Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007 wrote: »

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

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

kingchess wrote: »

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

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

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

Gerry T wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote:

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

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

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

ambro25 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

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

Actually, don't bother answering that one.

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

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Thomas__ wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ambro25 wrote: »

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

so the EIB stated (from your link)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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