Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria

Good evening!

I was going to leave it for the day, but then I saw this.

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest I don't debate Brexiters. It's easier to link them the daily facts which point to a dying economy.

I feel like I ought to defend myself. I've voted remain and I've decided to get on board with Brexit because it is what the people voted for.

The thing is, if we cut ourselves off from dissenting views, that's a problem with us rather than anyone else.

The point is that there are significant advantages to being outside of the EU. Just listening to the High Commissioner from Australia on BBC Radio 4 was interesting to hear about how Australia readjusted its economy after Britain scrapped preferential trade for the Commonwealth. His argument is that the UK is too gloomy about it's future prospects. I tend to agree with him. If Britain pulls off a good Brexit, then Britain will have new opportunities for economic growth.

The caveat to offer, is that it depends on a good trade deal with the EU. I think this is still achievable. We're in the early stage of talks. I'm confident that there will be areas of movement for the UK within the defined parameters. The UK is promoting a progressive free trade deal. It is the one offering the positive argument.

I don't say that there aren't risks. They are there, and it is important that they are mitigated. However, panic mode is premature. I don't believe the myth that the Government aren't prepared, and I don't believe the oft-repeated myth that the Government doesn't know what they want.

I'm also, not under any idea that the economy hasn't slowed. It has due to uncertainty, but this is a part and parcel of Brexit. It is still growing, and growth is expected to pick up somewhat in 2018, but things will become clear in the negotiations before long.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know it's the Express but I had to share it. This is where a lot of Brexiters seem to get their "facts" from. This particular article has the headline "EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO" in an article about the financial implications of a hard Brexit. So once again it's the EU's fault, not the UK's. From the Express.

I think you need to be more charitable. I am not getting any "facts" from the Daily Express. Caricaturing people on the opposite side of the argument isn't helpful. Arguably, it was this type of caricaturing that led to the Brexit vote in the first place.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Worse still, any suggestion that there would be any pain at all was derided as "Project Fear".

There is a lot of project fear even now. Most of the pro-EU posts here fall into this category.

There are a number of unquestioned assumptions that the Remain side of this thread have which are far from "facts".

Namely that the UK doesn't have a strong negotiating position, or that the talks are doomed to fail. There's no reason to believe this. These aren't "facts".

Article after article of if X happens then Y will happen when there is no reason to believe at this stage that X which is inevitably some calamity will happen.

Even at this early stage in the talks, progress has been made and there's no reason to think that progress won't continue to be made until the EU Council summit in October.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

.

There are a number of unquestioned assumptions that the Remain side of this thread have which are far from "facts".

Namely that the UK doesn't have a strong negotiating position, or that the talks are doomed to fail. There's no reason to believe this. These aren't "facts".

Article after article of if X happens then Y will happen when there is no reason to believe at this stage that X which is inevitably some calamity will happen.

Even at this early stage in the talks, progress has been made and there's no reason to think that progress won't continue to be made until the EU Council summit in October.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo, it's not fair to say that's an unquestioned assumption. I've put it to you above how the UK position is inherently weak. It's up to you to outline how it's not.

The UK position is weak because it needs a transitional deal minimum (which is entirely the gift of the EU) to give it time to transition to another type of economy. The EU does not need to have a deal. It will be hurt without one, but not fatally.

Without this gift the UK economy will go into a coma at best and the EU knows this.

Jim2007

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know it's the Express but I had to share it. This is where a lot of Brexiters seem to get their "facts" from. This particular article has the headline "EU law will FORCE UK companies to relocate on the continent after Brexit, says CEO" in an article about the financial implications of a hard Brexit. So once again it's the EU's fault, not the UK's. From the Express.

Here they are talking about financial services and the reality is that we cannot have players in this market that are not fully subject to the legal jurisdiction of the market. It is way service agreements are few and far between.

Later this year we (Switzerland) will start talks with the EU to obtain such an agreement. But it is already accepted that we will need to forfeit a lot to get it.

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!


Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Im struggling at this point to take some of the points you make seriously even to the point that you had voted remain.

The reasons for this are varied but some of the more obvious ones are the use of the terms project fear, sovereignty and eu federalists.

You have rolled these tired terms out so many times at this point that its clear when you have no facts to debate on you will call the other side out which such negative 'one liners' such as above that it comes straight out of the BNP playbook.

Its the EUs fault, Its the Labour partys fault, its the DNCs fault. World wide its always someone elses fault when the fact is that you become a caricature of this ignorance and complain when people call out the same ignorance. The type of facebook driven easy to digest factlits are rolled out which are simply untruths or part truths designed to put a slant on something ala the express story above.

Frankly its a testament to the viewpoint of the EU that after the brexit vote and the Trump election that this mentality was widely rejected. I think its fantastic that we have people who can read the facts digest them and say yes i dont want what they are having. i.e mistruths , isolationism, negativity, finger pointing , all the things that do nothing to further the good that we have achieved since `1945.


Alas my post will be ignored sure am i not now a caricature of the federalists that deserve so much ire.....

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I was going to leave it for the day, but then I saw this.



I feel like I ought to defend myself. I've voted remain and I've decided to get on board with Brexit because it is what the people voted for.

The thing is, if we cut ourselves off from dissenting views, that's a problem with us rather than anyone else.

The point is that there are significant advantages to being outside of the EU. Just listening to the High Commissioner from Australia on BBC Radio 4 was interesting to hear about how Australia readjusted its economy after Britain scrapped preferential trade for the Commonwealth. His argument is that the UK is too gloomy about it's future prospects. I tend to agree with him. If Britain pulls off a good Brexit, then Britain will have new opportunities for economic growth.

The caveat to offer, is that it depends on a good trade deal with the EU. I think this is still achievable. We're in the early stage of talks. I'm confident that there will be areas of movement for the UK within the defined parameters. The UK is promoting a progressive free trade deal. It is the one offering the positive argument.

I don't say that there aren't risks. They are there, and it is important that they are mitigated. However, panic mode is premature. I don't believe the myth that the Government aren't prepared, and I don't believe the oft-repeated myth that the Government doesn't know what they want.

I'm also, not under any idea that the economy hasn't slowed. It has due to uncertainty, but this is a part and parcel of Brexit. It is still growing, and growth is expected to pick up somewhat in 2018, but things will become clear in the negotiations before long.



I think you need to be more charitable. I am not getting any "facts" from the Daily Express. Caricaturing people on the opposite side of the argument isn't helpful. Arguably, it was this type of caricaturing that led to the Brexit vote in the first place.



There is a lot of project fear even now. Most of the pro-EU posts here fall into this category.

There are a number of unquestioned assumptions that the Remain side of this thread have which are far from "facts".

Namely that the UK doesn't have a strong negotiating position, or that the talks are doomed to fail. There's no reason to believe this. These aren't "facts".

Article after article of if X happens then Y will happen when there is no reason to believe at this stage that X which is inevitably some calamity will happen.

Even at this early stage in the talks, progress has been made and there's no reason to think that progress won't continue to be made until the EU Council summit in October.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It would seem that, as the talks continue to stall and that pesky clock continues to tick, you are arguing in ever decreasing circles. A few salient and current facts:

As cold harsh economic reality seeps in, most Brits are changing their minds about the fundamentals of Brexit. A large majority of elderly Brits voted leave while a large majority of young Brits voted remain. The elderly will be dying more than the young which means that more people will vote remain instead of leave if another referendum were held. Actually, why wait? A majority would vote remain if the referendum were held today. Speaking of which, a majority do want a second referendum.

You are in a minority. Have a good look around you and see who else is in that minority.

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

A few things. Firstly - a leak from an official isn't "the Government negotiating through the media". The British government doesn't do this, and it won't start just because the European Commission does. Remember, it was the European Commission who leaked the story of Juncker at Downing Street to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

Since the leak about the meeting between Juncker & May was published in a German newspaper, it would seem obvious that the leak came from the Germans (who were shocked at how poorly prepared the British Gov. were and wanted to get their excuses in early that there was probably going to be a hard brexit). May & her Gov. Ministers have plenty of form of playing to their supporters to keep them on side).

As for quoting what someone in the European Commission thinks, there's room for scepticism here. It's in the European Commission's interest to send someone like Catherine Day out to allege something in the press. It's in their interest to influence the British public, but nearly every intervention solidifies the existing position.

From what I understand, Day (speaking at a conference in Dublin) was defending the British Civil servants (and she should know as she worked for 2 British (Tory) Commissioners in her time working for the EU.

The idea that everything needs to be sent to Brussels on day one in order for someone to be "prepared" is ridiculous. It is in Britain's interests to reveal only as much as it needs to at every stage in the negotiations. I don't believe the nonsense that the British government hasn't been preparing since last year. I'm fairly sure they have been and we're going to see a lot of that as the process goes on.

Well, the EU were prepared with position papers from Day 1 and they had to consult with 27 countries and get the approval of them all. It it very obvious at this stage that there is huge division of the kind of deal the UK should seek with the EU.

As for the idea that "the time for patience" is gone. That's nonsense. There's three rounds of negotiations before the European Council meeting in October. Britain has a much stronger hand than many of the Euro-federalists on this thread or elsewhere are willing to admit.

Well, something might happen now that the British Gov. have decided to come up with a few position papers.

The best policy is stay calm, get it sorted, and ignore what's being said in the media. The only thing that matters for the Government is what is said around the negotiating table.

I seem to recall reading in one of the British papers that the UK Negotiating team are very concerned that Barnier's hands are completely tied by the Council of Ministers and has very little room to manouvre, so its more than what is said around the negotiating table.

It's worth pointing out that a major reason for seeking Brexit is based on economics, and on pursuing wider trade relationships which could benefit the British economy. The UK wants to maintain as close a relationship with the EU as possible whilst seeking new opportunities elsewhere.

Ruling out FoM, EU Regs and the ECJ suggest that there won't be a very close relationship between the UK & the EU.

Edit: Remember the chatter about Gibraltar, seems like Spain are backing down. As expected.

All that says is that Spain won't veto a UK/EU trade deal (which I don't think they could anyway). Spain will still have a say in what kind of a trade deal Gibraltar will have with the EU though.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It would seem that, as the talks continue to stall and that pesky clock continues to tick, you are arguing in ever decreasing circles. A few salient and current facts:

I question a number of your "facts". Particularly the polling data, when there's also polling evidence to suggest that a number of the 48% want to get on with leaving.. I don't think if I'm in a minority, but if I am in a minority, it nonetheless stands on the prime minister to implement the result of the referendum delivered by a majority.

listermint wrote: »

Im struggling at this point to take some of the points you make seriously even to the point that you had voted remain.

That seems to be your problem and not mine. I'm trying to take everyone's posts seriously. I've taken up a difficult position on this thread, but I think I'll be shown to be right in the long term.

listermint wrote: »

The reasons for this are varied but some of the more obvious ones are the use of the terms project fear, sovereignty and eu federalists.

I repeated project fear from another poster. This is very true though. During the referendum the Treasury and others showed dramatic figures to show that the UK would immediately go into recession and that the housing market would collapse. Neither of those things have happened.

Now, the British public are subjected to article after article of if X happens Y will happen without giving any justification for why they believe X will happen.

The reality is that we need to let the Government get on with negotiating. I'm happy to do this. The UK has a capable team.

Sovereignty is a true concept. Regaining control is what the referendum will do. And the UK gives up a large amount of control to the EU. I've mentioned which areas are key to regain control of for me already in this thread.

My use of the term Euro-federalists are to describe those people who think that you cannot be a successful nation outside of the EU, and that the only solution to problems is further integration. That's basically what the "European project" is. An effort to consolidate more and more competences into central powers in Brussels until individual member states have little left.

I can't apologise for using terms that reflect the truth.

listermint wrote: »

You have rolled these tired terms out so many times at this point that its clear when you have no facts to debate on you will call the other side out which such negative 'one liners' such as above that it comes straight out of the BNP playbook.

It's not acceptable for you to refer to me as a fascist on this thread.

listermint wrote: »

IIts the EUs fault, Its the Labour partys fault, its the DNCs fault. World wide its always someone elses fault when the fact is that you become a caricature of this ignorance and complain when people call out the same ignorance. The type of facebook driven easy to digest factlits are rolled out which are simply untruths or part truths designed to put a slant on something ala the express story above.

Again, why are you lumping me into a demographic I don't belong to?

I wouldn't go as far as "blaming" the EU for the fact that Britain wants to take a new direction. I would say however that it is in the EU's interests to continue a trade relationship with Britain post-Brexit.

listermint wrote: »

IFrankly its a testament to the viewpoint of the EU that after the brexit vote and the Trump election that this mentality was widely rejected. I think its fantastic that we have people who can read the facts digest them and say yes i dont want what they are having. i.e mistruths , isolationism, negativity, finger pointing , all the things that do nothing to further the good that we have achieved since `1945.

Again, I don't know why you're caricaturing me into a group I obviously don't belong to.

listermint wrote: »

Alas my post will be ignored sure am i not now a caricature of the federalists that deserve so much ire.....

This is also not fair. I'm responding to a lot of different posters because I offer one of the only dissenting views on this thread. I won't accept nonsense like "my post will be ignored" from anybody.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Solo, it's not fair to say that's an unquestioned assumption. I've put it to you above how the UK position is inherently weak. It's up to you to outline how it's not.

The UK position is weak because it needs a transitional deal minimum (which is entirely the gift of the EU) to give it time to transition to another type of economy. The EU does not need to have a deal. It will be hurt without one, but not fatally.

Without this gift the UK economy will go into a coma at best and the EU knows this.

I offered several reasons as to why the UK's hand is strong from trade to military competence. You can look back on the thread for these. I'm not convinced of your assumption that the UK has nothing it can leverage in these talks.

I also think that in the worst case scenario the UK could weather WTO terms. This isn't a scenario that anybody should want, the EU included. That's why I overwhelmingly say that the UK is offering a positive option for moving forward.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

I offered several reasons as to why the UK's hand is strong from trade to military competence.

The military thing is a bit of a red herring as the UK is a (hopefully) committed member of NATO. Trade is not going to give the UK a strong hand as it needs the trade more than the EU (roughly 6 times more as the UK exports 48% to the EU and the EU only 8% to the UK).

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also think that in the worst case scenario the UK could weather WTO terms. This isn't a scenario that anybody should want, the EU included. That's why I overwhelmingly say that the UK is offering a positive option for moving forward.

Your entire argument falls apart here.

Half of all UK exports go to the EU. Another chunk goes to countries under EU FTAs!

The vast majority of these exports to the EU are services.

Services are not covered by the WTO at all. That's what the single market is for.

The UK economy will be dealt a killer blow if it cannot export its services to the EU post Brexit, which it CANNOT DO under WTO rules alone. The UK MUST get a deal.

EDIT: And don't forget that no deal = crash out of open skies, for which there is no fallback like the WTO at all!

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is a lot of project fear even now. Most of the pro-EU posts here fall into this category.

Here's some fear then.

The UK is not in good shape to go out on it's own yet.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40869369

That reality had the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, reaching for the history books as he recently observed that the UK hasn't seen a period of such weak income growth since the 19th Century.
...
The highest level of government debt since the war, swingeing cuts in public services and falling real incomes. The last ten years have been unique - and not in a good way.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



I question a number of your "facts". Particularly the polling data, when there's also polling evidence to suggest that a number of the 48% want to get on with leaving.. I don't think if I'm in a minority, but if I am in a minority, it nonetheless stands on the prime minister to implement the result of the referendum delivered by a majority.


Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You seem to have ignored my points. I'll repeat them:

You are conflating two different poll results that ask two different questions. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate would vote Remain today

The Economist lays out why Brexit will be very damaging for Britain's economy here. As does the FT here

The fact remains that 60% of Brits want to retain their EU passport.

The fact remains that a large majority of elderly voters voted Leave while a large majority of young voters voted remain.

The fact remains that a majority of Brits want a referendum on any Brexit deal.

Rather than just saying you 'question' my facts, why not address them instead?

oppenheimer1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!







I offered several reasons as to why the UK's hand is strong from trade to military competence. You can look back on the thread for these. I'm not convinced of your assumption that the UK has nothing it can leverage in these talks.

I also think that in the worst case scenario the UK could weather WTO terms. This isn't a scenario that anybody should want, the EU included. That's why I overwhelmingly say that the UK is offering a positive option for moving forward.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

As far as we are aware, the UK is still a committed member of NATO. In fact, the went to great lengths to ensure Trump recommitted the US to the organisation. Furthermore, the EU is not a military alliance - so it's not on the table.

Imagine a world without no EU and that Ireland was trying to negotiate a trade agreement with the UK. Who would hold the whip in those circumstances? Who would dictate terms? Of course it would be the UK and the reason for it would be relative size and power and consequently the need for the deal. The same is true for the UKs negotiation with the EU today. The EU doesn't need a deal with the UK but it would desire one. The UK needs the deal.

No one is saying the UK is bringing nothing to the table. Of course it is. It is a large wealthy country, a big market for European exports. The problem for the UK is that it needs the deal more than the other side needs it. That's what makes their position weak.

If I have a water supply on my land and you don't have a drop and it would take you 5 years to organise a supply from a third party, I bet, if I waited you out, I would be able to get you to trade all your land for a single glass of water. That's the difference between needs and wants.

murphaph

That's what it comes down to. The UK is just hoping that the EU will be good sports about the whole thing.

Professor Moriarty

murphaph wrote: »

That's what it comes down to. The UK is just hoping that the EU will be good sports about the whole thing.

Exactly. The Tories have created this mess and now they don't know what to do with it. Meanwhile, the electorate is waking up to the fact that the whole Leave 'idea' was smoke and mirrors behind which there are just a few clueless Little Englanders making it up as they go along. And so they hope that the EU will bail them out with a pick and choose deal. Eh, no.

Mezcita

So how do people thing this is going to pan out in terms of Sterling continuing to slide in value? Is parity with the Euro likely? Or worse?

oppenheimer1

Mezcita wrote: »

So how do people thing this is going to pan out in terms of Sterling continuing to slide in value? Is parity with the Euro likely? Or worse?

Trying to predict currency movements is a mugs game. That said, if it comes to October and the EU decides not to progress the talks (which is what I suspect will happen) then we will most likely see another sharp fall in the pound. This may then force the UK to finally get real where then we will see a rebound in the value.

Currency can be volatile in the summer as the volume of trades is a lot lower.

Fratton Fred

Mezcita wrote: »

So how do people thing this is going to pan out in terms of Sterling continuing to slide in value? Is parity with the Euro likely? Or worse?

The markets would be fearing the worst and will not want to get caught out again, so it is probably as low as it will go. It may drop a few cents, but I can't see it getting much lower than it is now.

oppenheimer1

Has any brexiteer ever cared to explain why the pound has lost so much of its value since the referendum? Why have the markets lost confidence in the pound?

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You seem to have ignored my points. I'll repeat them:

You are conflating two different poll results that ask two different questions. The fact remains that a majority of the electorate would vote Remain today

The Economist lays out why Brexit will be very damaging for Britain's economy here. As does the FT here

The fact remains that 60% of Brits want to retain their EU passport.

The fact remains that a large majority of elderly voters voted Leave while a large majority of young voters voted remain.

The fact remains that a majority of Brits want a referendum on any Brexit deal.

Rather than just saying you 'question' my facts, why not address them instead?

Firstly - these aren't "facts". Differing polling from YouGov suggests that most people don't want a second referendum and support respecting the result. Other polling from YouGov also suggests that a sizeable proportion of remain voters want to get on with leaving the EU. Given there is a difference in polling data wouldn't say that these are facts.

If there is a difference in how people would vote after Brexit rather than before Brexit as the YouGov figures would suggest then your argument about people dying is pointless.

Most people wanting to retain an EU passport isn't an argument against Brexit or even a case that people don't support it.

Opinion pieces are by their very nature opinion pieces. Opinion isn't generally considered "fact". The Independent is an extremely biased paper on Brexit. In fact it's the remainers equivalent of the Daily Express.

The fact that so many people liked your post just shows how much of an echo chamber this thread is.

murphaph wrote: »

The military thing is a bit of a red herring as the UK is a (hopefully) committed member of NATO. Trade is not going to give the UK a strong hand as it needs the trade more than the EU (roughly 6 times more as the UK exports 48% to the EU and the EU only 8% to the UK).


Your entire argument falls apart here.

Half of all UK exports go to the EU. Another chunk goes to countries under EU FTAs!

The vast majority of these exports to the EU are services.

Services are not covered by the WTO at all. That's what the single market is for.

The UK economy will be dealt a killer blow if it cannot export its services to the EU post Brexit, which it CANNOT DO under WTO rules alone. The UK MUST get a deal.

EDIT: And don't forget that no deal = crash out of open skies, for which there is no fallback like the WTO at all!

The UK still trades in services with a lot of other countries. This would continue even if tariffs had to be charged on them. If the UK has services that are needed elsewhere they will continue to be bought. Much in the same way that the UK imports services from outside of the EU. It would be painful for the UK economy but the idea that the UK couldn't weather it is an unfounded myth. Leaving on WTO terms is a last resort.

This isn't the desired outcome and presenting it as if it is isn't helpful. The UK are clear that they want a free trade deal with the EU and it is very much in the EU's interest to have British trade post-Brexit and it isn't in the EU's interest to lock themselves out of financial markets. MiFID II is still something to watch. The European Commission are still deciding if the US and Japan can be deemed to be equivalent in terms of financial regulation (The US has a very good case in terms of Dodd Frank) for January 3rd. If the US is deemed to be regulatory equivalent to the EU and the UK isn't after Brexit despite sharing the same law there would be potential for legal action.

The UK trades 44% in goods and services with the EU. I agree this is worth maintaining whilst looking for other opportunities also. I agree with you that the UK should negotiate access to this and to the open skies policy.

It isn't helpful to discuss how much the EU might be interested in harming itself and others. The will is there for a constructive future from what I can see. The fact that most posters are keen for the EU to pull the trigger on the UK and therefore on itself is depressing, but I don't think it reflects reality at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK still trades in services with a lot of other countries. This would continue even if tariffs had to be charged on them. If the UK has services that are needed elsewhere they will continue to be bought. Much in the same way that the UK imports services from outside of the EU. It would be painful for the UK economy but the idea that the UK couldn't weather it is an unfounded myth. Leaving on WTO terms is a last resort.

This isn't the desired outcome and presenting it as if it is isn't helpful. The UK are clear that they want a free trade deal with the EU and it is very much in the EU's interest to have British trade post-Brexit and it isn't in the EU's interest to lock themselves out of financial markets. MiFID II is still something to watch. The European Commission are still deciding if the US and Japan can be deemed to be equivalent in terms of financial regulation (The US has a very good case in terms of Dodd Frank) for January 3rd. If the US is deemed to be regulatory equivalent to the EU and the UK isn't after Brexit despite sharing the same law there would be potential for legal action.

The UK trades 44% in goods and services with the EU. I agree this is worth maintaining whilst looking for other opportunities also. I agree with you that the UK should negotiate access to this and to the open skies policy.

It isn't helpful to discuss how much the EU might be interested in harming itself and others. The will is there for a constructive future from what I can see. The fact that most posters are keen for the EU to pull the trigger on the UK and therefore on itself is depressing, but I don't think it reflects reality at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

UK financial services will not be able to operate in the EU as they will be outside the EU Regulatory area. One of the main reasons that the EBA has to leave the London is because it would not be covered by EU law and there is a reason why American banks have such a large presence in the city of London and why they are now all planning to move their EU business to EU countries.

The ECJ and EU Regulations are a red line for Mrs May. I can't see her changing her mind on that.

solodeogloria

jm08 wrote: »

UK financial services will not be able to operate in the EU as they will be outside the EU Regulatory area. One of the main reasons that the EBA has to leave the London is because it would not be covered by EU law and there is a reason why American banks have such a large presence in the city of London and why they are now all planning to move their EU business to EU countries.

The ECJ and EU Regulations are a red line for Mrs May. I can't see her changing her mind on that.

Good evening!

It isn't true that financial services can't be traded into the EU. This happens already and further provisions for passporting from third countries which are deemed regulatory equivalent are provided for in MiFID II which goes live in the UK and in the rest of the EU on January 3rd next year.

My point which was largely ignored earlier is that the EU will need access to financial services in London after Brexit. Mark Carney highlighted this as has Wolfgang Schaeuble and Barnier himself. I linked to all three on this thread already.

I don't think anyone has any issue with the EU exercising judgement over companies that deal in and with the single market. People do have issue with the EU ruling on domestic matters in the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK still trades in services with a lot of other countries. This would continue even if tariffs had to be charged on them. If the UK has services that are needed elsewhere they will continue to be bought. Much in the same way that the UK imports services from outside of the EU. It would be painful for the UK economy but the idea that the UK couldn't weather it is an unfounded myth. Leaving on WTO terms is a last resort.

This isn't the desired outcome and presenting it as if it is isn't helpful. The UK are clear that they want a free trade deal with the EU and it is very much in the EU's interest to have British trade post-Brexit and it isn't in the EU's interest to lock themselves out of financial markets. MiFID II is still something to watch. The European Commission are still deciding if the US and Japan can be deemed to be equivalent in terms of financial regulation (The US has a very good case in terms of Dodd Frank) for January 3rd. If the US is deemed to be regulatory equivalent to the EU and the UK isn't after Brexit despite sharing the same law there would be potential for legal action.

The UK trades 44% in goods and services with the EU. I agree this is worth maintaining whilst looking for other opportunities also. I agree with you that the UK should negotiate access to this and to the open skies policy.

It isn't helpful to discuss how much the EU might be interested in harming itself and others. The will is there for a constructive future from what I can see. The fact that most posters are keen for the EU to pull the trigger on the UK and therefore on itself is depressing, but I don't think it reflects reality at this stage.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Would trade in services continue if tariffs were levied? I suppose if you considered it from a theoretical point of view it might. However, from a practical point of view:

Bank A, Bank B, Bank C and Bank D offer services to the EU from London.

Bank A moves part of its operation to Dublin and continues to offer services to the EU through the English language at the same price.

Bank B moves part of its operation to Frankfurt and offers services to the EU at the same price.

Bank C moves part of its operation to New York and offers large financial centre services to the EU at lower tariffs than the WTO.

Bank D stays in London with huge tariffs and gets wiped out by the competition.


Apply the same logic to consultancy, accounting, legal and design services.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Why are you proposing that tariffs would be any less on a bank in New York in your hypothetical scenario than they would in London in any case?

I'm not proposing that WTO tariffs are ideal. I'm arguing for a free trade deal with the EU.

This focus on talks crashing out is unhelpful. In the current scenario I don't think this prospect is realistic.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It isn't true that financial services can't be traded into the EU. This happens already and further provisions for passporting from third countries which are deemed regulatory equivalent are provided for in MiFID II which goes live in the UK and in the rest of the EU on January 3rd next year.

Well, why are all these companies moving if London can just continue to trade into the EU?

My point which was largely ignored earlier is that the EU will need access to financial services in London after Brexit. Mark Carney highlighted this as has Wolfgang Schaeuble and Barnier himself. I linked to all three on this thread already.

You sure about Schaeuble? From an interview with him in FT -

“Without membership of the internal market, without acceptance of the four basic freedoms of the internal market there can, of course, be no passporting, no free access for financial products or for financial actors,” he said.

https://www.ft.com/content/765a1f2a-acba-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122?mhq5j=e1

Mark Cagney keeps advocating that the UK stays in the Customs Union.

I don't think anyone has any issue with the EU exercising judgement over companies that deal in and with the single market. People do have issue with the EU ruling on domestic matters in the UK.

People might not have an issue, but Mrs May does.

Just on that MiFID II - from what I can see, you have to be an EU member to avail of that and also be regulated by the various EU authorities.

solodeogloria

jm08 wrote: »

Well, why are all these companies moving if London can just continue to trade into the EU?



You sure about Schaeuble? From an interview with him in FT -



https://www.ft.com/content/765a1f2a-acba-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122?mhq5j=e1

Mark Cagney keeps advocating that the UK stays in the Customs Union.



People might not have an issue, but Mrs May does.

Just on that MiFID II - from what I can see, you have to be an EU member to avail of that and also be regulated by the various EU authorities.

Good evening!

Banks are moving small portions of their businesses in the event that access is restricted post-Brexit. This isn't guaranteed at present.

You can see my previous posts if you want the links on Carney, Schaeuble and Barnier. There's no point in repeating what's already been posted.

On MiFID II - I recommend you read the section on third countries and regulatory equivalence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Banks are moving small portions of their businesses in the event that access is restricted post-Brexit. This isn't guaranteed at present.

You can see my previous posts if you want the links on Carney, Schaeuble and Barnier. There's no point in repeating what's already been posted.

On MiFID II - I recommend you read the section on third countries and regulatory equivalence.

I wouldn't be hanging my hat on that one - seems very cumbersome (basically they need an approved professional service in the country they want to sell into) and

An ESMA registered third country firm will have to inform prospective EU clients that it cannot provide services to EU clients other than per se professional clients and eligible counterparties and is not supervised in the EU. It must also offer to submit any disputes relating to its services or activities to a court or tribunal in the EU.

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/115128/mifid-ii-mifir-series


I think you are reading too much into it. Both Carney and Schauble don't want the UK to leave the EU because it is going to damage everyone.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

On MiFID II - I recommend you read the section on third countries and regulatory equivalence.

Looks like the EU can have it's cake and eat it then.


https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/nemeczek_pitz_-_the_impact_of_brexit_on_cross-border_business_of_uk_credit_institutions_and_investment_firms_with_german_clients.pdf

If UK national laws remain unchanged, EEA institutions – other than UK institutions – may still have access to the UK market as long as the FMSA entitles them to apply
passporting rights in the UK. However, UK institutions will only continue to have privileged
access to the Single Market as long as the UK remains part of the EEA – a question which,
legally, appears to be difficult to answer.

...
Legal analyses of Brexit generally assume that the UK’s EEA membership will be terminated
ipso iure, should the UK decide to withdraw from the EU

...

oppenheimer1

Solo, you are still dancing around the point and not really addressing it. The UK needs an implementation period at the very minimum from the EU while the EU doesn't really need an implementation period from the UK. The EU has all the infrastructure in place to deal with the UK as a third country, while the UK does not.

European businesses and the Union will do just fine with the UK on the outside. The real question is can British business survive a sudden implementation of WTO rules and procedures. If it cannot (it can't btw), then the UK must get a deal, come what may. This leaves the UK weak and open to exploitation. The UK will have to give in on its "red lines" or face paralysing half its export business for months minimum following Brexit, while it builds and puts in place the infrastructure required for it to be a third country. It could easily cause 25-50% of exporting business to fold, with knock on consequences for the rest of the economy compounding the problem. That said, the EU would probably also go into recession following hard Brexit so the risks are not entirely one sided, but the UK would go into depression.

The question is not whether the UK can thrive 5-10 years down the line outside the EU, it probably can. The real question is the journey to that point, the kind of country the UK will be then, and the sacrifices the UK population will be willing to make for what are rather abstract notions like "sovereignty" and "freedom". That said a majority of brexit pensioners would be happy to see a family member lose their job to achieve the goal.

Capt'n Midnight

More internal UK squabbling. Brexit is more work than many people realise.

No agreement in latest Scots-UK Brexit powers talks

The Scottish government fears a "power grab" by Westminster, but UK ministers insist there will be more devolution.

Mr Russell said the latest talks were "useful", but had not changed anything.

He said the Scottish government remained "absolutely clear" that it could not recommend Holyrood give its consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill in its current form.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm not proposing that WTO tariffs are ideal. I'm arguing for a free trade deal with the EU.

And you can argue away but you have yet to advance a reason why countries like Slovenia or Slovakia need to give a d*m& about whether there is an EU-UK trade deal or not. Or, indeed, why such a deal should include services when virtually every trade deal is confined to goods.

Right now, there is no reason for EU countries to agree to anything other than an exit deal (which would get rid of the UK and might include a transition period if the UK can ever articulate what it wants to transition to in the future).

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Firstly - these aren't "facts". Differing polling from YouGov suggests that most people don't want a second referendum and support respecting the result.

Did you even read the article you quoted? Seriously?

That article is from March 2017 and is about YouGov polling. The article I quoted from the Torygraph is about Survation polling from July 2017. A lot has happened in the interim including a general election. So, yet again, my point remains. If the vote were held today, Remain would win.

Other polling from YouGov also suggests that a sizeable proportion of remain voters want to get on with leaving the EU. Given there is a difference in polling data wouldn't say that these are facts.

You are conflating two very different polls. Think apples and oranges.

If there is a difference in how people would vote after Brexit rather than before Brexit as the YouGov figures would suggest then your argument about people dying is pointless.

Yet again: A large majority of elderly people voted Leave. A large majority of young people voted Remain. Considering a majority of Brits want a referendum on the Brexit deal, in two years time, which cohort of people will have had the higher mortality rate?

Most people wanting to retain an EU passport isn't an argument against Brexit or even a case that people don't support it.

Really? So a country wants to leave the EU but wants to retain EU citizenship for its people (or 60% of its people do). But you think that's not an argument against Brexit. Please explain how Britain can leave the EU and British people can subsequently retain EU citizenship?

Opinion pieces are by their very nature opinion pieces. Opinion isn't generally considered "fact". The Independent is an extremely biased paper on Brexit. In fact it's the remainers equivalent of the Daily Express.

Indeed the Independent and the Express may well be biased. However, considering my quoted articles were from The Economist and The Financial Times, I fail to see the relevance of your point. Perhaps you need to pay attention to detail.

The fact that so many people liked your post just shows how much of an echo chamber this thread is.

Perhaps you should reflect on why so few people agree with you.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Repeating your points doesn't make them more valid. One poll on it's own is not a convincing argument that most people want a re-run of the referendum.

Polling in respect to referendums isn't the most accurate as Brexit even showed us to begin with, as did the Scottish independence vote in 2014.

Likewise, demonstrating that 60% of people want to have an EU passport doesn't demonstrate anything about whether or not people want the UK to remain in the EU.

Repeating your arguments does not make them more convincing.

Move on.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

It's simply not credible to claim that the 70% service dominated economy of the UK could survive a number of years after Brexit on WTO rules.

They need a deal. End of story.

flatty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Repeating your points doesn't make them more valid. One poll on it's own is not a convincing argument that most people want a re-run of the referendum.

Polling in respect to referendums isn't the most accurate as Brexit even showed us to begin with, as did the Scottish independence vote in 2014.

Likewise, demonstrating that 60% of people want to have an EU passport doesn't demonstrate anything about whether or not people want the UK to remain in the EU.

Repeating your arguments does not make them more convincing.

Move on.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The oft repeated quote that the majority of those who voted to remain have accepted the result is a classic example of brexiteer spin.
Accepting the result is in no way , shape or form the same as agreeing with it.
The British government are either planning another referendum once the ramifications of a deal become more apparent, or they will use an out of date and poorly thought out vote to ram their own narrow agenda down the throat of a country and economy that will undoubtedly suffer.
I initially thought the first more likely, now I fear it is the latter, but please don't insult our intelligence by bending survey results to suit your purpose.

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Repeating your points doesn't make them more valid. One poll on it's own is not a convincing argument that most people want a re-run of the referendum.

Again, please pay attention to detail. I said that Brits want a referendum on the Brexit deal. In fact 53% in the latest poll. Feel free to link to any recent poll that disproves this finding?

Polling in respect to referendums isn't the most accurate as Brexit even showed us to begin with, as did the Scottish independence vote in 2014.

The longitudinal trend across all polling is demonstrating that Brexit is becoming increasingly unpopular with a majority of British people as they begin to understand its ramifications.

Likewise, demonstrating that 60% of people want to have an EU passport doesn't demonstrate anything about whether or not people want the UK to remain in the EU.

Seriously? Please do read what you've just written.

Repeating your arguments does not make them more convincing.

Move on.

Why not address my arguments in a meaningful way? Then I wouldn't have to repeat them.


Incidentally, these are the opening and closing lines of your post:

Repeating your points doesn't make them more valid.
Repeating your arguments does not make them more convincing.

The ironing is delicious.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

It's simply not credible to claim that the 70% service dominated economy of the UK could survive a number of years after Brexit on WTO rules.

They need a deal. End of story.

This. I think Brexit is the biggest crisis facing the UK since WW2 and Britain's econony is dependent on being in the single market.

Foghladh

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Again, please pay attention to detail. I said that Brits want a referendum on the Brexit deal. In fact 53% in the latest poll. Feel free to link to any recent poll that disproves this finding?

Possibly the Telegraph poll that you referenced to make your point about the Remain vote winning should a vote be held again? I believe that it found that 46% of respondents favoured a vote on a final deal and was dated a month after the Independent poll.

Capt'n Midnight

Oh boy. Getting excuses lined up.

time for that Nathan Fillion gif

Britain's Brexit negotiators denied water by Brussels during divorce talks, civil servant claims

The anonymous official said a lack of water available during talks may have been evidence of “unsporting tactics to get the upper hand”.

They also outlined the scale of “paranoia” within the British camp, highlighting fears of phone tapping and a ban on the wearing of smart watches to prevent leaks.

The account comes after The Telegraph revealed David Davis is carrying his Brexit documents and electronic equipment in a briefcase fitted with a Faraday cage to protect against hacking.

Capt'n Midnight

This isn't good news.


The Bank of England has warned that the task of regulating the City after Brexit will put a strain on its ability to police the financial sector.

oppenheimer1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh boy. Getting excuses lined up.

time for that Nathan Fillion gif

Britain's Brexit negotiators denied water by Brussels during divorce talks, civil servant claims

I'll return to my water analogy so. All the EU negotiators have to do is wait the British out and they'll capitulate for that glass of water.

The Telegraph is really some rag.

Professor Moriarty

Foghladh wrote: »

Possibly the Telegraph poll that you referenced to make your point about the Remain vote winning should a vote be held again? I believe that it found that 46% of respondents favoured a vote on a final deal and was dated a month after the Independent poll.

Hmmm. That would indicate a drop of 8% in 14 days as reported by the Torygraph. Surely the Torygraph wouldn't misrepresent the truth about Brexit?

Both of those polls were done by Survation. So let's go to the polling company's own website. This is their latest polling done 13 days after the Torygraph's report. From their report:

There is steady support for a referendum on any EU deal, with 46% in favour and 39% against.

This is consistent with the Independent's report on the Survation poll from the 18th of June 53% in favour and 47% against.

So Survation, who reportedly conducted all three polls, state that majority support for a referendum on the Brexit deal is consistent.

Calina

I have severe issues with the idea of a referendum on 'any deal'. It seems to me that the British need to be very clear on what their position is now : they will leave in March 2019. The negotiation or not of a deal does not change that.

A referendum rejecting a negotiated deal between the UK and the EU does not change this. It seems to me that the narrative around the idea of a referendum on any Brexit deal does not reflect that reality. Unless the deal actually is 'it is a stupid idea, let's call the whole thing off', whuch the UK is not currently negotiating for, that referendum will not reverse Brexit. I do not think this is anywhere near clear enough in discussion around a referendum on the deal. If such a deal is rejected by the electorate, the outcome is hard and disorderly Brexit rather than no Brexit.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

It isn't true that financial services can't be traded into the EU. This happens already and further provisions for passporting from third countries which are deemed regulatory equivalent are provided for in MiFID II which goes live in the UK and in the rest of the EU on January 3rd next year.

My point which was largely ignored earlier is that the EU will need access to financial services in London after Brexit. Mark Carney highlighted this as has Wolfgang Schaeuble and Barnier himself. I linked to all three on this thread already.

I don't think anyone has any issue with the EU exercising judgement over companies that deal in and with the single market. People do have issue with the EU ruling on domestic matters in the UK.

I agree with you that as things stand at present the EU will need London to access the financial services that are currently situated there. But can you guarantee that all will stay the same for the UK after Brexit? In your best hopes it will but what incentive is there for the EU to have most of its financial dealings in a country that is not willing to accept the ECJ or any EU regulations, as that is why they are Brexiting.

Do you agree that with the red lines that Theresa May has set about trying to free the UK of the burdens of EU regulations it makes no sense for the EU to keep essential financial services in a country that is not part of the EU?

Or do you think it can be done and the EU could just as easily look towards New York or Singapore or Hong Kong to relocate their financial services outside of the EU as that is what essentially London will be after Brexit, just another city outside of the EU?

First Up

Enzokk wrote:

Or do you think it can be done and the EU could just as easily look towards New York or Singapore or Hong Kong to relocate their financial services outside of the EU as that is what essentially London will be after Brexit, just another city outside of the EU?

Well time zones come into it. A European financial hub is part of the global network that accomodates 24 hour trading.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree with you that as things stand at present the EU will need London to access the financial services that are currently situated there. But can you guarantee that all will stay the same for the UK after Brexit? In your best hopes it will but what incentive is there for the EU to have most of its financial dealings in a country that is not willing to accept the ECJ or any EU regulations, as that is why they are Brexiting.

Do you agree that with the red lines that Theresa May has set about trying to free the UK of the burdens of EU regulations it makes no sense for the EU to keep essential financial services in a country that is not part of the EU?

Or do you think it can be done and the EU could just as easily look towards New York or Singapore or Hong Kong to relocate their financial services outside of the EU as that is what essentially London will be after Brexit, just another city outside of the EU?

Good morning!

Firstly - financial services work because financial centres have the products that clients are after. We're not just talking about governments but about private investors. If wealth management services are well established in London for example clients will go for them.

Governments do participate in financial markets. For example to sell gilts or bonds. However you go to markets because you know that there will be customers there.

In theory you could move to different trading venues but this inconveniences customers and you can't guarantee that they will follow you to New York and Singapore. Moreover New York and Singapore are impacted by time zone differences and an American and Asian focus. London is still the obvious choice as Europe's investment banker after Brexit. Moving would be both expensive for European clients and governments. Governments might tolerate this out of principle but clients won't.

Relations between the UK and the EU aren't so acrimonious that this should be a serious option. For clients economics does matter more than politics. That's why they put their money into financial services such as wealth management portfolios or in hedge funds.

Again, it's not really helpful to discuss how willing the EU are to take a knife to themselves. Some posters seem mildly masochistic in this regard. The positive approach is to see that both sides want a good deal and to see what can be got. At present there's every hope of a good outcome.

murphaph wrote: »

It's simply not credible to claim that the 70% service dominated economy of the UK could survive a number of years after Brexit on WTO rules.

They need a deal. End of story.

Services are already traded into the EU from other countries to begin with. If they are required they will be still bought with or without tariffs.

The UK could weather this. But I think you've got a mild obsession with the crashing out scenario.

The UK doesn't want this and neither does the EU. So why dwell on it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

But the EU is under no time pressure. It can simply allow itself access to London for as long as it pleases and gradually turn the screw that drives EU business back into the EU.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

But the EU is under no time pressure. It can simply allow itself access to London for as long as it pleases and gradually turn the screw that drives EU business back into the EU.

Good morning!

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think it's a misunderstanding of how financial services work. Clients go to trading venues or to participants in trading venues. It generally isn't the other way around.

Financial centres don't grow under duress. They grow because governments make policy favourable to business like what Thatcher did in the City with the Big Bang in the 80's.

The EU have been trying to take business out of London to the Eurozone for years. It hasn't worked. I don't think it will work. Even if you legislate it doesn't mean companies will follow you.

Again - there's a lot of positives about where we stand now. I think a sensible deal will be hammered out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

It didn't work because the UK had every right as an EU member state to do that work. The EU however can drive significant business out of London and into the EU once the UK is no longer a member.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Firstly - financial services work because financial centres have the products that clients are after. We're not just talking about governments but about private investors. If wealth management services are well established in London for example clients will go for them.

Governments do participate in financial markets. For example to sell gilts or bonds. However you go to markets because you know that there will be customers there.

In theory you could move to different trading venues but this inconveniences customers and you can't guarantee that they will follow you to New York and Singapore. Moreover New York and Singapore are impacted by time zone differences and an American and Asian focus. London is still the obvious choice as Europe's investment banker after Brexit. Moving would be both expensive for European clients and governments. Governments might tolerate this out of principle but clients won't.

Relations between the UK and the EU aren't so acrimonious that this should be a serious option. For clients economics does matter more than politics. That's why they put their money into financial services such as wealth management portfolios or in hedge funds.

Again, it's not really helpful to discuss how willing the EU are to take a knife to themselves. Some posters seem mildly masochistic in this regard. The positive approach is to see that both sides want a good deal and to see what can be got. At present there's every hope of a good outcome.

You are talking about existing arrangements that London benefit from right now and this will keep the clients there. I think we will not agree as you don't think anything will change even when everyone tells you it will change. Theresa May has said she will change it all by leaving the EU, all of it, including the single market, customs union and ECJ oversight. You think this poses no problem to the UK in any sense and life will continue just because right now life is fine. Please correct me if I am wrong though.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think it's a misunderstanding of how financial services work. Clients go to trading venues or to participants in trading venues. It generally isn't the other way around.

I've held various roles in the financial services sector in Europe for over 27 years and from my perspective you seem to be concentrating on trading. The thing is trading is only one aspect and not a particularly important one at that, except to traders. Corporate clients and indeed many private clients go to London because it is their gateway to Europe for corporate financing, investing and so on. Take that a way and many will see no need to go to London, since it can offer nothing more than either NY or Singapore.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU have been trying to take business out of London to the Eurozone for years. It hasn't worked. I don't think it will work. Even if you legislate it doesn't mean companies will follow you.

This simply is not true. What the EU has been trying to do is get control over some very high risk situations in The City, situations where were build on the backs of EU investors. And that will now stop. Without the UK there to veto EU rules that don't favour London, it becomes very easy to legislate actually.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again - there's a lot of positives about where we stand now. I think a sensible deal will be hammered out.

Just as with other cases, it is extremely unlikely that the UK will get any deal on financial services unless it is in full compliance with EU legislation, for the simple reason that you can not have major players in the market not subject to the jurisdiction of that market.

Without a deal London will start to decline, it will not happen overnight but it will happen as the corporate clients either to just use NY &/or Singapore or alternative use an EU location. NY is my gateway the Americas, Singapore is my gateway to Asia and London is my gateway to ..... well no where actually.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

If wealth management services are well established in London for example clients will go for them.

Wealth Management has become a commodity industry. In the old days we used to calculate profits in percentages, these days we talk base points. So it is definitely not the great business it used to be.

As for the products most come from about 20 main provides and are often white branded by UK asset managers. In truth most are domiciled in either Luxembourg or Dublin, not London.

Most non EU distributers have traditionally chosen London as their European location because it was English speaking and offered them a gateway to European markets via passporting. Without passporting there is no advantage for them to be there.

As for the clients, if you can't sell to EU clients then there really is not much point being there.

London is about to loose it's biggest advantage over NY or Singapore and without some kind of deal it will be just another financial centre in say 10 or 15 years.