Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Brexit discussion thread II

11718202223305

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The UK has ultimate sovereignty over what happens in the UK, but to the extent the are committed to regulatory equivalence in order to maintain barrier-free access to the EU they won't really have control, will they? If they exercise their sovereignty in a way which causes the regulatory regimes to diverge, they'll lose access to the EU market.

    In other words, if they want to maintain access to the UK market they have a choice between (a) keeping their regulatory regime aligned with EU requirements into which they do have an input, if they remain an EU member, or (b) keeping their regulatory regime aligned with EU requirements into which they don't have an input, as an EU non-member.

    Good afternoon!

    Again - I don't see how it is different to having to maintain US regulations for trade in goods and services that goes to America. Yes, Britain doesn't have a say in what those regulations are but it ensures it complies for trading purposes.

    Britain could choose not to conduct trade with America on that basis and lose business or it can comply for goods and services traded with America.

    Likewise Britain can choose to do this for trading into the European Single Market. I don't see any issue with this. I also don't see it as a lack of control as Britain can elect to comply for what gets traded into the Single Market.

    I'm fairly sure that most wouldn't see this as a lack of control. Or perhaps I'm getting more liberal as the thread goes on but I'm definitely for complying with financial services regulations if it provided passporting from outside the EU.

    Edit: also of course the ECJ should have authority to punish violations of British firms in respect to their activity in the EU. This is what happens with American firms like Google today, but the ECJ must not have any sole oversight of what happens domestically within the UK. The vote wasn't about controlling what happens in the EU but what happens in the UK.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Again - I don't see how it is different to having to maintain US regulations for trade in goods and services that goes to America. Yes, Britain doesn't have a say in what those regulations are but it ensures it complies for trading purposes.

    It is very different. To cope with different regulations companies have to employ more people and sometimes different it systems. That increases the cost and complexity of doing business. How much depends on the regulations and requirements for specialist staff. Some businesses will be prepared to take the cost others won't. Those that don't absorb them will leave. Even for those that stay have less money to spend on more productive parts of their businesses.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,665 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I don't see any good reason why a FTA can't be agreed on services.

    Apart from the inconvenient obstacle that the EU may not want a FTA on financial services.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Apart from the inconvenient obstacle that the EU may not want a FTA on financial services.

    Good afternoon!

    If EU member states weren't so dependent on the City I might agree with you. The reality is that the EU needs good access to London.

    Moreover the EU's own regulations allow for passporting by third countries. There's a very strong reason to believe that the UK will win out on this issue even if it loses out elsewhere.

    Even Wolfgang Schaeuble agrees.

    Those who think the EU will destroy London's financial services centre don't realise how dominant it actually is. London is one of two European cities in the top 20 financial services centres. The other in Zürich at number 9.

    Junkyard Tom, I mentioned your post in passing here. It's worth pointing out though that I'm not under automatic obligation to reply to your posts and if you goad for a response it probably means you're less likely to get one.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    If EU member states weren't so dependent on the City I might agree with you. The reality is that the EU needs good access to London.

    Good afternoon.

    Dr Andreas Dombret of the German central bank might disagree with that:

    "The current model of using London as a gateway to Europe is likely to end,"

    Also, can I ask why you didn't respond to my points earlier in the discussion?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,441 ✭✭✭embraer170


    Bank of America chooses Dublin as EU base after Brexit
    Bank of America has picked Dublin as the main base for its EU investment banking and markets operations after Brexit, chief executive Brian Moynihan told the Financial Times.

    (...)

    The increase will come from a combination of new hires and moving staff from the bank’s London office, which employs about 4,500. BofA will also look for new office space in addition to the two “very good” Dublin sites it has now, said Alex Wilmot-Sitwell, the bank’s head of Europe, Middle East and Africa.

    https://www.ft.com/content/1fff392a-6e17-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa?mhq5j=e3


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,756 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Good morning!

    Let's go through these.

    On family rights - I agree with the UK government that EU citizens should have equal rights to British citizens. Meaning that if I want to bring a partner from another country I need to acknowledge that will be subject to a marriage visa. The situation that exists today where EU citizens have another right to British citizens isn't acceptable going forward.

    Criminal expulsion post-Brexit - I 100% agree with this. This should exist as a condition of freedom of movement for all countries. The UK is right to make this an issue.

    Voting rights will be a matter for the British government to legislate for. In the Great Repeal Bill, European Union law (including presumably for the rights of citizens) will be merged into the body of British legislation. Where do you see the desire for the British government to change this?

    Further movement rights - I'm particularly not too bothered if a British citizen has to apply for a Schengen Visa after Brexit. I can see why they are pushing hard on it because when they arrived in the EU they had free movement. I think this is a price worth paying for Brexit.

    EU elections - This is for a matter for the European Union to resolve. There's no reason why the British government should provide this. The UK will have left the EU. If the European Union wants to provide a postal vote or another provision that is for them to decide.

    View - your point about EU treaties is null and void. The UK is leaving the EU, therefore it won't be subject to EU Treaty provisions. It's looking for a third country deal and obviously that will require a new set of paper. On security and intelligence sharing and policing the EU needs the UK and vice versa. I'm sure an arrangement will be made as a third country. I agree with Theresa May when she says the ECJ having oversight is a no, no. Barnier acknowledged yesterday that the end result may be a court of joint arbitration.

    The UK have to push hard at this stage. I'm glad they are and I'm glad that the negotiators seem highly skilled and knowledgeable on the issues. Particularly Olly Robbins.

    Edit - on passporting I'm surprised nobody has responded to my point about provisions for third countries in MiFID II.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria
    Do you know what , I'm not even going to bother giving a detailed reply to this as you've mis-represented most of the points. By using stock answers that don't directly address the issues. But that's been the typical of Brexit so far.


    The Criminal Expulsion thing ?

    My reading on that is that when UK citizens rights to be in the EU expire the UK won't accept criminals back.

    For me that would be a deal-breaker

    To give an idea of what might be involved let's look at the current rules for people trying to get back a UK passport after renouncing UK citizenship - say if they needed to work in EU for a while.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-register-as-british-citizen-form-rs1
    The guidance form RS1 explains that your application will be rejected if , shock horror !, you've ignored lots of parking ticket fixed penalty notices (page 8)

    A non-custodial offence or other out of court disposal that is recorded on a person’s criminal record
    Application will normally be refused if the
    conviction occurred in the last 3 years
    ...
    e. A “non-custodial offence or other out of court disposal that is recorded on a person’s
    criminal record” (i.e. line 4) includes Fines, Cautions, Warnings and Reprimands,
    Community Sentences, Civil Orders, Hospital Orders & Restriction Orders and Potential Court Orders.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,756 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Brexit just got a tiny bit messier.

    The Carlingford Ferry started today for now it's an internal EU journey.

    It may soon need customs posts, just like the Lough Foyle.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Brexit just got a tiny bit messier.

    The Carlingford Ferry started today for now it's an internal EU journey.

    It may soon need customs posts, just like the Lough Foyle.

    Does that mean we can get duty free booze on it?


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,756 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Does that mean we can get duty free booze on it?
    No.

    It won't go out past the 12 mile limit.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    No.

    It won't go out past the 12 mile limit.

    Oh shame. Perhaps we might get them to go out that far on a Saturday night. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    It won't go out past the 12 mile limit.

    It could.....


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,756 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    embraer170 wrote: »
    Bank of America chooses Dublin as EU base after Brexit

    This is how one of the other Financials described the lack of direction of Brexit. If the deal comes too late the staff will have been moved and the money will have been spent.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40677329
    The plans involve taking on more staff in Goldman's European offices to serve EU customers post-Brexit.
    ...

    "The other way to describe the contingency plan is that we're buying insurance, so I'm spending money every single day to make sure that come March 2019 I'm open for business," said Mr Gnodde.

    "If I knew today that we would have a significant transition period I could stop spending that (contingency) money because I know I would have time to transition my business.

    "If they [the government] tell me in February 2019 there will be a transition period - well, I've already spent all that money, it's not much use to me.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Does that mean we can get duty free booze on it?
    No.

    It won't go out past the 12 mile limit.
    Oh shame. Perhaps we might get them to go out that far on a Saturday night. :)
    First Up wrote: »
    It could.....

    Less of this please.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    A harbinger of things to come. Britain sidelined by Airbus decision to move hub of business away from UK. Also blindsided by Franco-German axis's decision to cooperate on the building of a new fighter. I think this quote could be representative of the thinking across business and politics in the EU:

    "Everyone is now simply acting on the basis that Brexit has happened, and let's get on with life," said former French security adviser Francois Heisbourg, chairman of think-tank IISS.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,756 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    More Aerospace news today.

    UK wants continued EU Copernicus participation
    The UK will remain in ESA but the EU is paying for 70% of the Copernicus while ESA will pay the remaining 30% of which the UK share is 7.9%
    So it's likely the UK will be given less of the contracts in future.


    Also this sounds like they are greenwashing future cuts.
    Farm subsidies 'must be earned' - Michael Gove


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,046 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I said in this thread that Airbus would likely shift production out of the UK in time. I didn't expect to see movement so soon but the UK has 0% ownership of the company while Germany, France and Spain own a good 30% between them IIRC. Airbus in the UK is finished IMO, deal or no deal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Do you know what , I'm not even going to bother giving a detailed reply to this as you've mis-represented most of the points. By using stock answers that don't directly address the issues. But that's been the typical of Brexit so far.


    The Criminal Expulsion thing ?

    My reading on that is that when UK citizens rights to be in the EU expire the UK won't accept criminals back.

    For me that would be a deal-breaker

    To give an idea of what might be involved let's look at the current rules for people trying to get back a UK passport after renouncing UK citizenship - say if they needed to work in EU for a while.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/application-to-register-as-british-citizen-form-rs1
    The guidance form RS1 explains that your application will be rejected if , shock horror !, you've ignored lots of parking ticket fixed penalty notices (page 8)

    Good evening!

    I responded to every one of your points with my assessment of the issues. It's rude to claim you won't respond because I don't share your views. I've clearly explained what I think about each issue. If you think I've misrepresented you - it was unintentional and I think you should explain how if so.

    On criminals not bring taken back in. I need to see your case for that. I think deportation of criminals should be reciprocal if implemented but it definitely should be implemented.

    As for renouncing citizenship - of course you go back to square one if you do that. A regular citizenship of the UK requires things like unpaid parking fines to be disclosed.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,115 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    murphaph wrote: »
    I said in this thread that Airbus would likely shift production out of the UK in time. I didn't expect to see movement so soon but the UK has 0% ownership of the company while Germany, France and Spain own a good 30% between them IIRC. Airbus in the UK is finished IMO, deal or no deal.

    I'd imagine untangling Airbus manufacturing from Britain would be just too expensive in the short term. Airbus will quietly withdraw by simply letting current production end. Manufacturing of next generation hardware will be planned for France, Germany and Spain unless Britain gets its act together on Brexit or just abandons it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,046 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I'd imagine untangling Airbus manufacturing from Britain would be just too expensive in the short term. Airbus will quietly withdraw by simply letting current production end. Manufacturing of next generation hardware will be planned for France, Germany and Spain unless Britain gets its act together on Brexit or just abandons it.
    Yeah that's exactly what they'll do. New lines will go to Airbus home countries and Airbus in the UK will wither away. Crazy stuff. At what point does the emergency brake get pulled.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    If EU member states weren't so dependent on the City I might agree with you. The reality is that the EU needs good access to London.

    It's the other way around - the City of London needs good access to the EU.

    Have a look at London's share of trade in financial services before 1993, the year the Single Market came into effect, and after 1993.

    London took off like a rocket post-1993 because it was part of the EU's Single Market.

    If it's not part of the Single Market, firms located there won't be able to operate within the EU from London alone, as their 'passports' will be withdrawn and the EU can decide not to deem UK rules to be equivalent to EU rules.

    If firms that are based in London can't operate in the EU, what will they do?

    They'll leave London obviously and relocate in the EU.

    They may keep some operations in London to service the UK market (and perhaps non-EU markets) but they'll have to move a substantial part of their operations to the EU.

    And they won't just be able to have a token presence in the EU either.

    The EU's European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) has issued 'recommendations' (in reality, binding rules) to national authorities across the EU telling them not to permit token presences for firms relocating out of the UK - operations will have to be substantial and will have to include senior management and senior executive teams.

    Guess what happens when your senior management and senior executive teams leave London?

    London is a big player in financial services because of the EU.

    Without participation in the EU's Single Market it will shrink.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    Another element of what was dismissed as fear-mongering becomes reality:
    David Cameron has claimed family holidays in Europe could be an average of £230 more expensive if the UK votes to leave the EU.

    In a speech to airline staff, the PM said a weaker pound, coupled with increased air fares and mobile phone roaming charges, would push up costs.

    The claim comes amid mounting anger from Leave campaigners about the exit warnings produced by the government.
    Vote Leave accused the PM of "talking down our country".

    And UKIP's Nigel Farage said the PM was trying to "turn the truth on its head"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36367943
    British holidaymakers heading to Europe for this weekend’s big getaway are being offered what may be the worst ever foreign exchange rates at British airports – in one case, just 88 euro cents for every pound they hand over.

    The 88 euro cents offered at Cardiff airport followed a difficult week for the pound on the foreign exchange markets, where sterling fell to its lowest level for eight months to €1.11.

    Travellers flying out of Gatwick, Luton and Birmingham on Friday were all being offered less than a euro for each pound, unless they had pre-booked their currency.

    As thousands of parents who had been waiting for the start of the school holidays spent yesterday packing suitcases, the pound completed a terrible week falling to its lowest level for eight months – to €1.11.

    It means cycling fans using their credit cards at the denouement of the Tour de France in Paris on Sunday will get an exchange rate of around €1.08 once the credit card firm has added its commission.

    But it also allowed the airport foreign currency providers to slash rates – on what was set to the busiest day ever at British airports. The Forexchange at Cardiff airport on Friday cut its walk-up rate to the point that a pound would buy just 88 euro cents. Experts said that was possibly the worst euro exchange rate ever seen at any UK airport – traditionally the most expensive places to buy foreign currency.

    We have seen how the pound has been subject to volatility since the Brexit referendum

    The Travelex foreign exchange booths at Heathrow, Manchester and Glasgow were offering almost exactly €1 to the pound. The foreign exchange industry has blamed higher staff and property costs at airports for the poor exchange rates.

    Ian Strafford-Taylor, chief executive of the online currency firm FairFX, said political and economic uncertainty since the vote for Brexit had weakened the pound, and British holidaymakers are now paying the price.

    “Time and time again, we have seen how the pound has been subject to volatility since the Brexit referendum and how some currency providers look to be taking advantage of it. Our analysis of airport rates today shows that consumers are routinely being offered as low as 0.96 euros to the pound, well below parity. It couldn’t come at a worse time just as the nation heads off for the great summer holiday getaway.”

    He said the pound’s decline since the referendum means that European hotels, meals out and pedalo hires are set to cost British holidaymakers 7% more than they did this time last year, and 21% more than in the summer of 2015. This is before any local price increases are included.

    In the first week of the school summer holidays in 2015, Britons travelling to Europe received more than €1.41 for each pound.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/21/britons-travelling-to-europe-offered-just-88-euro-cents-to-the-pound


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 34,184 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Each and every week this goes and it gets more bleak. It's incredible at this point wanting to exit something you were fundamental in creating, something which is so very vital to your economy activity.

    Its pure unadulterated brainless self destruction. The type which typical brits would scoff at their American counterparts for making.


    Incredible


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    It's the other way around - the City of London needs good access to the EU.

    Have a look at London's share of trade in financial services before 1993, the year the Single Market came into effect, and after 1993.

    London took off like a rocket post-1993 because it was part of the EU's Single Market.

    If it's not part of the Single Market, firms located there won't be able to operate within the EU from London alone, as their 'passports' will be withdrawn and the EU can decide not to deem UK rules to be equivalent to EU rules.

    If firms that are based in London can't operate in the EU, what will they do?

    They'll leave London obviously and relocate in the EU.

    They may keep some operations in London to service the UK market (and perhaps non-EU markets) but they'll have to move a substantial part of their operations to the EU.

    And they won't just be able to have a token presence in the EU either.

    The EU's European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA) has issued 'recommendations' (in reality, binding rules) to national authorities across the EU telling them not to permit token presences for firms relocating out of the UK - operations will have to be substantial and will have to include senior management and senior executive teams.

    Guess what happens when your senior management and senior executive teams leave London?

    London is a big player in financial services because of the EU.

    Without participation in the EU's Single Market it will shrink.

    Good morning,

    It's both. The EU will be badly hit if it doesn't have access to financial services in London. This is why it's in both sides interests to ensure this continues. There's no point claiming it's just bad for London when that isn't true.

    It's worth pointing out that London was a major financial services centre before the EU. You're right to say that it grew with access to trade in the EU however.

    A lot of London's growth came from what's called "the big bang" when Margaret Thatcher and her Chancellor Nigel Lawson deregulated the City and it moved on to electronic trading very early in the late 1980's putting it ahead of other cities.

    So yes, EU access helped London grow but it was a major centre before the EU and Government deregulation was a huge factor also.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,756 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Another element of what was dismissed as fear-mongering becomes reality:
    David Cameron has claimed family holidays in Europe could be an average of £230 more expensive if the UK votes to leave the EU.

    In a speech to airline staff, the PM said a weaker pound, coupled with increased air fares and mobile phone roaming charges, would push up costs.
    If you remember how expensive Dublin-London was back in the day that could be an understatement.

    Also if the UK rolls back recent EU rules the credit card surcharge may come back

    and remember Brexit hasn't happened yet.

    Speaking of increased costs UK borrowing has gone up and the cost of borrowing has gone up
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40679277
    Government borrowing increased last month after the state was forced to pay higher interest on its debt.
    ...
    The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) - the fiscal watchdog - has forecast that borrowing will be £58.3bn during the current financial year. In the financial year to March 2017, borrowing was £46.2bn according to the latest estimates from the ONS.
    That's £12.1Bn extra , even if it's all Brexit related that's still going to remove any savings


    The ONS data showed that total government debt, excluding public sector banks, stood at £1.75 trillion at the end of June, which is equivalent to 87.4% of gross domestic product (GDP).
    0.5% of that is £8.75Bn
    Which is about what the UK pays to the EU each year.

    As the UK's credit rating and currency value has been sinking the cost of borrowing is going to go up.



    The money saved by not paying the EU may make our "cheap" bailout of the banks look a good deal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,051 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    It's both. The EU will be badly hit if it doesn't have access to financial services in London. This is why it's in both sides interests to ensure this continues. There's no point claiming it's just bad for London when that isn't true.

    It's worth pointing out that London was a major financial services centre before the EU. You're right to say that it grew with access to trade in the EU however.

    A lot of London's growth came from what's called "the big bang" when Margaret Thatcher and her Chancellor Nigel Lawson deregulated the City and it moved on to electronic trading very early in the late 1980's putting it ahead of other cities.

    So yes, EU access helped London grow but it was a major centre before the EU and Government deregulation was a huge factor also.


    If the status quo continues after Brexit then yes, London will remain very important for the EU. However if business's have to start moving their some of their operations out of the UK and the regulations forces a lot of banks to move some of their work out of the UK to continue offering services within the EU then the importance of London to the EU becomes less. Who loses more in that case? The EU or the UK?

    This is how the ball is in the EU's hands, at worst everything stays as is with regards to London being a focal point. A more likely scenario is the focus on London becomes less and it moves to other cities around the EU, e.g. Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    It's both. The EU will be badly hit if it doesn't have access to financial services in London. This is why it's in both sides interests to ensure this continues. There's no point claiming it's just bad for London when that isn't true.

    It's not both. Your claim is ridiculous.

    The EU will continue to have access to financial services. There's no need for these services to be based in London. After the UK leaves the EU, many providers of financial services will have to relocate to the EU.

    It's a simple fact that UK-based providers of EU-regulated financial services will lose EU passporting rights if the UK does not participate in the Single Market after it leaves the EU.

    That's not an opinion - it's a fact. You may as well argue that 2+2 = 5 if you think it isn't a fact.

    The EU will decide if the UK's post-Brexit regulatory regime for financial services is equivalent enough to the EU's for UK-based financial services firms to be allowed to service the EU market.

    If the EU decides that the UK rules are not equivalent, UK-based firms will have to relocate to either the EU itself or a jurisdiction which the EU deems to have regulatory equivalence, such as the USA.

    Either way, London loses out.

    The importance of EU membership to the UK's financial services sector is set out in this Bank of England report:

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2015/euboe211015.pdf


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭solodeogloria


    Good morning!

    So Wolfgang Schaeuble, the Bank of England, even Michel Barnier amongst others are wrong to say that a lack of access to debt and equity markets in London would be bad for the EU?

    The fact is that three quarters of Europe's financial markets are based on London. That's a fact, and one that will remain true when Brexit comes into force.

    You don't understand the scale and the importance of London in global financial services if you claim it won't have a painful impact on the EU not to have access. That's cold hard reality - Britain has a very strong hand in this regard as Europe's investment banker.

    The reality is Brexit will be very bad for both if it is carried out badly - therefore we should all be supporting a great deal for both parties.

    Much thanks,
    solodeogloria


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,051 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    So Wolfgang Schaeuble, the Bank of England, even Michel Barnier amongst others are wrong to say that a lack of access to debt and equity markets in London would be bad for the EU?

    The fact is that three quarters of Europe's financial markets are based on London. That's a fact, and one that will remain true when Brexit comes into force.

    You don't understand the scale and the importance of London in global financial services if you claim it won't have a painful impact on the EU not to have access. That's cold hard reality - Britain has a very strong hand in this regard as Europe's investment banker.

    The reality is Brexit will be very bad for both if it is carried out badly - therefore we should all be supporting a great deal for both parties.


    But what if a good deal for the EU is a bad deal for the UK or vice versa?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement