Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Boredstiff666

joeguevara wrote: »

It’s a great example of someone who wholeheartedly believed the lies and propaganda spoon fed to him.

100 people are not a few employees either.

Joe in the UK a hundred employees is not a big company. But I am surprised at that. Norton were never 'big'. I would have thought less than 50 as that was the norm.

Peregrinus

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

. . . I don't take comfort in people losing their Jobs. But I grew up in the Midlands UK and know all about the car and motorbike manufacturer's. They were always in trouble and going bump. If they weren't then the workers were on strike over something. I could tell you some right stories on such.

Basically regards the transport industry. The UK were one of the world leaders. But then others came in and the rest is history.

Same will happen with Brexit. Some will move out. Others will move in. The UK will not disappear into a hole.

No, but rather more will move out than will move in, and the UK will definitely be poorer. Not only was the company that Barclay chose to promote the opportunities presented by Brexit one of the first to fall victim to those very “opportunities”, but also I note that Barclay himself is a member of a government whose own projection is that a closely-aligned Norway-style Brexit would cost the UK 1.4% of GDP, but the low-alignment Brexit that is now being targeted will cost more than three times that. That’s not the cost of the downside of Brexit; it’s the net cost of Brexit, after taking account of the upside as well.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Mate I believe in Brexit because I dont believe any country should be ruled by others. I believe in the trading block of what was the common market and not the political stuff. I never voted on Brexit I couldn't.

See, this bit puzzles me. EU member states are not “ruled by others”; they rule themselves collectively rather than individually, but they rule themselves. And the persistent Brexiter framing of the UK as being “dictated to by Brussels” is based on a firm denial that the UK can have any agency in this collective process; that it can exert any influence; that it can build any effective alliances; that it can bargain; that it can play any role but the most supine and submissive.

Why do they have such disdain for the UK? They do not hold other countries in such contempt; their expectation of the blessings that would be delivered to them by the German car manufacturers and the Italian prosecco producers and so forth show that they think other countries are influential within the EU and can determine what positions it will take. But the UK, apparently, not at all.

And, given that they think that, it’s a further puzzle as to why they think the UK will fare any better when dealing on its own with non-EU countries. If it has been such a consistently dismal failure at negotiating the outcomes it wants within the EU, why would we expect it to fare any better when negotiating the outcomes it wants outwith the EU? Is a country so utterly useless at dealing with other countries wise to launch itself into the world with nothing but its own obviously inadequate political and negotiating resources?

If I thought the UK was as useless as Brexiters seem to think it is, I would want very much to explore the reasons for that, and devise and implement a strategy for changing it, before proceeding with Brexit. After is going to be too late. If you think EU negotiators are imperious arseholes, just wait until you meet the US.

Junkyard Tom

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The UK will not disappear into a hole.

What metric would you agree on as a measurement of success/failure as regards Brexit? GDP? The UN Human Development Index? Social mobility rates? Life expectancy? Over what timescale? Five years? Ten years? Fifty years? 300 years?

Because if 'the UK not disappearing into a hole' is your measure of success then any discussion with you on the merits, or otherwise, of Brexit is utterly pointless. 'The UK not disappearing into a hole' is a bar set so low that everything barring a catastrophic famine could be deemed success.

Boredstiff666

Peregrinus wrote: »

See, this bit puzzles me. EU member states are not “ruled by others”; they rule themselves collectively rather than individually, but they rule themselves. And the persistent Brexiter framing of the UK as being “dictated to by Brussels” is based on a firm denial that the UK can have any agency in this collective process; that it can exert any influence; that it can build any effective alliances; that it can bargain; that it can play any role but the most supine and submissive.

Why do they have such disdain for the UK? They do not hold other countries in such contempt; their expectation of the blessings that would be delivered to them by the German car manufacturers and the Italian prosecco producers and so forth show that they think other countries are influential within the EU and can determine what positions it will take. But the UK, apparently, not at all.

And, given that they think that, it’s a further puzzle as to why they think the UK will fare any better when dealing on its own with non-EU countries. If it has been such a consistently dismal failure at negotiating the outcomes it wants within the EU, why would we expect it to fare any better when negotiating the outcomes it wants outwith the EU? Is a country so utterly useless at dealing with other countries wise to launch itself into the world with nothing but its own obviously inadequate political and negotiating resources?

The Germans and especially the French hate the UK and always have. whether its to do with the past when Britain defeated them or? I dont know. The old Spanish do as well.

The French and Spanish were always trying to invade Britain. Maybe it stems from there?

Maybe they just see Britain as the only country which can get its act together and compete with them?

Can't really blame the UK for all that. It was them trying to take over Britain or dragging Britain into their silly little wars they were always having.

Peregrinus

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The Germans and especially the French hate the UK and always have. whether its to do with the past when Britain defeated them or? I dont know. The old Spanish do as well.

The French and Spanish were always trying to invade Britain. Maybe it stems from there?

Maybe they just see Britain as the only country which can get its act together and compete with them?

Can't really blame the UK for all that. It was them trying to take over Britain or dragging Britain into their silly little wars they were always having.

Now you're just being silly.

Boredstiff666

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What metric would you agree on as a measurement of success/failure as regards Brexit? GDP? The UN Human Development Index? Social mobility rates? Life expectancy? Over what timescale? Five years? Ten years? Fifty years? 300 years?

Because if 'the UK not disappearing into a hole' is your measure of success then any discussion with you on the merits, or otherwise, of Brexit is utterly pointless. 'The UK not disappearing into a hole' is a bar set so low that everything barring a catastrophic famine could be deemed success.

Well thats desperate and actually amazing where someone can turn a flippant remark of expression into a measure of defeat or success.

Boredstiff666

Peregrinus wrote: »

Now you're just being silly.

No not really.

Peregrinus

Yeah. Really, really silly.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

For those who are making up names of banks I.e. yank bank and using ficticious examples to explain what an EU entity is or isn’t. Give me one real life example of where an entity can set up a letterbox entity in Europe, do all regulated activities in a non Eu country and service EU clients.

The example I just gave isn’t a letter box entity. Letterbox entities would be companies like Flat Earth Limited and Round Island One.

The example I gave is what companies like Citi, Merrill Lynch and Barclays are doing.

theological

joeguevara wrote: »

For those who are making up names of banks I.e. yank bank and using ficticious examples to explain what an EU entity is or isn’t. Give me one real life example of where an entity can set up a letterbox entity in Europe, do all regulated activities in a non Eu country and service EU clients.

I would recommend that you or First Up explain why what banks have already done in preparation for Brexit (I listed what UBS, Barclays and Deutsche Bank have done) is inadequate.

Otherwise your argument is incorrect because I suspect their lawyers know more than you do.

Leroy42

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Well thats desperate and actually amazing where someone can turn a flippant remark of expression into a measure of defeat or success.

So do you have any metrics upon which you will judge success or failure?

Because I think that might be the root of the problem in understanding. Many posters are using reports of GDP, investment, future forecasts etc to base their view.

If we could understand how you are measuring the success of Brexit then I think it would lead to more aligned discussion.

First Up

Aegir wrote:

so the EU Commission can arbitrarily decide what is and isn't a european company?

Not arbitrarily - in accordance with the criteria agreed by all EU member states (including the UK.)

First Up

theological wrote:

I would recommend that you or First Up explain why what banks have already done in preparation for Brexit (I listed what UBS, Barclays and Deutsche Bank have done) is inadequate.

It won't be decided on Boards.

theological

First Up wrote: »

Not arbitrarily - in accordance with the criteria agreed by all EU member states (including the UK.)

Please answer the questions we've put to you with details.

First Up

theological wrote:

Please answer the questions we've put to you with details.

There are criteria for what constitutes an EU based business. Those in possession of the facts will decide on each case. The company is free to argue its case; the EU Commission will decide on the basis of the information presented.

Any other questions?

theological

theological wrote: »

What counts as a reasonable number of staff?

UBS moved 200 staff to Frankfurt for example to cover post-Brexit functions. They have 6,000 at their offices in London. Barclays are moving 175 staff to Dublin. They have an entire tower in Canary Wharf and have a presence in Manchester and Glasgow also. Deutsche Bank are moving 250 to Frankfurt. There's 4,000 working for them in London.

Also most international investment banks already have headcount in the EU.

I presume they have better advice and lawyers than you do.

theological wrote: »

Given that they have already acted why do you somehow think they acted wrongly? Do you have any evidence for your position?

Otherwise it is just hot air.

theological wrote: »

Any citations that the numbers I've cited are too small? You shouldn't be making claims that can't be evidenced.

I didn't refer to front or back office in my original post.

Please answer these questions. You should back up the claims you are making.

First Up

theological wrote:

Please answer these questions. You should back up the claims you are making.

What claims would they be?

ambro25

theological wrote: »

Please answer these questions. You should back up the claims you are making.

I'll not answer on behalf of First Up as such, but only people unfamiliar with news over the past 3 years would be unaware of the slow and steady brexodus of assets and financial jobs from the City.

representative example and another, after 30 seconds of Googling.

In economic terms, the number of jobs is -of course- meaningless. The roles and functions transferred, and the scale of their contributions (direct and indirect) as a tax base, are what really matters.

In Luxembourg alone, the last stats I heard (Statec, Jan 2020) was approx. 800 direct jobs (1200 indirect), with -given the size of the country- deleterious effects beginning in the local housing market (ex-City HNWIs pouring petrol on a market long aflame already) and educational system (insufficient places for these HNWIs' kids amongst public & private international schools).

Nice problems to have, for sure.

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

In economic terms, the number of jobs is meaningless. The roles transferred, and the scale of their contributions (direct and indirect) as a tax base, are what really matters.

In legal terms too.

Boredstiff666

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The Germans and especially the French hate the UK and always have. whether its to do with the past when Britain defeated them or? I dont know. The old Spanish do as well.

The French and Spanish were always trying to invade Britain. Maybe it stems from there?

Maybe they just see Britain as the only country which can get its act together and compete with them?

Can't really blame the UK for all that. It was them trying to take over Britain or dragging Britain into their silly little wars they were always having.

A fine example of psychological projection in action.

ancapailldorcha

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The Germans and especially the French hate the UK and always have. whether its to do with the past when Britain defeated them or? I dont know. The old Spanish do as well.

The French and Spanish were always trying to invade Britain. Maybe it stems from there?

Maybe they just see Britain as the only country which can get its act together and compete with them?

Can't really blame the UK for all that. It was them trying to take over Britain or dragging Britain into their silly little wars they were always having.

Have you any evidence for this?

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

In legal terms too.

I'm well aware

I'm multi-jurisdictionally qualified in a niche legal profession, and have been practicing EU (& others') IP law for 20 years: I'm becoming the sole and obligatory conduit into the EU IP legal system for approx.30 UK-based practitionners at year end...instead of getting kicked out of the said system like them -notwithstanding my EU27 nationality & professional qualifications- if I'd stayed in the UK.

'tis the beauty of practicing EU (and others') law: it does give you arguably the best of insights into expected consequences of Brexit (upon one's capacity to continue to provide services, and corresponding commercial threats and opportunities) according to its various possible forms, and to map-plan-implement accordingly, in function of what actually happens when.

I never wanted Brexit. It was forced upon me. So I got even.

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

I'll not answer on behalf of First Up as such, but only people unfamiliar with news over the past 3 years would be unaware of the slow and steady brexodus of assets and financial jobs from the City.

representative example and another, after 30 seconds of Googling.

In economic terms, the number of jobs is -of course- meaningless. The roles and functions transferred, and the scale of their contributions (direct and indirect) as a tax base, are what really matters.

In Luxembourg alone, the last stats I heard (Statec, Jan 2020) was approx. 800 direct jobs (1200 indirect), with -given the size of the country- deleterious effects beginning in the local housing market (ex-City HNWIs pouring petrol on a market long aflame already) and educational system (insufficient places for these HNWIs' kids amongst public & private international schools).

Nice problems to have, for sure.

you haven't answered the question for First Up, all you have done is show that what Theological and myself are saying stands up.

here is how Citi Group Ireland describes itself https://www.citigroup.com/citi/about/countries-and-jurisdictions/ireland.html

now how in the world is the EU going to call that a non european business (whatever the **** a "european business" is?). it already employed 2500 people here and is moving another 150 people over, due to Brexit.

It currently has 9000 employs in the UK.

ambro25

Aegir wrote: »

you haven't answered the question for First Up, all you have done is show that what Theological and myself are saying stands up.

here is how Citi Group Ireland describes itself https://www.citigroup.com/citi/about/countries-and-jurisdictions/ireland.html

now how in the world is the EU going to call that a non european business (whatever the **** a "european business" is?). it already employed 2500 people here and is moving another 150 people over, due to Brexit.

It currently has 9000 employs in the UK.

This is a reduction ab absurdum.

Clearly, the EU isn't going call Citi Group Ireland a non european business. According to that link, it has a real and effective place of business* in Ireland, an EU27 member state. (* this is what EU and EU27 national regulators look for, same for legal services and so many others: an actual office with permanent bodies doing actual work, rather than a post-box/fiduciary 'presence'; this is also e.g. why the e-passported/e-residency solutions offerred by Estonia will not wash for very many types of UK professional service providers; no more than registration on the Irish Roll -alone- will allow UK lawyers to continue exporting legal services to the EU27).

But the EU will call Citi Group UK a non european business at the end of the transition period, since the UK will then (officially) lie outside the EU and EEA. To the EU and EU27 regulators and financial services markets, Citi Group UK will then be no different to Citi Group NY, Citi Group Shanghai, etc. This is why so many City-based financial services providers have applied to various EU27 regulators for licenses: so that they can maintain the same level of activities from the UK, as licensed US/CN/JP/etc. providers already can from these 3rd countries (...and which is a far cry from what UK-based actors can provide from within the EU, even if granted equivalence (-rescindable at immediate notice by the EU btw) whence the relocations).

The displacement of 150 people (more importantly, as I posted, of their roles and activities) is Citi's mitigation strategy for this last issue (whether it eventually occurs, as most expect in view of the UK's continuing behaviour; or not, should Johnson pivot to BRINO in the end).

If that displacement is revenue-neutral to the Exchequer in the UK, all good for Brits and more power to them. If it isn't, well, it's what the UK voted for, so that's that.

The irrefutable fact of the matter remains, that these roles and activities, which were generating non-trivial amounts of tax income towards that fabled extra £350m per week for the NHS, have gone and are continuing to go to the EU27 (besides some repatriating Stateside, and btw NY says thanks for the rankings uplift). What are you replacing them with, to try and keep their departure revenue-neutral?

RobMc59

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The Germans and especially the French hate the UK and always have. whether its to do with the past when Britain defeated them or? I dont know. The old Spanish do as well.

The French and Spanish were always trying to invade Britain. Maybe it stems from there?

Maybe they just see Britain as the only country which can get its act together and compete with them?

Can't really blame the UK for all that. It was them trying to take over Britain or dragging Britain into their silly little wars they were always having.

That is the most embarrassing xenophobic waffle I've heard for a long time-no wonder the rest of Europe has very little time for us!

CelticRambler

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

The Germans and especially the French hate the UK and always have. whether its to do with the past when Britain defeated them or? I dont know. The old Spanish do as well.

The French and Spanish were always trying to invade Britain. Maybe it stems from there?

Are you going to give us back our Norman castles, then?

And our Royal Family that you've been passing off as your own for years?

Thanks.

Boredstiff666

CelticRambler wrote: »

Are you going to give us back our Norman castles, then?

And our Royal Family that you've been passing off as your own for years?

Thanks.

I will only bother to reply to the last one when logging on.

Amazing how I even single out part of a quoted post and reply to that part of the post only and so obviously. But then the usual stream of people just read and refer to what I write and not to what I am replying to.

Regards the Royal family you mention.......Please take them back. They are becoming a national embarrassment now. Not even other countries want them anymore.

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

This is a reduction ab absurdum.

Clearly, the EU isn't going call Citi Group Ireland a non european business. According to that link, it has a real and effective place of business* in Ireland, an EU27 member state. (* this is what EU and EU27 national regulators look for, same for legal services and so many others: an actual office with permanent bodies doing actual work, rather than a post-box/fiduciary 'presence'; this is also e.g. why the e-passported/e-residency solutions offerred by Estonia will not wash for very many types of UK professional service providers; no more than registration on the Irish Roll -alone- will allow UK lawyers to continue exporting legal services to the EU27).

it isn't reduction ab surdum at all, it is what businesses are doing and what First Up claims the EU Commision (and there is a question if that is even in their right) may decree to be "not a European business".

ambro25

Aegir wrote: »

it isn't reduction ab surdum at all, it is what businesses are doing and what First Up claims the EU Commision (and there is a question if that is even in their right) may decree to be "not a European business".

It is, because the single example you referenced, already enjoyed a structural organisation apt to accomodate Brexit outcomes through a long-existing EU27 location, but for the shifting of some roles and functions hitherto based in London.

That may be a common situation for many large corporates like UBS. It isn't for UK-only smaller structures (particularly lean ones that have been taking full advantage of digitisation so far, and avoiding the need for EU27 offices so), nor for the legions of UK SMES without an in-depth understanding of NTBs (-that will inevitably arise due to Brexit, and impede their commercial access to EU27 markets, for regulatory reasons).

I do not recall this 'Commission diktat' argument, but FWIW the "european" character of a business is typically codified in sector-relevant EU legislation and echoed in national legislation of EU member states through harmonisation.

I referenced the "real and effective place of business" test earlier. For various types of professional services, that is complemented by physical location in the EU or EEA, nationality of the service provider (professional) being EU or EEA, and professional qualification of service provider (professional) being EU or EEA. Frequently as not, these 3 tests are cumulative (fail 1=fail them all).

Whatever the EU Commission may say about these, is neither here nor there: it's the law, until the EU Parliament should change it. Incidentally, this is how Brexit outcomes become predictable: EU law is what it is, pre-Brexit it applied to UK and all who sail in her, post-Brexit it doesn't, what are the consequences of EU law ceasing to apply to the UK and all who sail in her.

By way of topical example, that's exactly why my UK colleagues shall have to pass through me (for a fee ) from 1 Jan 21, or lose all of the business to the EU27 competition: no longer located in EU/EEA, no longer EU/EEA nationals, UK quals no longer EU/EEA. These are 100% NTBs (access fully removed), long confirmed by the EU (Feb 2019) as entering into force at end of transition period (which prorogated EU law until then), and absolutely not solvable by a trade agreement: primary EU law would need to be updated instead.

I expect substantially the same outcomes apply in many further avenues of professional services. Financial ones first of all, which is why the structures are being created and the professionals relocated.

Seems you're studiously avoiding my question about how the UK will mitigate these relocations. Maybe you think the UK doesn't need to?

Annascaul

The real problem I see with Brexit ( apart from populism, political lies and any right wing attitudes ) is the question what would happen to the rest of the EU, if for some reason Brexit-UK would be an economic success? Would this be the end of the EU as we know it? Other EU countries might have similar intentions?

The UK pound is up a bit from last year, unemployment is low and the public finances of the UK are better now than they were in the financial crisis.

I may certainly be wrong, but certain facts do get you thinking.....