland border issues may end up being a side show in the big scheme of things that are likely to happen over the months ahead.

We are looking at a government that's essentially run by reacting to hysteria from tabloid newspaper headlines and extremely uninformed public opinion. It's actually very worrying to see just how broken Britain has become as it will inevitably have a knock-on effect on us and on many of the people I know and am directly connected to in the UK too.

There's also a hypocrisy and self-contradiction going on where on the one hand they're continuously talking about "a global Britain" and on the other they want to clamp down on immigration and various high profile media outlets and spokespeople are picking open fights with what would be trading partners.
It looks to me like they don't really know what they want. Is it isolationism? or is it globalism? You can't really be an isolationist that just demands market access all over the world. It won't work.

Whatever the situation on the ground, the international perception of the UK is changing from a vibrant hub of cosmopolitan life where all sorts of things were possible, to a closed, cold, unwelcoming society that seems to want nothing to do with the rest of the world, other than have access to its markets.

It just feels like is being run by the political equivalent of internet trolls.

An Ciarraioch

Ulster says no to "regulatory convergence," according to Faisal Islam, of Sky News:

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/936254970592219137

flaneur

That was pretty much inevitable.

The situation on the NI border is completely snookered. There's no way forward with the DUP in Westminster that will allow any kind of pragmatic solution and there's no way the Irish Government can really stand idly by and not use whatever power it has to at least attempt to a return to a hardened border.

Leroy42

Why would the DUP be so against regulatory convergence.

murphaph

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would the DUP be so against regulatory convergence.

Because it means some form of border controls between NI and GB if it only applies to NI.

The DUP must be hoping against hope that the entire UK stays in the customs union and single market because any other outcome means either they have to collapse the government or push on for a no deal Brexit.

Leroy42

murphaph wrote: »

Because it means some form of border controls between NI and GB if it only applies to NI.

The DUP must be hoping against hope that the entire UK stays in the customs union and single market because any other outcome means either they have to collapse the government or push on for a no deal Brexit.

Yes, but surely NI can see the value that EU membership can bring, and just as we can see it surely they can see how little regard the mainland has of them

ArmaniJeanss

flaneur wrote: »

"Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands"

The author of the article Nick Timothy is younger than Varadkar by 18 months, yet didn't seem to consider his youth too much of a barrier when he was special advisor to TMPM and by many accounts organised the government in such a way that the cabinet was subservient/secondary to himself and co-advisor Fiona Hill. And he was then one of those considered responsible for the bad election campaign.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but surely NI can see the value that EU membership can bring, and just as we can see it surely they can see how little regard the mainland has of them

Northern Ireland does see the value of staying in the EU and the benefits that brings. That is why they voted to remain in the EU. The DUP however campaigned to leave, the only other party that took that stance was UKIP. For almost everyone it seems that its an act of some sadistic self harm from the DUP. They were on the wrong side of history regarding the GFA, so its not surprise that they are on the side that is actively hoping to leave the EU and make themselves poorer.

demfad

The UK Government seeming to agree to a 50 billion-ish fee is a good sign I think.
This means that the cabinet is mostly persuaded that a 'no-deal' is actually the planes grounded, economy off the cliff edge scenario it is reported to be.
It must be remembered that EU diplomats are saying that if the UK asked for an extension or a revocation to A50 they would get it.
Yes an extension would mess with EU elections, but its better for all concerned than the cliff edge. So the EU wont throw the UK over the cliff if they don't want to go.
If the UK Government even try to contemplate a no-deal it will be brought down and replaced. The Irish should stick to their principles on the border. THe UK government may go soon, but the chance of a no-deal which also wrecks Irelands economy is diminsihed greatly by the news that they are willing to pay the 50 bill. They understand the consequences of no-deal, they wont go there.

ancapailldorcha

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The author of the article Nick Timothy is younger than Varadkar by 18 months, yet didn't seem to consider his youth too much of a barrier when he was special advisor to TMPM and by many accounts organised the government in such a way that the cabinet was subservient/secondary to himself and co-advisor Fiona Hill. And he was then one of those considered responsible for the bad election campaign.

I recall himself and Fiona Hill, Theresa May's two main aides were the masterminds behind the disastrous paying for care policy. Both of them were afforded quite a lot of power by Theresa May and look how it turned out.

I think Leo would best off avoiding this to be honest.

demfad

flaneur wrote: »

I note they're running a story insulting Leo Varadkar as if he's some kind of silly little inexperienced person who needs Theresa to take him under her wing or something.

"Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands"

Red lines are of course completely reasonable for the Brexiteers, but anyone else having red lines is obviously completely unreasonable.

I knew this would end up turning nasty and into anti-Irish stories and rhetoric the minute the border reality clashed with the Brexiteers' agenda. Implyimg than Ireland's the party being immature is just beyond ridiculous..

It's actually The UK's red lines that are impossible i.e having a frictionless border outside the CU and SM. The Taoseach is is pointing out that the UKs position is impossible and rightly calling them out now while we have leverage to do so.

flaneur

You’re assuming there that the DUP is pragmatic or making rational decisions on policy using economic criteria and not on British nationalism or sectarian biases.

That’s a very optimistic assumption based on that organisation’s track record!

The lack of an NI assembly at the moment and DUP deal with the tories is giving a political bias from NI that hasn’t been seen in decades.

It’s almost a perfect storm.