sorry Kelvin.
anyone wanting to discuss Scottish independence start another thread or find the old one?
Sorry – thats partly my fault. I’ll shut up
Posted 15 hours ago
^
The Brexit disruption has forced one of the UK’s largest supermarkets to stock a rival grocer’s products ... Boris Johnson warned he ‘cannot duck’ inequality
You’re ignoring a load of context with that statement, and making huge generalisations geographically. It’s that kind of sentiment that makes me seethe against the idea of Nationalism.
Where’d you get the “nationalism” bit from?
It already has. I can no longer include British based funds in my French PEA portfolio:
Seeing this coming I’ve made changes progressively and now have zero exposure to the UK. Just as well, between the under perforamance of the FTSE and weakening pound I’d have lost enough to pay for a couple of years of junior’s education.
Again, the missus isn't hugely bothered by this - this rule affects non-professional investors basically non-high net worth investors. This won't hit them and they are still operating their funds out of Jersey.
There are a number of other fund types that aren't covered by that ruling as well.
But for how long Oakley? Thats the point. Is there not still a grace period in action but the EU are intending to force much more financial trade into the euro zone?
I read back in September about an agreement that runs into 2021 but can't remember exactly how long for.
There aren't any stated intentions as far as I know, just the need for further negotiations before the interim arangements run out. Macron was a banker, he'll know what he doesn't want to continue.
Well El Bent as our friends across the pond say “no taxation without representation” i have had no government representation since 2010 and never had any local representation (live in Rishis constituency) my EU representation has been removed.
I can understand that, but you are giving them what they want.
We can all continue to bleat about the people being played and 'choosing' to vote for brexit because they are stupid, or turkeys voting for Christmas etc, while at the same time turning a blind eye to our behaviour and who or what is playing us to make the 'right decisions'.
Its quite simple: I live in a constituency that voted libdem in 2010. In 2015, it voted tory(in 2014 it voted out the libdem council for tory) In 2016, it overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU, in 2017, back to a Libdem MP.
I know people wanted to punish the libdems for the coalition(by voting tory), but that extra tory MP along with others, allowed Cameron to vote to have the EU referendum. It was in their manifesto. There was no point voting the tory out in 2017, the damage had been done.
You don't have to be a chess grand master to even think a few steps ahead and the possible consequences of your actions, all I would ask is in the words of the now departed sith lord road safety dude: Stop, Look, Listen.
I am sure it’ll get sorted in some manner, but wtf
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaximilianJans2/status/1346420576974471169/photo/1
I agree with TJ on this point… but can we all stop this topic from taking of this thread? Pretty please?
I'll start a Scotch Eggxit thread if anyone wants.
But for how long Oakley? Thats the point. Is there not still a grace period in action but the EU are intending to force much more financial trade into the euro zone?
I dont believe there is grace period for the others, its a matter of deciding strategy now for the EU. As mentioned in previous articles I posted, the EU has to be careful not to shoot themselves in the foot. If for example they went full protectionist and started say going after non-UCITs funds then the rest of the worlds financial markets are going to retaliate. How do you think the EU would fair if they were locked out of American and Asian financial markets?
I am sure it’ll get sorted in some manner, but wtf
I mentioned the upcoming three way Norway/UK/EU discussions… but mere details were countered with questions about being lacking in imagination or belief, or something.
https://www.ft.com/content/96607c9a-351e-4c51-9c33-48bd5976cf84
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/96607c9a-351e-4c51-9c33-48bd5976cf84The Hong Kong asset management association has warned that a Brexit-related overhaul of the EU’s retail fund rules could have the unintended consequence of undermining the dominance of European funds in Asia.
Sally Wong, chief executive of the HK Investment Funds Association, said any move by the EU to unpick the outsourcing model on which global asset managers rely could spur Asian countries to seek to lure capital away from the €17.7tn European fund industry.
Funds governed by Europe’s retail fund framework, known as Ucits, are sold across the world and are particularly popular in Asian jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore.
Part of the success of Ucits funds is so-called delegation, which allows asset managers to set up a fund in an EU country and carry out portfolio management in another location, such as London, Hong Kong or New York.
But in August the EU’s top financial regulator recommended sweeping changes to the delegation rules in response to Brexit. Though the proposal has not been formally adopted, it is expected to be taken into consideration in the upcoming review of the EU’s asset management rule book.
Ms Wong said that policymakers in Brussels should carefully consider the global implications of any changes to delegation, noting that Asian authorities’ increasing focus on boosting their local fund industries made it an “inopportune moment” to review the rules.
Hong Kong and Taiwan have taken steps to boost the attractiveness of locally domiciled funds in recent years, while Singapore launched a new fund structure in January in a bid to lure global fund managers. In addition, some Asian countries have come together to launch cross-border fund passport or mutual recognition schemes.
Ms Wong said Asian authorities may seek to profit from the fragmentation created by an overhaul of the Ucits rules by speeding up their attempts to win local business. “If [the] proposed changes undermine [Ucits’] core strength and bring uncertainty to the industry and investors, there is all the more reason for [Asian regulators] to accelerate these changes,” she said.
Her comments are the latest in a series of warnings that changes to delegation would threaten the seamless market access that has driven the huge growth of the global asset management industry.
Paul Schott Stevens, chief executive of the Washington-based Investment Company Institute, another trade group, said the proposal to limit delegation was the latest example of an anti-globalisation mindset. “It would be a real concern if that relatively free access to best-of-breed investment services was compromised,” he said.
However, Stewart Aldcroft, chairman of Citigroup’s Asian fund servicing arm, said increased costs because of restrictions on delegation would not necessarily be enough to entice international fund groups to launch onshore Asian funds.
“Global managers have often avoided local set-up in Asia as they try to avoid proliferation of funds,” he said. Fund groups would only establish more local products if they anticipate high sales potential, he added, noting that with the exception of the China-Hong Kong scheme, the other Asian fund passporting initiatives have so far generated “negligible volumes”.
Yoon Ng, director of Asia-Pacific insights at Broadridge, a research company, added that while demand for European products would fall in countries where local fund pushes are under way, managers would continue to favour Ucits because of its cross-border portability. “None of the Asian fund passports come close to the reach and scope of Ucits,” she said.
It appears that it's just France blocking UCITs so far, might be wrong, can't ask the missus at the moment. It seems to be France trying to drive the changes to boost their own industry.
Both articles I've posted point out the risks to the EU and how this could backfire though.
I am sure it’ll get sorted in some manner, but wtf
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaximilianJans2/status/1346420576974471169/photo/1/blockquote >
UK fishing is what, 0.2%gdp? It's that small because the uk government sold off UK quotas to private/foreign firms some time ago. OK it's a deeper and much more complex scenario than that, but what really makes me laugh is british nationalists getting pumped up about reclaiming fishing rights.... they can't, they were legitimatly sold off a long time ago. By OUR GOOD SELVES to make the UK government at the time a quick quid, lol.
It seems to be France trying to drive the changes to boost their own industry.
I think the opportunity for mischief will be much greater now we’re out the club.
It’s depressing watching a nation very slowly come to understand the term “frictionless trade” 5 years too late…
https://twitter.com/bbcmartynoates/status/1346213229027065856?s=21
I think the opportunity for mischief will be much greater now we’re out the club.
Reminds me of this.
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/29/business/french-lifting-curb-on-japanese-video-recorders.html
Kelvin - its almost as if Johnson and co didn't understand how the trade in fish works.
Kelvin – its almost as if Johnson and co didn’t understand how the trade in fish works.
I'm quite sure they did, and I'm equally certain they didn't (and don't) give a shit.
I very much doubt they did. Nothing I have heard from them gives any clue they had any understanding
I know people who have had to work directly for Johnson, in his previous roles… no one should be ruling out the combination of not caring and not understanding. And there are cabinet ministers who fit that description without having to know about how they operated behind the scenes. Just listen to them.
It's not about the bloody fish. It's to do with territorial waters and the idea that we can turf out a few foreigners who might get too close to our island paradise. See also: plucky RAF chase off evil Russian bombers
See also: plucky RAF chase off evil Russian bombers
Pretty sure its necessary to challenge aircraft which are potentially carrying live nuclear weapons very close to the country and are testing UK air defences?
Do you think one of them is going to stray into UK airspace and drop a bomb just for the hell of it one day?
It's a routine affair but is sensationalised occasionally when the media and it's government lackeys want to drum up some good, old-fashioned, nationalist tub-thumping.
Its also hypocritical given that we do this all the time to Russia
I’m quite sure they did, and I’m equally certain they didn’t (and don’t) give a shit.
It really is the ultimate con. Convince people to hand over the keys to their business in exchange for a vote, "it'll be fine, we won't **** YOU over" and walk away with not only no consequence (or conscience for that matter), but a reward of power.
Do you think one of them is going to stray into UK airspace and drop a bomb just for the hell of it one day?
Maybe not drop it, but crashing is always a distinct possibility, then it becomes our problem. Best to keep them away.
Its also hypocritical given that we do this all the time to Russia
Yeh I thought it was common/routine practice all over the world for countries to buzz each others airspace to see if theres a response, the expected response is that they will be 'politley' escorted back in the direction they came from.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1346774398326501376
fairly unsurprising if you had the slightest understanding of Brexit and its implications. But still, what exactly did the ERG research, and when is the TPA going to stand up and demand they return the money they wasted?
Some salient points in her thread that some people... after 5 years... still don't get... there are still many thinking that the FTA signed means we have changed little in terms of trade, and the effect it will have on all our economies... but of course the effect will be far greater in the smaller market (ours)...
Important to remember that trade deals (FTAs) weren't designed with such a high degree of economic integration in mind.
So some of the standard RoO provisions will seem incredibly restrictive under the UK-EU deal.
Minimal operations or insufficient processing is a standard part of an FTA. Most, if not all FTAs, include a provision on minimal processing – processing not considered sufficient to confer originating status even if rules of origin have been met.
I've had to be good, and bite my tongue, as people lecture us on here with things like "it's just about tariffs" or "the rules of origin stuff is a red herring, a deal does away with that"... but we need to get real, and address what these "details" mean... more understanding, less believing, is going to be required in the UK.
And, of course, away from trade... consider the lives of millions of people that now have to pay new huge fees, and face new delays, and jump over new hurdles of eligibility, just to keep living their day to day lives... because of where they or someone in their family were born, or where their clients or customers or staff or employer happen to be based.
Costs. Time. Barriers.
Irish fishing boat boarded by "Marine Scotland patrol boat", whatever that may be (I imagine a super dreadnought sized heavy battle cruiser with harpoons but it's been a long pandemic...) near the disputed island paradise of Rockall.
Worth a click it for the first comment.
Brexit just keeps on giving, doesn't it?
Regarding free trade agreement, I mentioned much earlier in the thread how much extra it was costing our business to cover the customs clearance work. This cost will have to be passed on.
Additionally as others have pointed out the FTA only covers goods which originate or are manufactured in the UK/EU. In reality it is far from a free trade agreement.
Most large international companies manufacture in China, US etc and have geared up to operate through European Distribution Centres. Goods from outside the EU that come through a EDC will have double duty when they are moved to the UK. I suspect this covers an awful lot of bikes and parts but obviously huge amounts of what we buy in the UK.
It is easy to say just bring the stuff direct to the UK but the point of an EDC is that you can bring vast quantities to one central place so they can be called off to customers all over Europe. Forecasting and efficiencies on stock holding are far more tricky when you do it at a more granular level which means cost in slow moving stock etc. Bonded warehousing is another way to go but not easy for most businesses to contemplate.
Came across this earlier, so the City of London will almost certainly need a Foreign/Dual National to represent its interests in Brussels because, add on the ability to speak French and realistically you are going to get someone French/Belgian/Swiss.
(I imagine a super dreadnought sized heavy battle cruiser with harpoons but it’s been a long pandemic…)
Sorry to disappoint 🙂
near the disputed island paradise of Rockall.
Now consider the renewed importance of Rockall when you consider fishing zones and who is allowed where. Chances of this escalating?
So now, in addition to going to war with Spain for Gibraltar, they are going to have to declare war on Ireland for Rockall.
The navy is going to be busy.
I'm surprised at the Scots doing this as I'd had thought they'd be more culturally aligned with Ireland therefore reluctant to engage in these disputes. I guess the strings are being pulled in Westminster.
It's not "the Scots" is it?
It’s not “the Scots” is it?
I doubt it very much, but can imagine the conversation. We really sorry guys but can't fish here anymore. If we catch you again or maybe the time afterwards we made have escort you out of UK waters. If we can be bothered.
You just know the SNP are going to get blamed for it, though.
Brexit: Royal Navy will not be deployed in Scottish waters, Humza Yousaf says