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

steddyeddy

Aegir wrote: »

I’d say at this stage, most companies that rely on passport information have already gotten around it.

Well that contradicts what you said earlier. Why would there be pressure on the government if most companies can get around it?

Incidentally I don't think it's true most companies could use get around in regards to EU access.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The real issue is pressure in the EU for reform of financial services which would almost certainly entail increased taxation and regulation. The UK could have been their guardian with their veto had they stayed in.

Which is why the EU will insist on a level playing field across both economies, not least financial services. Britain needs to acquiesce or watch its financial services wither on the vine.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well that contradicts what you said earlier. Why would there be pressure on the government if most companies can get around it?

Incidentally I don't think it's true most companies could use get around in regards to EU access.

No it doesn’t, not in the slightest.

My understanding is this (and it is my understanding given by someone in the sector) Most European banks have simply transferred their European office to Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris. In many cases this was a paper exercise with more staff taken on to do the admin. That allows them to sell services anywhere in the eu because those banks are subject to Eu regulatory rules.

Where those services are performed, ie pensions invested, wealth managed or shares traded etc is irrelevant as long as the selling bank complied with the regulations.

What the city wants though, is stability and removal of uncertainty. That why the slogan of “get Brexit done” was adopted. Generally the financial services would like to stay in the Eu. But leaving was far better than the likelihood of several more years of haggling and arguing offered by Labour.

Same as now, the city wants a deal, because that creates certainty. A signed deal allows people to plan, no deal throws up different scenarios and makes planning harder.

The biggest problem though, as already alluded to is that the current government is driven by a belief that Brexit is the single most important thing and pragmatism has gone out of the window. Brexit fundamentalists if you like.

This is, in my opinion, compounded by the fact the people they are negotiating with believe the Eu is the most important thing and they too are happy to ignore pragmatism. EU fundamentalists effectively.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

No it doesn’t, not in the slightest.

My understanding is this (and it is my understanding given by someone in the sector) Most European banks have simply transferred their European office to Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris. In many cases this was a paper exercise with more staff taken on to do the admin. That allows them to sell services anywhere in the eu because those banks are subject to Eu regulatory rules.

Where those services are performed, ie pensions invested, wealth managed or shares traded etc is irrelevant as long as the selling bank complied with the regulations.

What the city wants though, is stability and removal of uncertainty. That why the slogan of “get Brexit done” was adopted. Generally the financial services would like to stay in the Eu. But leaving was far better than the likelihood of several more years of haggling and arguing offered by Labour.

Same as now, the city wants a deal, because that creates certainty. A signed deal allows people to plan, no deal throws up different scenarios and makes planning harder.

The biggest problem though, as already alluded to is that the current government is driven by a belief that Brexit is the single most important thing and pragmatism has gone out of the window. Brexit fundamentalists if you like.

This is, in my opinion, compounded by the fact the people they are negotiating with believe the Eu is the most important thing and they too are happy to ignore pragmatism. EU fundamentalists effectively.

You seem to think that maintaining access is something trivial. like ticking a box. Yet you also acknowledge "uncertainty". Therein lies a contradiction.



If the worst case scenario has a trivial solution, then nobody would care and there would be no uncertainty.

RobMc59

One thing I noticed on other threads here is Ireland will be paying €16 billion more than they get out over the next few years for the covid bailout.Thats difficult to defend imo ,at least Britain will be in control of their own destiny and not paying for other countries mismanagement.

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

One thing I noticed on other threads here is Ireland will be paying €16 billion more than they get out over the next few years for the covid bailout.Thats difficult to defend imo ,at least Britain will be in control of their own destiny and not paying for other countries mismanagement.

Small price to pay for being an integral part of the most successful economic bloc in the world.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

One thing I noticed on other threads here is Ireland will be paying €16 billion more than they get out over the next few years for the covid bailout.Thats difficult to defend imo ,at least Britain will be in control of their own destiny and not paying for other countries mismanagement.

Ah Jesus Rob. You're back here again with this nonsensical read of the situation?

Yes, now you have the freedom to pay for your own mismanagement and the EU will be insulated somewhat from it.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

One thing I noticed on other threads here is Ireland will be paying €16 billion more than they get out over the next few years for the covid bailout.Thats difficult to defend imo ,at least Britain will be in control of their own destiny and not paying for other countries mismanagement.

Do you not see the irony of celebrating the UK not having to contribute to a covid fund because of "other countries mismanagement"?
Think about it for a minute or two please.

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Do you not see the irony of celebrating the UK not having to contribute to a covid fund because of "other countries mismanagement"?
Think about it for a minute or two please.

Britain will pay for its own mistakes.Are you happy that Ireland is paying for other countries?

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

Britain will pay for its own mistakes.Are you happy that Ireland is paying for other countries?

I'm happy that Ireland is a member of a team that looks out for each other. Being a member of this team has enabled Ireland to be in a position where it is helping rather than being the one that needs help.

timetogo1

RobMc59 wrote: »

Britain will pay for its own mistakes.Are you happy that Ireland is paying for other countries?

I thought it was a Covid fund, not a mistake fund. I'm kind of happy the UK isn't involved. Imagine how much we'd be paying then if its for ****ing stuff up.

RobMc59

timetogo1 wrote: »

I thought it was a Covid fund, not a mistake fund. I'm kind of happy the UK isn't involved. Imagine how much we'd be paying then if its for ****ing stuff up.

You'd probably be paying less as the UK would have been paying in as well,its the remaining responsible countries of the 27 who are paying for the financially irresponsible.
And yes,it is a covid fund but some have put resources aside for emergencies whilst others haven't which is why they're having to be bailed out.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

You'd probably be paying less as the UK would have been paying in as well,its the remaining responsible countries of the 27 who are paying for the financially irresponsible.
And yes,it is a covid fund but some have put resources aside for emergencies whilst others haven't which is why they're having to be bailed out.

So you're back to being a Brexiter this week?

Donald Trump

I don't mind Ireland being a net contributor. As long as we retain our say in things and an ability to stop other countries from joining if we think that they will just be a drain on the EU forever.

I don't mean any of the current accession candidates of course. I'm just projecting a decade down the line when a financially devastated UK might want to join the club purely just to access free money and cause trouble.

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So you're back to being a Brexiter this week?

Not wanting to pay for countries who haven't planned responsibly doesn't mean you're a fan of brexit.Even you with your 'don't rock the boat' flat earth mentality can see that.

Melanchthon

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm happy that Ireland is a member of a team that looks out for each other. Being a member of this team has enabled Ireland to be in a position where it is helping rather than being the one that needs help.

It's a funny team that charges 6 percent interest when one of its members needs help and then waives those type of requirements when a bigger member needs help

declanflynn

RobMc59 wrote: »

One thing I noticed on other threads here is Ireland will be paying €16 billion more than they get out over the next few years for the covid bailout.Thats difficult to defend imo ,at least Britain will be in control of their own destiny and not paying for other countries mismanagement.

by the end of 2020 Brexit will have cost the uk £220 billion, which is more than they contributed in the 47 years pre brexit, but at least britain is in control of it's own destiny which is priceless

Leroy42

How is the UK in control of its own destiny?

Its, easiest deal in history, is 4 years now and on the rocks. If any deal is done it will involve concessions.

China is telling the UK to watch itself, and the US is laying down red lines for any deal.

All of that is perfectly normal and a natural consequence of the varying sizes of different countries but it is very far from 'taking back control '.

And come 1st January, Gove has admitted that far from control of their borders the UK are completely unprepared and will face at keastb5 months of little to no control.

Jizique

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is the UK in control of its own destiny?

Its, easiest deal in history, is 4 years now and on the rocks. If any deal is done it will involve concessions.

China is telling the UK to watch itself, and the US is laying down red lines for any deal.

All of that is perfectly normal and a natural consequence of the varying sizes of different countries but it is very far from 'taking back control '.

And come 1st January, Gove has admitted that far from control of their borders the UK are completely unprepared and will face at keastb5 months of little to no control.

Great article by Matthew Parris in The Times today; behind a paywall but basically saying that the 4 tenets on which Brexit was founded have all been debunked and that BJ has no real option but to look for a face-saving deal of sorts, which would effectively leave them as a vassal state, following all EU rules and “entitled to diverge” but never doing so.
All hopes of alternative trade deals have disappeared and all they can do is try to dress it up as best they can.

First Up

Jizique wrote:

Great article by Matthew Parris in The Times today; behind a paywall but basically saying that the 4 tenets on which Brexit was founded have all been debunked and that BJ has no real option but to look for a face-saving deal of sorts, which would effectively leave them as a vassal state, following all EU rules and “entitled to diverge†but never doing so. All hopes of alternative trade deals have disappeared and all they can do is try to dress it up as best they can.

Yes, something like that.

ambro25

Aegir wrote: »

No it doesn’t, not in the slightest.

My understanding is this (and it is my understanding given by someone in the sector) Most European banks have simply transferred their European office to Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris. In many cases this was a paper exercise with more staff taken on to do the admin. That allows them to sell services anywhere in the eu because those banks are subject to Eu regulatory rules.

Where those services are performed, ie pensions invested, wealth managed or shares traded etc is irrelevant as long as the selling bank complied with the regulations.

What the city wants though, is stability and removal of uncertainty. That why the slogan of “get Brexit done” was adopted. Generally the financial services would like to stay in the Eu. But leaving was far better than the likelihood of several more years of haggling and arguing offered by Labour.

Same as now, the city wants a deal, because that creates certainty. A signed deal allows people to plan, no deal throws up different scenarios and makes planning harder.

The biggest problem though, as already alluded to is that the current government is driven by a belief that Brexit is the single most important thing and pragmatism has gone out of the window. Brexit fundamentalists if you like.

This is, in my opinion, compounded by the fact the people they are negotiating with believe the Eu is the most important thing and they too are happy to ignore pragmatism. EU fundamentalists effectively.

I appreciate your candour and effort. It is true indeed, that very many funds, banks and assorted other City structures have long given up on HMG negotiating its way out of a paper bag, and enacted their own contingency plans.

The fundamental issue which you left out of the above, regrettably, and which is of utmost importance to the UK, is the fiscal shortage that follows these widescale relocations. It is still the same argument, since 2015 (at least): where the City is concerned, if Brexiting without passporting, it's not the number of relocated jobs which matters, but the type of jobs and tax re-domiciliation which matters.

I'll venture that the 10,000 City jobs (or so), £-trillions of relocated assets and now Paris/Frankfurt/Dublin-based fin-trading all hurt the Exchequer a damn side more, than the 50,000 or even 500,000 automotive assembly workers, farmhands, etc, etc. scheduled for economic termination under Tufton Street-o-nomics.

...and that's before we've looked at the non-City, non-banking service sector making up the rest of the UK's service exports to the EU.

Legal (e.g.) weighs a few £-bns at the very least in that (I know that IP alone is > £1bn, and that is very niche) and they're getting the same NTBs dumped on them from 01.01.21 as the City, without mutual recognition (part & parcel of LPF).

McGiver

RobMc59 wrote: »

Britain will pay for its own mistakes.Are you happy that Ireland is paying for other countries?

Three words. The Single Market.

The more unified (in economic terms), the more stable, the more prosperous are all participants of the Single Market, the more stable and prosperous are all individual participants of the Single Market. That includes Ireland.

It's absolutely better to have a stable, decent and rich neighbour than an unstable neighbour who does drugs and is in debt.

ancapailldorcha

I'm immensely proud that Ireland has advanced to the point where it is giving help to other EU nations instead of getting it.

It's mad that the lads moaning about this saying how we should help our own will go back to moaning about the homeless, teachers and welfare claimants as predictable as day follows night.

davedanon

It's very telling that the level of EU-comprehension extends no further than Net Recipient = GOOD, Net Contributor = BAD, and "WE HAVE TO PAY FOR OTHER COUNTRIES PROBLEMS".

theological

davedanon wrote: »

It's very telling that the level of EU-comprehension extends no further than Net Recipient = GOOD, Net Contributor = BAD, and "WE HAVE TO PAY FOR OTHER COUNTRIES PROBLEMS".

If that was actually the only downside of EU membership, I might agree with you.

It is still very fortunate that the UK got out of the coronavirus fund and having to borrow an estimated £55bn for it.

There are many ways to assist, not all require saddling yourself with a large amount of debt to give to others.

J Mysterio

theological wrote: »

If that was actually the only downside of EU membership, I might agree with you.

It is still very fortunate that the UK got out of the coronavirus fund and having to borrow an estimated £55bn for it.

There are many ways to assist, not all require saddling yourself with a large amount of debt to give to others.

Indeed, and the UK just recently slashed it's foreign aid commitments.

CelticRambler

A point that seems to have been lost on most is that the EU is borrowing at negative interest rates to create this fund. So everyone who contributes will be getting a dividend.

This is because the Euro is currently considered the strongest, most stable currency in the world by the financial markets, to the extent that some institutional investors are swapping their gold for Euros. Not a bad club to belong to.

Padre_Pio

theological wrote: »

If that was actually the only downside of EU membership, I might agree with you.

It is still very fortunate that the UK got out of the coronavirus fund and having to borrow an estimated £55bn for it.

There are many ways to assist, not all require saddling yourself with a large amount of debt to give to others.

If £55bn is the cost of staying in the EU, what's the cost of leaving it?

Brexit is on course to cost the UK more than its combined total of payments to the European Union budget over the past 47 years, Bloomberg Economics found.

Bloomberg said the cost of the UK's vote to leave the EU had already reached £130 billion.

A further £70 billion is likely to be added by the end of 2020, the economist Dan Hanson found.

Hmm, I'll pay the £55bn please:pac:

McGiver

CelticRambler wrote: »

A point that seems to have been lost on most is that the EU is borrowing at negative interest rates to create this fund. So everyone who contributes will be getting a dividend.

This is because the Euro is currently considered the strongest, most stable currency in the world by the financial markets, to the extent that some institutional investors are swapping their gold for Euros. Not a bad club to belong to.

Yes and in fact the EU should borrow more because too much strong Euro isn't that good thing. Especially for export oriented countries.

davedanon

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/28/brexit-will-deliver-double-shock-to-uk-economy-study-finds-coronavirus


"A Brexit hit is looming for sectors that have emerged relatively unscathed from the Covid-19 pandemic, new data has showed.

A report from the London School of Economics says Brexit will deliver a double shock to the economy – with worsening business conditions for those sectors that have survived the impact of coronavirus and lockdown measures – whether Boris Johnson secures a deal with the EU or not."