Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wtf is a banker by the way?

Well in Switzerland the only people who describe themselves as bankers are people who are actually partners in a bank. In Ireland just about anyone who works for a bank will pass for a banker.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

passporting is a doddle. Every major bank would have subsidiaries in european countries, those subsidiaries will be used to provide services in the eu.

I told you to educate yourself on passporting for a reason, it is not a doddle I I have no indenting of educating you. But suffice to say you can not go around open subsidiaries as you please.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As I said, there will not be wholescale moving of wealthy bankers (whatever a banker is) to Dublin. That is just fantasy stuff

It's not the number of bankers you move in the end, it's the volume of business and the taxes that will generate. For common law based banks Ireland is attractive because it offers a similar legal structure and of course it is English speaking.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

No! It's not the same. Currently the UK and Ireland share information about arrivals from third countries! That will not happen for EU citizens arriving in Ireland. Not a chance.

The Brazilian is recorded and gets a stamp in his passport as he enters Ireland. The Pole does not, nor will he after Brexit.

I would have thought that this sort of sharing will be a very big issue and will be one of the areas both sides are very keen to continue. Security and Intelligence will still be a major requirement of all countries in europe, not just the ones in the eu.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

HSBC estimate that maybe 1000 jobs could move to Paris (they employ 43,000 in the UK) to cover the 20% of its business that will be affected by a hard Brexit.

HSBC is a British high street bank, so the real question is how does the figure of 1000 compare to their number of staff working in IB, AM and WM?

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

Well in Switzerland the only people who describe themselves as bankers are people who are actually partners in a bank. In Ireland just about anyone who works for a bank will pass for a banker.

yes, which is why I asked what the hell a banker is. I doubt many partners in global banks will be moving to Dublin in the near future

Jim2007 wrote: »

I told you to educate yourself on passporting for a reason, it is not a doddle I I have no indenting of educating you.

No, you told me to educate myself because you were being smart. Getting around passporting is a doddle. As i said in a previous post, most of the banks in question will already have european subsidiaries, or will be subsidiaires themselves. There is absolutely no reason why (as HSBC are doing) that business can't just be transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary in Paris.

Jim2007 wrote: »

But suffice to say you can not go around open subsidiaries as you please.

Why would you, when they will already exist?

Jim2007 wrote: »

It's not the number of bankers you move in the end, it's the volume of business and the taxes that will generate.

yes, around 20% of the revenue of the city of London[/quote]

Jim2007 wrote: »

For common law based banks Ireland is attractive because it offers a similar legal structure and of course it is English speaking.

yes, because every bank and everyone who works in a bank, in London, is English:rolleyes:

And apparantly it is me that needs to educate myself

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

HSBC is a British high street bank, so the real question is how does the figure of 1000 compare to their number of staff working in IB, AM and WM?

no idea, but there is reportedly 8000 working in Canada Square

blanch152

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would have thought that this sort of sharing will be a very big issue and will be one of the areas both sides are very keen to continue. Security and Intelligence will still be a major requirement of all countries in europe, not just the ones in the eu.

You have to sign up to Freedom of Movement to benefit from information sharing.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The same one France uses when the UK stick them on a train back to Paris maybe?

How often does the UK do that, then?

Your question presumes that, post-Brexit, this France-bound, illegals-laden British train would be let through into France unimpeded as it currently does.

You presume much.

The ball that is what Macron will do about the LTA, is very much still in play, and still in the UK's camp for now.

The latest leaked proposals look to move it that much further into the back of GB's net.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would have thought that this sort of sharing will be a very big issue and will be one of the areas both sides are very keen to continue. Security and Intelligence will still be a major requirement of all countries in europe, not just the ones in the eu.

There's no way our EU partners will tolerate us handing over information to a third country about the comings and goings of their citizens through Ireland. At least I'd be quite amazed if that came to pass.

murphaph

Jim2007 wrote: »

HSBC is a British high street bank, so the real question is how does the figure of 1000 compare to their number of staff working in IB, AM and WM?

Indeed. The highly paid and taxed jobs are the ones to be worried about. Retail banking jobs are being lost the world over as people move to online banking.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

How often does the UK do that, then?

Your question presumes that, post-Brexit, this France-bound, illegals-laden British train would be let through into France unimpeded as it currently does.

You presume much.

The ball that is what Macron will do about the LTA, is very much still in play, and still in the UK's camp for now.

The latest leaked proposals look to move it that much further into the back of GB's net.

you've just presumed this illegals laden train would be allowed to enter the UK??

is there one rule for the French and one rule for everyone else?

Actually, don't bother answering that one.

kingchess

Speaking of Banks, it seems mr. Davis wants to have access to funding from the European investment bank after Brexit, the UK have a 16% share in the EIB. The UK will want to enjoy the benefits of the bank-whose share holders are the member states of the EU-when the UK leaves the EU and will no longer be a member state. This Bank has invested over 30 billion in the UK ,for infrastructure etc,over the past 5 years,

Bit cynical

blanch152 wrote: »

You have to sign up to Freedom of Movement to benefit from information sharing.

Please provide links to this rule.

Fratton Fred

kingchess wrote: »

Speaking of Banks, it seems mr. Davis wants to have access to funding from the European investment bank after Brexit, the UK have a 16% share in the EIB. The UK will want to enjoy the benefits of the bank-whose share holders are the member states of the EU-when the UK leaves the EU and will no longer be a member state. This Bank has invested over 30 billion in the UK ,for infrastructure etc,over the past 5 years,

It seems like a logical thing to do. Trying to unpick that particular complication isn't going to be easy and nor is it going to cause anyone anything but pain.

The bank doesn't invest as such, it offers loans for infrastructure projects, loans that have to be repaid. The reason it is able to raise capital so easily is that it is 64% owned by four of the worlds largest economies. removing one of them could have a detrimental effect on its ability to raise capital, especially as one of the remaining ones isn't exactly giving the world markets a great deal of confidence at the moment.

Calina

The one that is leaving does not look good at all Fred.

In any case absolutely every complication could be solved by the UK staying in the EU. The EIB is not special in that respect.

Gerry T

Fratton Fred wrote:

It seems like a logical thing to do. Trying to unpick that particular complication isn't going to be easy and nor is it going to cause anyone anything but pain.

I'm sure it could be structured that the UK remains in the EU bank, but it's highly unlikely. But if it did I'm sure the interest rate it would pay would be simular to other banks out there, and not the preferential rate to EU members.

RDM_83 again

Calina wrote: »

The one that is leaving does not look good at all Fred.

In any case absolutely every complication could be solved by the UK staying in the EU. The EIB is not special in that respect.

Seriously go read up about the situation with the Italian banks, just because there has been decent growth there doesn't mean the problem has gone away

steddyeddy

Downing St asks big business in the UK to sign letter backing Britain's Brexit strategy. Business leaders said "they will not be strong armed by ministers." Looks like desperation to me.

There's also mention of a transition deal, but how will the EU agree to that if there's an abrupt end to freedom of movement?

https://www.ft.com/content/78ea1adc-9315-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0

steddyeddy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Seriously go read up about the situation with the Italian banks, just because there has been decent growth there doesn't mean the problem has gone away

What's that got to do with the EU?

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would have thought that this sort of sharing will be a very big issue and will be one of the areas both sides are very keen to continue. Security and Intelligence will still be a major requirement of all countries in europe, not just the ones in the eu.

It's a huge issue. The UK is diverging from the EU on privacy.

Indiscriminate collection of emails is illegal, court rules in response to challenge originally brought by David Davis

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's a huge issue. The UK is diverging from the EU on privacy.

Indiscriminate collection of emails is illegal, court rules in response to challenge originally brought by David Davis

Davis resigned his set over the "Snoopers Charter".

It is a huge bone of contention, but i'm not sure France and Germany are actually that far away from the UK's position. It is a debate that will continue on long after Brexit has happened, especially if terror attacks continue at the current rate.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It seems like a logical thing to do. Trying to unpick that particular complication isn't going to be easy and nor is it going to cause anyone anything but pain.

The bank doesn't invest as such, it offers loans for infrastructure projects, loans that have to be repaid. The reason it is able to raise capital so easily is that it is 64% owned by four of the worlds largest economies. removing one of them could have a detrimental effect on its ability to raise capital, especially as one of the remaining ones isn't exactly giving the world markets a great deal of confidence at the moment.

Mmm. On the other hand, the bank sees itself as "the Bank of the European Union", and its operating strategy is "to finance viable capital projects which further EU objectives", such as promoting European cohesion and integration. Does the UK want to remain committed to a such a bank with such a mandate and such a strategy, or would it expect a certain amount of review and re-imagining of the bank's role and strategy if one of its major shareholders is no longer to be an EU member state?

The other factor, of course, is that this is closely related to the "Brexit bill" discussions. In any reckoning of the UK's claims on, and obligations to, the EU, the UK's stake in the EIB is a big item on the UK side of the account. In round figures, the UK's 16.6% chunk of the bank's share capital is worth about EUR 3.5 billion, and its share of the bank's accumulated reserves is worth about EUR 6.7 billion. That's about EUR 10.2 billion that would be due to the UK inconsequence of departure, and that will go to reduce the Brexit bill. Unless the UK doesn't depart from the bank, in which case it won't.

Fratton Fred

The UK also financed several projects, including the £15bn cross rail project, through the EIB, so one presumes it would also have to repay that as well.

As I said, unpicking the stake in the EIB could be more pain than is needed.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK also financed several projects, including the £15bn cross rail project, through the EIB, so one presumes it would also have to repay that as well.

As I said, unpicking the stake in the EIB could be more pain than is needed.

Loans from the EIB to borrowers/projects in the UK will have to be repaid whether nor not the UK leaves the EIB.

The EIB already makes loans to borrowers outside the EU, and presumably Brexit/the UK withdrawing as a member of the EIB won't in itself affect any existing loans. As in, they'll still have to be repaid when they fall due.

Keeping the UK in the EIB looks more complex than letting it leave. As it is, only about 8% of the EIB's loan book is to UK projects, and I think the proportion of new loans to UK projects would fall sharply after Brexit, unless the EIB introduced a new category, with new lending criteria, for external loans intended to be appropriate for UK projects. And that opens up a fruitful source of arguments.

Thomas__

steddyeddy wrote: »

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Seriously go read up about the situation with the Italian banks, just because there has been decent growth there doesn't mean the problem has gone away

What's that got to do with the EU?

Well, I suggest that you take a minute and think about who´s the President of the ECB and how he´s sustaining the zero interests policy in the Euro-Zone. Even supposed "non-involvement" can lead to a support of solving bank problems in Italy when the very person who presides the ECB is from that country himself. So, in some ways, it has something to do with the EU and her member states who are in the Euro-Zone. It is obvious and has been stated very often that this zero interest policy is mainly to help the weaker southern EU member states to cope with their financial problems.

Thomas__

Gerry T wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote:

It seems like a logical thing to do. Trying to unpick that particular complication isn't going to be easy and nor is it going to cause anyone anything but pain.

I'm sure it could be structured that the UK remains in the EU bank, but it's highly unlikely. But if it did I'm sure the interest rate it would pay would be simular to other banks out there, and not the preferential rate to EU members.

The UK govt is heading for a hard Brexit and this will touch everything which could bound them to the EU in any way further. They want to "be their own masters" again but by cherry picking also want to keep the advantages and access to the single market and they can´t have both. But that´s the sillyness of the Brexiteers and their wishful-thinking-policy.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you've just presumed this illegals laden train would be allowed to enter the UK??

is there one rule for the French and one rule for everyone else?

Actually, don't bother answering that one.

Thomas presumed that illegals laden train would be allowed to enter the UK, and you accepted his premise with your Schengen rule reply argument:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

I am not surprised by that al all, at all. Maybe those stranded migrants on the French coast who want to get to the UK are also - in some ways - a reason for the result of this poll. It might be possible that after the UK has left the EU and together with that this special agreement between the UK and France, which allows border checks implemented by UK Border personell on French soil, will be suspended, France might just let them go to the UK cos the UK border personell would have to leave back to UK soil and close down their check points at Calais. Well, that won´t be welcomed by the British for this would cause some trouble for them to send them back, with France refusing to take them back, more so when they have no documentation (passports etc.).

If they have no documentation then France would be breaking schengen rules by letting them leave France.

What were you saying about double standards, again? :rolleyes:

It's not selectivity of rules at all. The fact of the matter is, the UK has long been ill-equipped for, and has a woeful track record in, stopping illegals from coming in, and subsequently rounding them up and deporting them. Chronic under-investment in and under-staffing of HMBF, amplified by budgetary cuts in the past decade, and no ID cards, go a long way to explain it.

Even if some more of that £350m (well, whatever pennies are left of it by now), gets repurposed by No.11 to HMBF, I can't see that situation changing anytime soon.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Loans from the EIB to borrowers/projects in the UK will have to be repaid whether nor not the UK leaves the EIB.

The EIB already makes loans to borrowers outside the EU, and presumably Brexit/the UK withdrawing as a member of the EIB won't in itself affect any existing loans. As in, they'll still have to be repaid when they fall due.

Keeping the UK in the EIB looks more complex than letting it leave. As it is, only about 8% of the EIB's loan book is to UK projects, and I think the proportion of new loans to UK projects would fall sharply after Brexit, unless the EIB introduced a new category, with new lending criteria, for external loans intended to be appropriate for UK projects. And that opens up a fruitful source of arguments.

The EIF (with EIB shareholding at 62%) is already turning the tap off for UK VC funds. See post #1651. We've now had two start-up clients folding because their UK VC investor is not getting the next slice of EIF funding. Common reason heard in both instances is the 2017 GE election result. I'm quietly confident that the policy has trickled down from the EIB, and that it is being implemented by the EIB itself.

Thomas__

ambro25 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you've just presumed this illegals laden train would be allowed to enter the UK??

is there one rule for the French and one rule for everyone else?

Actually, don't bother answering that one.

Thomas presumed that illegals laden train would be allowed to enter the UK, and you accepted his premise with your Schengen rule reply argument:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

I am not surprised by that al all, at all. Maybe those stranded migrants on the French coast who want to get to the UK are also - in some ways - a reason for the result of this poll. It might be possible that after the UK has left the EU and together with that this special agreement between the UK and France, which allows border checks implemented by UK Border personell on French soil, will be suspended, France might just let them go to the UK cos the UK border personell would have to leave back to UK soil and close down their check points at Calais. Well, that won´t be welcomed by the British for this would cause some trouble for them to send them back, with France refusing to take them back, more so when they have no documentation (passports etc.).

If they have no documentation then France would be breaking schengen rules by letting them leave France.

What were you saying about double standards, again? :rolleyes:

It's not selectivity of rules at all. The fact of the matter is, the UK has long been ill-equipped for, and has a woeful track record in, stopping illegals from coming in, and subsequently rounding them up and deporting them. Chronic under-investment in and under-staffing of HMBF, amplified by budgetary cuts in the past decade, and no ID cards, go a long way to explain it.

Even if some more of that £350m (well, whatever pennies are left of it by now), gets repurposed by No.11 to HMBF, I can't see that situation changing anytime soon.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Loans from the EIB to borrowers/projects in the UK will have to be repaid whether nor not the UK leaves the EIB.  

The EIB already makes loans to borrowers outside the EU, and presumably Brexit/the UK withdrawing as a member of the EIB won't in itself affect any existing loans.  As in, they'll still have to be repaid when they fall due.  

Keeping the UK in the EIB looks more complex than letting it leave.  As it is, only about 8% of the EIB's loan book is to UK projects, and I think the proportion of new loans to UK projects would fall sharply after Brexit, unless the EIB introduced a new category, with new lending criteria, for external loans intended to be appropriate for UK projects.  And that opens up a fruitful source of arguments.

The EIF (with EIB shareholding at 62%) is already turning the tap off for UK VC funds. See post #1651. We've now had two start-up clients folding because their UK VC investor is not getting the next slice of EIF funding. Common reason heard in both instances is the 2017 GE election result. I'm quietly confident that the policy has trickled down from the EIB, and that it is being implemented by the EIB itself.

First of all, I have Fratton Fred on my ignore list and therefore don´t read his püosts, even when quoted by others. It´s not quite that clear to me what you mean by your question. What I have posted before is just what I would anticipate in the Event of the UK leaving the EU and France suspending their agreement of border control with the UK on French soil. I have also taken into account how migrants deal with their documentation papers in order to make it to the country of their choice. That´s commonplace in some migrants practice cos they know that without proper papers, it´s hard for the host country to repatriate them to their country of origin. That´s nothing new though, such things happen for decades, just the high numbers of migrants following this pattern brought it to the fore in the media.

In such a Scenario, the UK would only have the chance to "repell" illegal Immigration while they are crossing the Channel, like those boats crossing the Med. When some of them made it hidden in Lorries or Trains and get caught long after they have entered the UK, it´ll be difficult for the UK administration to track and trace the migrants way into the UK and they´d have a problem to remove him from the UK, cos they can´t determin where to repatriate them.

When you talk about double-standards, it´s not what I support, but it certainly is what I was talking about by the example regarding illegal migration. One the one hand, the UK govt wants to get rid of EU nationals and on the other what they´ll get will be illegal immigrants from Africa and the MidEast. Well, I suppose that some people in the UK are yearing for cheap labourers to exploit and for that can´t be done with EU nationals, other foreign people might fit in better. It´s like back to the Victorian era - in some ways.

ambro25

Thomas__ wrote: »

It´s not quite that clear to me what you mean by your question.<...>When you talk about double-standards, it´s not what I support, but it certainly is what I was talking about by the example regarding illegal migration.

That is all just banter between Fred and me, nothing you need to feel concerned about, Thomas

Thomas__ wrote: »

When some of them made it hidden in Lorries or Trains and get caught long after they have entered the UK, it´ll be difficult for the UK administration to track and trace the migrants way into the UK and they´d have a problem to remove him from the UK, cos they can´t determin where to repatriate them.

This a very long-standing problem, on a scale estimated at between 250,000 (The Telegraph, June 2017) and 1.1m (unsurprisingly, The Express, August 2016), with the ONS and LSE putting it at 500,000-ish (2007).

Which Ms May proved wholly incapable of solving during her own, 6-year tenure at the Home Office. Likewise the (100% UK-controllable) larger numbers of non-EU nationals immigrating into the UK and fewer numbers of non-EU nationals departing from the UK, relative to EU nationals.

[rethoric] But hey, it's all the EU/jobs-stealing EU immigrants' fault [/rethoric]

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

The EIF (with EIB shareholding at 62%) is already turning the tap off for UK VC funds. See post #1651. We've now had two start-up clients folding because their UK VC investor is not getting the next slice of EIF funding. Common reason heard in both instances is the 2017 GE election result. I'm quietly confident that the policy has trickled down from the EIB, and that it is being implemented by the EIB itself.

so the EIB stated (from your link)

An EIB source said: “There is no formal moratorium on EIB lending in the UK, contracts have been signed since Article 50 was notified in March and we expect to sign further contracts before the end of the year.

“However, given the unprecedented nature of Brexit we are currently undertaking due diligence, covering legal issues, environmental standards and the EIB’s privileges and immunities.”

The bank said that the extra checks are needed to ensure contracts cover eventualities that might arise after the UK leaves the European Union.

A number of existing loan deals with local government are already agreed, and are not under threat.

so they aren't "Turning off the tap" they are carrying out extra due dilligence (as any bank would have to in a time of uncertainty). That uncertainty could be easily resolved, can it not?

The EIB can be easily ringfenced from the Brexit discussions if both parties are willing to do so. It is a facility that is pretty much independant from the eu, as long as projects meet eu guidelines and there is no reason why this needs to change.

It is a shame about your start ups, but there is also the possibility that they just aren't seen a good investment by the EIF. If they were that good, securing funds through via VC funding shouldn't be an issue. I have friends and relatives working in both VC and PE and both are constantly looking for companies to invest it and often compalin about the lack of "Quality" out there.

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The EIB can be easily ringfenced from the Brexit discussions if both parties are willing to do so. It is a facility that is pretty much independant from the eu, as long as projects meet eu guidelines and there is no reason why this needs to change.

Meeting EU guidelines? But but we are taking back control!

ancapailldorcha

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Meeting EU guidelines? But but we are taking back control!

There have been no end of warnings about this. Enough with the one-liners please.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the EIB stated (from your link)



so they aren't "Turning off the tap" they are carrying out extra due dilligence (as any bank would have to in a time of uncertainty).

LOL, bless!

Do you know how to turn taps off without running afoul of anti-discriminatory EU legislation (of which the UK still benefits, as a EU member state)?

By carrying more 'due diligence' over longer time periods (-is merely one example of statutorily-compliant feet-dragging, effectively kicking the investment decision and contract into the long grass).

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a shame about your start ups, but there is also the possibility that they just aren't seen a good investment by the EIF. If they were that good, securing funds through via VC funding shouldn't be an issue. I have friends and relatives working in both VC and PE and both are constantly looking for companies to invest it and often compalin about the lack of "Quality" out there.

They weren't "my" start-ups, and I'll not pass any judgement on their qualitative or competitive merit. What I can certainly say, is that they were clients, with new tech real enough to gain granted patents, and they were sustaining UK jobs over a couple of years at least. Their demise is at least as attributable to Brexit-caused uncertainty, as to any other qualitative factor.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the EIB stated (from your link)



so they aren't "Turning off the tap" they are carrying out extra due dilligence (as any bank would have to in a time of uncertainty). That uncertainty could be easily resolved, can it not?

The EIB can be easily ringfenced from the Brexit discussions if both parties are willing to do so. It is a facility that is pretty much independant from the eu, as long as projects meet eu guidelines and there is no reason why this needs to change . . . .

It's not so straightforward.

The first point is that the EIB's own charter requires that its members be Member States. For the UK to remain a member requires a renegotiation of the bank's charter, which is not straightforward (and requires unanimous consent of the EU-28).

The second point is that the stated object of the Bank is to promote European integration and cohesion. The bank "works closely with other EU institutions to implement EU policy". It "provides finance and expertise for sustainable investment projects that contribute to EU policy objectives". Does the UK wish to commit substantial resources to such a project? And, if it does, to the EU-27 want it in there, given that its commitment to the objectives is, um, questionable?

Or does the UK wish to continue to participate in the bank on the basis that its objectives will be modified to be more consistent with the UK's vision? Because, obviously, that's not straightforward at all.

Assuming we somehow get past all this, and the UK remains a member, this doesn't necessarily mean that the UK will continue to benefit from loans from the bank in the way that it does now. The bank has entirely different lending strategies for loans within the EU, and for those outside the EU. Post-Brexit, obviously, UK projects will be evaluated on the basis of the external lending strategies. For this purpose there are a variety of lending mandates which are based on EU external cooperation and development policies, which differ from region to region. Post-Brexit, as a non-candidate state, the UK would fall into the "European neighbourhood" region, and UK projects would be evaluated under criteria developed for former Soviet states, and North African states. This is probably not going to work very well. There'd need to be a new lending mandate developed for the circumstances of the UK, which would have to depend on the EU's external co-operation and devlopment policies with respect to the UK, which are nowhere near being worked out yet.

So, no, its not straightforward. A lot of work would have to be done to develop a basis for the UK's continued membership of the Bank on terms that would be attractive to the UK and acceptable to the EU. As matters stand, there's no such basis.

Chips Lovell

EU position paper on Northern Ireland and the border is out today. Looks like the Irish government has had significant input into this one, echoing the Taoiseach's recent remarks that it was up to Britain to fix the problems it had created.

The European Commission’s views in the paper are expected to closely mirror the views of the Irish Government, which have hardened recently as patience with the British government over Brexit wears thin.

It is understood that the document – part of the Brexit negotiation process – will reject recent British suggestions for avoiding a hard Border after the UK leaves the EU.

The main thrust of the commission remains its insistence that it is up to the UK, because it is pulling out of the EU, to set out the specifics of how to mitigate the effects in Ireland of its decision.

“It’s about getting the UK to accept responsibility for its decisions,” was how one EU source put it.

At the moment, the British position could best be described as Schrodinger's Cat diplomacy, attempting to maintain simultaneously opposite states: leaving the EU, but retaining many of the benefits of membership, not wanting a hard border but rejecting all the institutions that make it invisible, and so on.

Thomas__

ambro25 wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

It´s not quite that clear to me what you mean by your question.<...>When you talk about double-standards, it´s not what I support, but it certainly is what I was talking about by the example regarding illegal migration.

That is all just banter between Fred and me, nothing you need to feel concerned about, Thomas

Thomas__ wrote: »

When some of them made it hidden in Lorries or Trains and get caught long after they have entered the UK, it´ll be difficult for the UK administration to track and trace the migrants way into the UK and they´d have a problem to remove him from the UK, cos they can´t determin where to repatriate them.

This a very long-standing problem, on a scale estimated at between 250,000 (The Telegraph, June 2017) and 1.1m (unsurprisingly, The Express, August 2016), with the ONS and LSE putting it at 500,000-ish (2007).

Which Ms May proved wholly incapable of solving during her own, 6-year tenure at the Home Office. Likewise the (100% UK-controllable) larger numbers of non-EU nationals immigrating into the UK and fewer numbers of non-EU nationals departing from the UK, relative to EU nationals.

[rethoric] But hey, it's all the EU/jobs-stealing EU immigrants' fault [/rethoric]

Well, I guess that you´ve been following up the developments at Calais in 2015 and 2016 when the migration crisis was unfolding. The harassment of EU nationals started with Ms May as Home Secretary and much of what was reported in recent months stems from her time and of course more so since she´s become PM. The UKIP propaganda exploiting this crisis has surely turned some voters to vote for leave.

Just to consider to which time priods from the past the many of the UKIPers and Brexiteers cling on in their nostalgia. Some of them love the Victorian era, some the 1930s and even the 1940s, some are "fine" with the 1950s and what all those era have in common is? Less foreigners in GB but before that, the Irish were always "good enough" to be looked down upon. That´s the real backwards orientated thinking of these People and the fact that they chose to hold their "victory gathering" at the IWM in London the day after the BrexitRef is very telling, such as their nostalgia for the aforesaid eras. Well, I´ve been to visit this Museum twice during my Holidays in London and know what this Museum is all about. The Pride and Glory of the past. Some Brits didn´t overcome that era and what they´re missing is the shiny depiction of eras when there was much injustice, prejudice and lesser rights for employees, in short "when everybody knew his place". That´s what they want and that´s also why they like to cut everything loose that bounds them to modern and thus EU standards. It doesn´t goes without taking these aspects into account to get the bigger picture for why they are so keen to have the UK quitting their obligations to the ECJ and get a free hand to curb human rights as well as everything that protects the working people from exploitation by greedy employers.

There´s more to it behind the clumsy propaganda and it is no wonder why the right-wing press in the UK supported the leave camp while pretending to support the "taking back of sovreignty and control". I think that one day when those - I call them the bad and evil forces in the background - have prevailed, those who voted for them and which are not part of the upper classes will have their bad awakening. Latest so when they´ve been stripped off their rights and with this weak Labour Party and an old Marxist nostalgist like Corbyn in charge of the party, the others will have a rather easy play to do as they please, if no Court can stop them from doing so. But as we both know well enough, it´s Parliament that makes the laws. The plans of this present govt are out there, leaked to the media, dismissed by the current PM but I have no doubt that what is in the "drafts" is the core of what they are aiming at. It´s just a matter of whether and how they will be able to push that through the Commons and the majority is of essence for that. With the DUP as their supporters, they might get them through by a tiny margin, unless the Tories get rid of Ms May before she does even more damage and discredit the Tories for a long time, worse than what one has seen during the Thathcher years. I am still wating to see her downfall, cos there´s no-one else than herself who deserves that more than she does, together with her whole cabinet of incompetent losers.

Thomas__

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

EU position paper on Northern Ireland and the border is out today. Looks like the Irish government has had significant input into this one, echoing the Taoiseach's recent remarks that it was up to Britain to fix the problems it had created.

The European Commission’s views in the paper are expected to closely mirror the views of the Irish Government, which have hardened recently as patience with the British government over Brexit wears thin.

It is understood that the document – part of the Brexit negotiation process – will reject recent British suggestions for avoiding a hard Border after the UK leaves the EU.

The main thrust of the commission remains its insistence that it is up to the UK, because it is pulling out of the EU, to set out the specifics of how to mitigate the effects in Ireland of its decision.

“It’s about getting the UK to accept responsibility for its decisions,” was how one EU source put it.

At the moment, the British position could best be described as Schrodinger's Cat diplomacy, attempting to maintain simultaneously opposite states: leaving the EU, but retaining many of the benefits of membership, not wanting a hard border but rejecting all the institutions that make it invisible, and so on.

One might describe this tactics by the UK govt as being shizophrenic. I can´t help it but that´s the way I see it in regards of their behaviour and their stubbornness to come up with one and the same demands time and again, on and on. I´m sure that this UK govt will do nothing about it until Day-X has arrived and leave that unprepared until they´re forced to act, probably after 2019. In the meantime, they´ll just talk and do nothing.

robindch

steddyeddy wrote: »

Downing St asks big business in the UK to sign letter backing Britain's Brexit strategy. Business leaders said "they will not be strong armed by ministers." Looks like desperation to me.

The text of that letter seems to be as follows:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4406824/embarrassment-for-theresa-may-as-top-business-leaders-refuse-to-sign-letter-supporting-brexit-transition-strategy-due-to-uncertainty-surrounding-talks/
http://news.sky.com/story/ftse-100-chiefs-fury-at-no-10-letter-backing-ministers-on-brexit-11023229

It's certainly consistent with the Downing Street narrative - a) the UK is abandoning the EU; b) you must support this policy; c) where we're going will be great, though we don't yet know where that is.

Alleged Letter to be Signed By Business Leaders wrote:

We write as leaders of some of the UK's most dynamic businesses operating in sectors as diverse as technology, financial services and advanced manufacturing. Some of us personally supported the remain or leave campaigns at last year's referendum on EU membership, others did not make their positions public. But fifteen months later, we all share an understanding that Brexit is happening, a commitment to ensure that we make a success of the outcome for the whole country, and a confidence that a global Britain has the potential to become one of the most productive economies of the 21st century. This month the Government's Repeal Bill will initiate a programme of legislation that will make Britain ready for life outside the EU. We believe this is a good time for employers to work with Government and Parliament to make a success of Brexit and secure a bright future for our country. We welcome the Government's commitment to negotiating an interim period so that firms can ensure they are ready to adapt to the changing relationships and thrive under the new partnership being created with the EU. And as the UK makes progress towards establishing stronger trading links with markets like the US, India, Japan and Mexico, British businesses who know these markets well should stand ready to use their expertise and networks to cement future relationships. As business leaders, we have a duty to our shareholders and employees to continue to grow our businesses and ensure that they remain strong. As part of this we are also determined to see the UK continue to be a prosperous and united force for good in the world and are ready to play our full part to achieve this as Britain leaves the European Union.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

LOL, bless!

easily your most sensible comment on this entire thread. Well done.

ambro25 wrote: »

Do you know how to turn taps off without running afoul of anti-discriminatory EU legislation (of which the UK still benefits, as a EU member state)?

By carrying more 'due diligence' over longer time periods (-is merely one example of statutorily-compliant feet-dragging, effectively kicking the investment decision and contract into the long grass).
They weren't "my" start-ups, and I'll not pass any judgement on their qualitative or competitive merit. What I can certainly say, is that they were clients, with new tech real enough to gain granted patents, and they were sustaining UK jobs over a couple of years at least. Their demise is at least as attributable to Brexit-caused uncertainty, as to any other qualitative factor.

yep, tap turned off

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2016/2016-223-eib-agrees-gbp-60-million-backing-for-new-east-anglia-trains.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2017/2017-039-pound184-million-eib-backing-for-northern-powerhouse-investment-fund.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2017/2017-028-sovereign-secures-european-investment-for-new-homes.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/blog/all/get-smart-meters.htm

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not so straightforward.

The first point is that the EIB's own charter requires that its members be Member States. For the UK to remain a member requires a renegotiation of the bank's charter, which is not straightforward (and requires unanimous consent of the EU-28).

The second point is that the stated object of the Bank is to promote European integration and cohesion. The bank "works closely with other EU institutions to implement EU policy". It "provides finance and expertise for sustainable investment projects that contribute to EU policy objectives". Does the UK wish to commit substantial resources to such a project? And, if it does, to the EU-27 want it in there, given that its commitment to the objectives is, um, questionable?

Or does the UK wish to continue to participate in the bank on the basis that its objectives will be modified to be more consistent with the UK's vision? Because, obviously, that's not straightforward at all.

Assuming we somehow get past all this, and the UK remains a member, this doesn't necessarily mean that the UK will continue to benefit from loans from the bank in the way that it does now. The bank has entirely different lending strategies for loans within the EU, and for those outside the EU. Post-Brexit, obviously, UK projects will be evaluated on the basis of the external lending strategies. For this purpose there are a variety of lending mandates which are based on EU external cooperation and development policies, which differ from region to region. Post-Brexit, as a non-candidate state, the UK would fall into the "European neighbourhood" region, and UK projects would be evaluated under criteria developed for former Soviet states, and North African states. This is probably not going to work very well. There'd need to be a new lending mandate developed for the circumstances of the UK, which would have to depend on the EU's external co-operation and devlopment policies with respect to the UK, which are nowhere near being worked out yet.

So, no, its not straightforward. A lot of work would have to be done to develop a basis for the UK's continued membership of the Bank on terms that would be attractive to the UK and acceptable to the EU. As matters stand, there's no such basis.

so in your opinion, which is th more straightforward. The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK, plus the EIB then having to decide how to divt up its remaining shares and the potential of affecting its credit rating and therefore ability to secure low interst loans.

Of do they agree to come up with a strucutre that keeps the UK an active member of the EIB?

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK,

Allow the UK a discount off their exit bill to the value of their equity in EIB, have EIB make no new investments in the UK after Brexit. No need to settle all existing loans.

Nody

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so in your opinion, which is th more straightforward. The UK severing all ties with the EIB, which requires repayment of UK government equity by the EIB and settlement of loans in the UK, plus the EIB then having to decide how to divt up its remaining shares and the potential of affecting its credit rating and therefore ability to secure low interst loans.

Of do they agree to come up with a strucutre that keeps the UK an active member of the EIB?

Take all UK related loans vs. equity (i.e. let's say 15 billion outstanding loans, 20 billion equity so hand back loan portfolio + 5 billion) and hand it back to the UK state (UK now becomes the loan owner) plus what ever balance (or use to offset other EU related liabilities such as the budget etc.). Seeing how UK has falling investment grade EIB will have no issues sorting out the equity difference with a now stronger investment grade and you avoid a whole shed of legal related issues.

jm08

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Allow the UK a discount off their exit bill to the value of their equity in EIB, have EIB make no new investments in the UK after Brexit. No need to settle all existing loans.

I saw a study of what to do with the EIB brexit situation where they said that while the UK own 16% of the assets, it also owns 16% of the liabilities which when balanced out worked out that the UK would have to pay 63 bn to buy itself out. That didn't include the loans the UK had (about 35bn) from the EIB.

That may explain why the UK want to remain in the EIB, but it requires that the other 27 EU countries have to agree to it.

murphaph

jm08 wrote: »

I saw a study of what to do with the EIB brexit situation where they said that while the UK own 16% of the assets, it also owns 16% of the liabilities which when balanced out worked out that the UK would have to pay 63 bn to buy itself out. That didn't include the loans the UK had (about 35bn) from the EIB.

That may explain why the UK want to remain in the EIB, but it requires that the other 27 EU countries have to agree to it.

That's interesting. Do you have a source for that? I would have assumed that the bank has more on its loan book than it has liabilities, otherwise it's kind of insolvent.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well done.

Thank you. I aim to please :pac:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yep, tap turned off

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2016/2016-223-eib-agrees-gbp-60-million-backing-for-new-east-anglia-trains.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2017/2017-039-pound184-million-eib-backing-for-northern-powerhouse-investment-fund.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2017/2017-028-sovereign-secures-european-investment-for-new-homes.htm

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/blog/all/get-smart-meters.htm

These were all being negotiated, if not already agreed in principle, at the time of the referendum (noting that one of your links pre-dates it). That was 15 months ago.

On the EIB front,

Earlier this year the EIB did agree to nine projects worth £1.4billion in the UK but nothing has been financed since June.

(source)

On the EIF front, lending support to my earlier posts:

Rory Stirling, a partner in BGF Ventures, told The Times: “While they’re not saying ‘no’ officially, the clear message is that they are closed for business. They are doing eternal due diligence.”
<...>
The Dealroom report showed French venture houses raised £1.7billion during the first six months of 2017, or more than triple what they had raised over the same period last year.

That compares with £1.6 billion for their British-based counterparts during the six months through June 30, whose fundraising efforts declined by around 50 per cent compared to the first half of 2016.

(source)

Trust the Express to consistently report all the negatives attributable to the EU side of things. Then again, it's not the only source (EIB, EIF).

It'll be interesting to see comparative stats for EU funding into the UK in the period April 2017 (Article 50 triggering) to April 2018, and then a historical context pre-April 2017. Methinks what examples you've been posting, shall be seen as the dregs.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Ambro and Fred, debate the substance without taking swipes at each other.

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

That's interesting. Do you have a source for that? I would have assumed that the bank has more on its loan book than it has liabilities, otherwise it's kind of insolvent.

Here is a reference to it (though not the one I initially came across).

But Britain is also liable to cover its portion of the bank’s debt, which amounts to 469 billion euros, EIB President Werner Hoyer said in a hearing at the economic affairs committee of the European Parliament.
“Britain has 16 percent of the shares and probably will want to have a countervalue of these shares when they leave. On the other hand, we also have contingency liabilities of (half a trillion) euros in which the United Kingdom participates with 16 percent,” Hoyer told lawmakers.
If the 16.1 percentage rate was simply applied to the liabilities, Britain would end up with a 75.5 billion euro tab, from which its share of the bank’s capital should be deducted, leaving a 65.3 billion euros bill with the EIB.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-eib/britain-may-have-big-brexit-bill-to-settle-with-eu-investment-bank-idUKKBN16T259

View

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

EU position paper on Northern Ireland and the border is out today. Looks like the Irish government has had significant input into this one, echoing the Taoiseach's recent remarks that it was up to Britain to fix the problems it had created.

The European Commission’s views in the paper are expected to closely mirror the views of the Irish Government, which have hardened recently as patience with the British government over Brexit wears thin.

It is understood that the document – part of the Brexit negotiation process – will reject recent British suggestions for avoiding a hard Border after the UK leaves the EU.

The main thrust of the commission remains its insistence that it is up to the UK, because it is pulling out of the EU, to set out the specifics of how to mitigate the effects in Ireland of its decision.

“It’s about getting the UK to accept responsibility for its decisions,” was how one EU source put it.

At the moment, the British position could best be described as Schrodinger's Cat diplomacy, attempting to maintain simultaneously opposite states: leaving the EU, but retaining many of the benefits of membership, not wanting a hard border but rejecting all the institutions that make it invisible, and so on.

The problem with that approach is that the UK will just continue to stall about the issue. Brexiters regard us as pushovers who will just roll-over rather than face up to hard decisions. Why therefore should they do any of the work?

It is only when we go out and demonstrate that we are perfectly willing to have a full hard border (by going through surveying, planning etc) and are willing to operate it as a regular EU/non-EU international frontier that Brexiters will stop assuming they can walk all over us.

ambro25

I'm unsure whether they have been posted yet, so here goes regardless.

The link to all the EU position papers ('guiding principles') published by the EU Commission today is HERE.

The Guiding principles transmitted to the EU27 for the Dialogue on Ireland/Northern Ireland, in particular, is HERE.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

The Guiding principles transmitted to the EU27 for the Dialogue on Ireland/Northern Ireland, in particular, is HERE.

Summary:

The UK says it wants to leave the EU, single market and customs union while keeping a frictionless border and common travel area.

It is up to the UK to suggest how this can be done.

[not stated but obviously meant to imply: it cannot be done and the UK are lying]

demfad

Excellent thread on twitter by (suprisingly) Brexiter Pete North about what happens in case of hard disorderly Brexit:
https://twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/904708989912567808

We need to understand the impact of a no deal Brexit deal to the UK.
We live in a "computer says no" world. If I go for a mortgage and a database says I'm no good, then that is the last word on it. Trade systems work the same way. Either a transaction is legal and permitted - or it is not. If the UK is wiped from the EU databases then we do not qualify for preferential trade measures. We don't exist.
UK is no longer part of the EU open skies agreement so landing slots are cancelled. Months of scheduling disrupted. We are subject to all the rules applicable to a third country with no formal relations. - Like we just dropped out of the sky.
None of the systems pertaining to "frictionless trade" will have a UK entry in the databases.
We won't even have our own customs and regulatory regime. All of it is keyed to EU systems and institutions.Testing labs and customs offices no longer recognised or authorised. The system simply stops working.
There are those who say this is not insurmountable but what do we do while we sort this all
Once you break a supply chain, EU business will look elsewhere for suppliers and they won't be back in a hurry. It functions on trust.
It will take us years just to design and roll out the replacement software and systems.
But supposing there are workarounds as Tories continue to assert. Ok, let's entertain that for a
This is the same government that has taken 15 months to learn the difference between the single market and the customs union.
And they STILL can't get the basic definitions right. Our MPs don't have the first concept of how customs systems work.
You think they will cope? Even the people who are supposed to know have only half a clue.
Rebuilding the system will require all new facilities built from scratch. We are looking at years
Oh and let's not even get into obscure things like mutual recognition of driving licences and qualifications. What fun that will be!
In short, everything fails, all at once, in ways our government is incapable of adequately responding. Operation Enduring Cluster****.
It would be bad news even if we had a Rolls Royce government. But we don't. We have David Davis - and he's the competent one!
But never you mind. That Rees-Mogg fellow will sort it all out. After all, he has a posh accent so he must be clever. True story!
Addendum - note that this is without even making mention of tariffs!

Now consider what would happen in Ireland's case. The above would apply to ALL our trade with the UK NOT just hard border issues.

A lot of the talk has been about the UK holding a gun to their own head and threatening the EU. Like a mini playing chicken with a juggernaut. The juggernaut wont be happy with the crash but the mini will be written off.

But while the entire EU will easily survive a hard Brexit: the above scenario seems to suggest that Ireland would also be written off by hard disorderly Brexit.

I am starting to wonder if the British are not gambling that when it comes to the crunch the EU will be forced to compromise to save its member state Ireland.

The image should be of the UK holding a gun to Ireland's head ......or holding Ireland and a grenade threatening to take us both out....you get the picture...hostage situation.