Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph

The UK is perfectly welcome to seek a FTA like CETA once it has left the EU. I don't even mind if they start the discussions before that so long as reasonable progress has been made on the three substantive issues. A FTA will still take several years to thrash out (they always do) and will not cover services (they never do and if this one does it would presumably take even longer to thrash out).

A FTA like CETA in place of membership of the single market would be a disaster for the UK because the UK is a service oriented economy. A FTA like CETA would be less damaging to the EU because the EU has a trade surplus with the UK in manufactured goods! So we could sell our beef and cars tariff free into the UK but the UK still couldn't sell (many of) its services onto the EU because FTAs don't cover them.

So, the UK clearly wants much more than a FTA like CETA. But they want arbitration like CETA. This is having your cake and eating it.

The single market benefits the UK disproportionately because of its service sector oriented economy. Pity the UK has apparently failed to realise this.

Fratton Fred

Water John wrote: »

The back office staff, in many cases are already in Dublin. That is why the London staff would be familiar with it.

that's funny. Most banking staff in the UK would know Dublin more from weekend piss ups in Temple Bar more than they would from their jobs.

You need to understand the scale of the finance world and in reality, how insignificant Dublin is to it. JP Morgan, for example, have bought an office in Dublin that is capable of doubling its workforce here, taking it from 500 to 1000. That is on the basis that it fills the office it has bought, which it won't. So we are looking at maybe 2-300 new jobs in Dublin with a total number of irish employees of 700 to 800.

JP Morgan, in comparison, employ over 4,000 people in Bournemouth and probably twice that number in London and over 250,000 worldwide.

Dublin will not see thousands of jobs move here, because frankly it is too small and simply doesn't have the things that big banks would want.

How on earth, for example, could they persuade a high earning fund manager to give up London or New York for Dublin.

You need a reality check.

Water John wrote: »

This comes from The Observer, I think as you think The Guardian is not a trusted news source.

The Observer is the Guardian on Sunday.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

The UK is perfectly welcome to seek a FTA like CETA once it has left the EU. I don't even mind if they start the discussions before that so long as reasonable progress has been made on the three substantive issues. A FTA will still take several years to thrash out (they always do) and will not cover services (they never do and if this one does it would presumably take even longer to thrash out).

Thank you Jean Claude and can I say how gracious it is of you to post on Boards:p

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

No - it isn't, it really isn't.

If Britain leaves the European Union, there is no reason at all why it should be subject to European Union law after Brexit. The only exception I can think of is in respect to ensuring that goods traded into the EU conform to EU standards.

You don't seem to understand that Britain voted to leave the European Union. That means not being subject to it's court or allowing it supremacy over Britain's laws. Britain as a third country of course should look for a similar arrangement to what others have. Britain needs equal representation on any new body. 1 judge isn't enough to ensure Britain is represented well after Brexit. It is a bilateral deal therefore there should be bilateral representation.

To the other poster - there's not much to reply to your post about the referendum. It certainly wasn't narrow (1 million votes difference isn't narrow) and there were some porkies on both sides. Overall I think both sides set out their stall quite well.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Norway is not part of the European Union.

Neither is Switzerland.

Both of these countries have reason to be subject to European Union law.

In light of this, does the above change?

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's funny. Most banking staff in the UK would know Dublin more from weekend piss ups in Temple Bar more than they would from their jobs.

You need to understand the scale of the finance world and in reality, how insignificant Dublin is to it. JP Morgan, for example, have bought an office in Dublin that is capable of doubling its workforce here, taking it from 500 to 1000. That is on the basis that it fills the office it has bought, which it won't. So we are looking at maybe 2-300 new jobs in Dublin with a total number of irish employees of 700 to 800.

JP Morgan, in comparison, employ over 4,000 people in Bournemouth and probably twice that number in London and over 250,000 worldwide.

Dublin will not see thousands of jobs move here, because frankly it is too small and simply doesn't have the things that big banks would want.

How on earth, for example, could they persuade a high earning fund manager to give up London or New York for Dublin.

You need a reality check.



The Observer is the Guardian on Sunday.

If that fund is an EU based fund which requires being in the single market to operate fully, then it's pretty reasonable to assume that high earning fund manager will take the prudent approach to continuing being that high earning fund manager and relocate themselves within the single market.

If the UK is not part of that, then he or she no longer has the option of London as a HQ.

Water John

The present core problem is, the UK Cabinet can't get its act together. That is because of diff strands of Leave around the table.
This makes their own formulation of a negotiating strategy, impossible. But sure, blame the EU for that.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Norway is not part of the European Union.

Neither is Switzerland.

Both of these countries have reason to be subject to European Union law.

In light of this, does the above change?

This is the problem with using a binary referendum to resolve an issue as complex as membership of the EU. Going for the EEA option would be perfectly viable as Norway isn't in the EU, just bits of it. The ECJ, the single market, immigration, etc weren't on the ballot paper, just whether or not the UK should remain in the EU.

LeinsterDub

Bushmanpm wrote: »

Britain could quite easily say fcuk you to the EU and just walk away. And do you REALLY think the Brits are going to cough up one hundred billion? That's their NHS budget for approximately eleven months! Think again!



...as opposed to 6.5 billion others around the globe? 85% of would trade is OUTSIDE the EU. Britain leaving will hurt the EU 27 far more than the EU 27 will hurt Britain. Oh, and its 26 other countries, you're the 27th. And you've been free to trade with them all along.

Quite right they could have leaving them with no deal. Speaking of no deal, yes there are other people in the world but they've no trade deal with them.

The 100 billion is actually quite a small number in terms of GDP. And will probably be negotiated to be significantly less but the UK has commitments it needs to accept.

Bushmanpm

oppenheimer1 wrote:

Britain could walk away of course ignoring it's obligations and not paying a penny. There's a reason that countries honour judgements made against them in international courts and treaties and that is fear of retribution. If the UK walks on it's obligations or will essentially make it a pariah state, one not to be trusted when it comes to international negotiation. Essentially it means the UK will be further sidelined when it comes to big international agreements.

I am in no way saying Britain 'won't pay a penny' but that there's quite a gulf between 0-100,000,000,000 euros. What also needs to be addressed is the surplus Britain has paid over the years AND the assets they've paid into, given the EU's penchant for fancy new buildings, more and more staff, generous pensions etc.
Have a Google at the pensions budget projections for the next 20-30+ years and prepare to weep! And its all got to come from somewhere*
*YOUR taxes!

LeinsterDub

Bushmanpm wrote: »

is the surplus Britain has paid over the years

The surplus was the cost of membership that's gone. You don't get all your past membership fees returned when you quit the gym

Capt'n Midnight

*Popcorn time*

Looks like France isn't going to bend over to allow UK financial services full access to the EU. Not only that they are even tempting firms in the UK to move to France.

Even if it means that the only benefit to France is to increase economic activity and reduce competition :eek:


It's almost as if the French are treating the UK as if they weren't going to be a member of the club for much longer. That's just dashed inconvenient even unsporting, they are queering the pitch in their own national interest.

It's as if the UK is realising that some in the EU see the UK as competitors in the market for services.
Some people need to wake up and smell the coffee.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4700008/City-London-accuses-France-plot-wreck-Britain.html

Revealed: City of London accuses France of plot to ‘wreck Britain’ – even if it gains nothing itself

A leaked memo says French bankers are plotting to 'actively disrupt' the City
The London financial centre is worth £66 billion a year to the Treasury

Also the comment notes how

That’s more than 60 per cent of exports going either to the EU or to countries beyond, made possible by our customs union membership.
...
Then they must negotiate deals, also no less favourable than the EU’s existing deals, with a further 75 countries. All in the next 20 months. Dream on!

it being the Mail readers comments are Poe's Lawtastic,
- Never trust a Frenchman
- The treachery of the French will no doubt be celebrated by the Scotch. Whatever those two vindictive and hateful people get up to should come as no surprise to us.
- This is an act of war in my opinion.

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If that fund is an EU based fund which requires being in the single market to operate fully, then it's pretty reasonable to assume that high earning fund manager will take the prudent approach to continuing being that high earning fund manager and relocate themselves within the single market.

If the UK is not part of that, then he or she no longer has the option of London as a HQ.

If a fund manager manged funds based in Europe, then they are most likely in Frankfurt or Paris already. There may already be a few in Dublin, but only a few, unless you think the Irish stock market is suddenly going to become huge.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If a fund manager manged funds based in Europe, then they are most likely in Frankfurt or Paris already. There may already be a few in Dublin, but only a few, unless you think the Irish stock market is suddenly going to become huge.

Yes.

You asked how we were to convince someone to leave London. I just explained that if they want to continue their operation within the EU, that they have to do so. It's simply not about convincing anyone.

Capt'n Midnight

Bushmanpm wrote: »

I am in no way saying Britain 'won't pay a penny' but that there's quite a gulf between 0-100,000,000,000 euros. What also needs to be addressed is the surplus Britain has paid over the years AND the assets they've paid into, given the EU's penchant for fancy new buildings, more and more staff, generous pensions etc.
Have a Google at the pensions budget projections for the next 20-30+ years and prepare to weep! And its all got to come from somewhere*
*YOUR taxes!

Also the UK has to pay for EU assets in the UK.

And Euro atom assets in the UK. And pay for reprocessing or repatriation of the nuclear waste they sent to the EU.

Water John

Reality, will come dropping, slowly.

oppenheimer1

Water John wrote: »

Reality, will come dropping, slowly.

It's a shame because reality needs to Dawn on the UK rather quickly.

murphaph

Obviously as an Irishman I'm hoping reality bites just in time in the UK but I won't shed a tear for their lost inward investment coming our way and even if we picked up a small fraction of London financial stuff we'd be doing very well. The loss of confidence in the UK's commitment to the EU would take decades to be overcome even if they revoked A50 immediately.

They didn't care for a moment what Brexit would do to the rest of us. Not for one moment. The only concern was for GB (not even the UK as a whole as NI was brushed aside as collateral damage).

Dublin will probably punch above its weight for business largely because our legal system is based on English common law. I suspect that's a major advantage for many business types.

Lemming

Bushmanpm wrote: »

How about this for starters: Britain offered a reciprocal deal for foreign nationals in Britain if the EU offered the same for British nationals in the EU and the EU said they wasn't satisfied. Quite some negotiating tactic right there from the EU.

No, Britian did not, and has not offered a reciprocal deal that brought anything to the negotiating table. What was offered is what non-EU nationals are eligible currently. In other words, a removal of citizens rights with a side-order of window dressing & a hope that nobody would look too closely at the "offer".

May & co are trying to play to the gallery whilst forgetting that it's not the gallery that really matters this time around.

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

You asked how we were to convince someone to leave London. I just explained that if they want to continue their operation within the EU, that they have to do so. It's simply not about convincing anyone.

Oh sweet Jesus.

Fratton Fred

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The surplus was the cost of membership that's gone. You don't get all your past membership fees returned when you quit the gym

No,similarly the gym can't charge you an exit fee because once you leave, it can't afford to pay the rent and salaries.

PeadarCo

Fratton Fred wrote:

No,similarly the gym can't charge you an exit fee because once you leave, it can't afford to pay the rent and salaries.

But the UK isn't being charged an exit fee. The UK has already made commitments in relation to how much money it will pay it to the EU. A huge amount of the negotiations will relate to how much of this money the UK has already agreed to pay the EU in relation to funding the various EU bodies and obviously the costs of an UK citizens who work or have worked(pension costs) for the EU. Obviously there's also various assets located on UK territory that are owned by the EU.

Or put simply the debate is about how much money the UK doesn't have to pay of what it has already committed to over the next number of years.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No,similarly the gym can't charge you an exit fee because once you leave, it can't afford to pay the rent and salaries.

Not similarly in the slightest. Leaving a gym, divorce or golf club is not analogy for a country leaving a economic and political union which it has standing commitments with. Those prior commitments to EU projects means that the EU has a financial obligation to these projects.

My name is URL

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/hp-sauce

Now, however, Brokenshire has quietly shifted the date by three and a half years, a period that covers two general elections, two Northern Irish Assembly elections – and the EU referendum campaign, during which the DUP received £435,000 from a shadowy group in Scotland. Strangely, most of it was spent on newspaper ads and campaign merchandise in England.

Thanks to Brokenshire, and much to the DUP’s relief, questions about this murky business may now never be answered.

hmm, totally innocent and above board, I bet /s

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

Norway is not part of the European Union.

Neither is Switzerland.

Both of these countries have reason to be subject to European Union law.

In light of this, does the above change?

Good afternoon,

It doesn't change my view. The UK is seeking a deal which suits Britain's particular circumstances.

A deal which requires continued observance to EU laws and freedom of movement doesn't suit the circumstances of the UK or the Brexit vote. A half in half out approach isn't the right option.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How on earth, for example, could they persuade a high earning fund manager to give up London or New York for Dublin.

You need a reality check.

Good afternoon,

I totally agree with this. I can't see front office functions moving to Dublin in droves.

Any investment is good but Dublin isn't a global trading centre and I don't see London losing it's status as Europe's biggest.

High quality housing is lacking, infrastructure and transportation is poor.

I think a reality check is welcome on all fronts, particularly the irrational prophesies of doom we're seeing.

There's every potential for a good deal to be thrashed out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

PeadarCo wrote: »

But the UK isn't being charged an exit fee. The UK has already made commitments in relation to how much money it will pay it to the EU. A huge amount of the negotiations will relate to how much of this money the UK has already agreed to pay the EU in relation to funding the various EU bodies and obviously the costs of an UK citizens who work or have worked(pension costs) for the EU. Obviously there's also various assets located on UK territory that are owned by the EU.

Or put simply the debate is about how much money the UK doesn't have to pay of what it has already committed to over the next number of years.

The eu budget, which the UK has signed up to,runs until 2020. Around a year after the UK leaves. The UK pays a net contribution of around €14 billion per year,

Correct?

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No,similarly the gym can't charge you an exit fee because once you leave, it can't afford to pay the rent and salaries.

If you signed up for 2 years with the gym they'll charge you the full amount

DaniilKharms

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I totally agree with this. I can't see front office functions moving to Dublin in droves.

Any investment is good but Dublin isn't a global trading centre and I don't see London losing it's status as Europe's biggest.

High quality housing is lacking, infrastructure and transportation is poor.

I think a reality check is welcome on all fronts, particularly the irrational prophesies of doom we're seeing.

There's every potential for a good deal to be thrashed out.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A few things to note:

- Public transport is great in many places not full of fund managers, so that's unrelated to anything
- Many MANY extremely wealthy people don't live in NYC or London...
- If the fund they manage loses money by staying in London, will that be ok with investors, as long as the manager has access to good public transport??
- At the end of the day, where these people work will be based more on economics than quality of life. Fund managers aren't irreplaceable, and will start existing in Ireland if the jobs are there.

Finally, pretty much everyone, except the remaining pro-Brexiteers, say it's going to be a disaster. Not just for the UK but for the EU. The UK government has made every single mistake available to them, and doesn't seem to be righting any boats currently. The government is weak and lead by idiots who seem more keen on puffing out their chest than working to make Brexit a lesser disaster.

So the ONLY thing that can be considered irrational is an overly optimistic attitude, which is based on zero evidence and a whole lot of wilful self-delusion.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu budget, which the UK has signed up to,runs until 2020. Around a year after the UK leaves. The UK pays a net contribution of around €14 billion per year,

Correct?

What's correct is that they'll end up paying or go out on WTO terms.

DaniilKharms

steddyeddy wrote: »

What's correct is that they'll end up paying or go out on WTO terms.

Sure, both could happen.