Forum menu
Graham more ridiculous scaremongering in that NHS picture. Leave and the Govt already said all people could stay and as my friend who works in the NHS says we have many non-EU staff all of whom have a visa. Its really not difficult. As an aside my good friends daughter worked as an equine vet in Australia to gain experience, it was easy to get a visa.
Sorry, but if I was an overseas doctor/ nurse/ whatever, and I saw the strong anti-foreigner attitude in the UK (please don't deny it), then I would not be overly keen to come and work here regardless of how easy the visa process was.
now have an additional 3% on their prices (or on their costs if they decide to take it on the chin, in order that their customers don't get stung) plus additional admin associated with exporting in this brave new world. We've just made it harder for folks to do business with us. So it would probably more than 3%? Even if it is only 3% ... a 3% drop in profits is quite a big deal for a lot of companies?
You have to make an export declaration to UK customs. Either you or your EU customer has to pay that duty (+ VAT) at the border and make an import declaration to SEU customs (or pay some one else to make that declaration).You think a 3% price hike plus extra logistics hassle won't influence a business' buying decisions?
Indeed, and nothing I've said contradicts that. The assertion I'm disputing is that you can't trade without a trade deal. You can, lots of people do, and it's not *that* bad.
Over simplification of the issues and the plans is what got us into this pickle in the first place?
LOL, someone says you can't trade without a trade deal, I point out that's wrong, and now I'm "oversimplifying"... š
Indeed, and nothing I've said contradicts that. The assertion I'm disputing is that you can't trade without a trade deal. You can, lots of people do, and it's not *that* bad.
True, but it is worse than the status quo. That is why we are being so stupid.
The devil is in the detail - something that was lost in this debate under the weight of blame Johnny....
True, but it is worse than the status quo. That is why we are being so stupid.
Unless you calculate that the business who lose will be more than offset by the business who win. (Which I haven't.)
The devil is in the detail - something that was lost in this debate
You're pushing against an open door there.
Of course it is possible, just more difficult and more expensive. Realistically, we're going to have more red tape to sell into the EU, not less. (unless there is someone who specialises in import/export/shipping is on here and can tell me different?)
Why would anyone want to make themselves less competitive?
My point is that all of this stuff is okay in theory, but we will need to put things into practice at some point. These glib 'we'll just get a new trade deal' or 'we'll just pay a 3% tariff' are a giamongous over simplification of what these businesses are going to have to go through. The big boys will be okay, the small/medium companies are going to have to work very hard - for less.
I think the number I saw (and I don't have a link and my memory is often shonky - in fact it might have been Gus interviewed on Today) was 120 trade deals that we have or are about to have via the EU.
Might not need to renegotiate all of them though - olive oil sales to China (or anywhere else) might be in there and not really needed by Britain.
Unless you calculate that the business who lose will be more than offset by the business who win. (Which I haven't.)
More paperwork, more hassle, more red tape and still nothing more than a bit of ideology to comfort and offset it.
The near universal response from business, manufacturers, financial people etc for the eu vs a tiny vocal minority (mostly with specific axes to grind) sunk in yet? They might have been on to something but they were just experts so...
Graham more ridiculous scaremongering in that NHS picture.
I think the research centre is actually part of Newcastle University's Institute of Genetic Medicine, rather than NHS. Though they do obviously have ties to the NHS as they run neuromuscular disease clinics for NHS patients.
Leave and the Govt already said all people could stay
Assuming there is enough funding to pay for them of course.
And will they [i]want[/i] to stay when the EU funding moves somewhere else where they don't have to sort out a visa for themselves and their families every time they come to stay?
my friend who works in the NHS says we have many non-EU staff all of whom have a visa. Its really not difficult.
And yet look at that picture. If it is just as easy to get a points-based work visa then why is it there so few people in that picture from non-EU countries? Do we have such a national surplus of neuromuscular genetic specialists that we are turning them away?
my good friends daughter worked as an equine vet in Australia to gain experience, it was easy to get a visa.
I lived in Oz for a year with my wife in 2003. It took months to sort out her visa to work at a hospital there, despite her meeting all the criteria and them being desperate for UK doctors. I accompanied on a Working Holiday visa and we had to jump through various legally-grey hoops to make that work.
Not insurmountable, but quite a different experience to just having the right to work somewhere.
These glib 'we'll just get a new trade deal' or 'we'll just pay a 3% tariff' are a giamongous over simplification of what these businesses are going to have to go through.
Feel free to post the whole process in detail, I'll certainly read it.
We sell into the EU (a lot). We also buy some of our raw materials in US$. But I'm sure the forthcoming trade deals with Papua ****ing New Guinea will more than make up the shortfall and we can continue employing 100s of people.
For a start have a read of the China Aus free trade deal site I linked to, it tells you all the things that are now possible and are now sorted. Should give you a good idea
People still don't realise what they've voted for, and they maybe never will. If they can't forsee the hassle, expense and lost opportunities that will result from leaving the EFTA, and can't see the loss of democratic power and control over that area by leaving the EU, then, they won't acknowledge either as the effects kick in. They'll blame other things for a weaker economy and less say in how the world works. What will they blame if not the Leave voters? I know what/who I fear they will blameā¦
The devil is in the detail - something that was lost in this debate under the weight of blame Johnny....
Hmm, talking about detail - the only commitment, ever, and what people have voted for, is to remove us from the EU.
Everything else, money, immigration, trade, is all bluff & bluster and counter bluff & bluster. The image of what relationship Britain has with the EU after we leave is very much one that is up for negotiation.
Right now Britain could crack down on immigration massively, th EU rules on freedom of movement of labour clearly allow numerous restrictions to be imposed for ourposes of public security it public policy - there may be arguments with ECJ over exactly how far those restrictions can go, but the fact that we can lawfully impose restrictions places very significant wriggle room in negotiation over what 'Britain outside the EU' means.
Norwegian model, that allowed UK employment/immigration only with a proportionate points based system looking into things like criminal record (EU public safety restriction clause) capital, health (EU no burden on public services clause) nature of work (EU freedom of movement of labour does not apply to public sector work, but there is case law making this restriction unusual)
Much of this sector of EU law is undeveloped, there is clearly extensive wiggle room that allows both sides to save face in the negotiations, the EU is generally pragmatic over these things (see the fudge over Swedens duty to adopt the Euro as an example).
The future is very bright for a UK within the single market, but outside the political machinations of the EU, and also able to enter into other trade agreements as we wish EFTA, even NAFTA, could be achievable within a short timescale.
Also what about Bank Passports, how important are they?
Pretty important if a bank wants to trade in Europe.
It's essential for our business, so I think the plan is to open an entity in Ireland or Frankfurt where we already have affiliate office.
People still don't realise what they've voted for, and they maybe never will. If they can't forsee the hassle, expense and lost opportunities that will result from leaving the EFTA,
[img] 
[/img]
The future is very bright for a UK within the single market, but outside the political machinations of the EU, and also able to enter into other trade agreements as we wish EFTA, even NAFTA, could be achievable within a short timescale.
Sorry, this not how EFTA works. To be part of it, you have to accept to apply external tariffs at the rates set by the EU. So, every external trade agreement we make will either have abide by EU rules (which we will no longer play a part in forming) or, for the product categories that the agreement applies to, lose EFTA status for those products.
You do know what EFTA is, and that we left it in 1973, right?
Now, how about you tell us some more about how [b]we[/b] don't know what we voted for š
The devil is in the detail - something that was lost in this debate under the weight of blame Johnny....
I read [url= https://medium.com/@kirstymhall/brexit-was-a-con-67532113a7c ]a nice blog post comparing the EU Referendum with the Scottish Independence referendum[/url] and the main point was how little detail and debating time there was.
In the Scottish Referendum the "Yes" campaign published [url= http://www.gov.scot/resource/0043/00439021.pdf ]Scotland's Future[/url] - a 670 page document laying out their proposals and addressing the various issues. This was released 10 MONTHS before the referendum so everyone got a good chance to debate it.
In contrast the Vote Leave campaign published [url= http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case ]a 16-page document[/url] that was barely more than a Powerpoint presentation.
In the Indyref the referendum date was announced 18 months in advance.
In the EU ref the date (23rd June) was announced on the 20th of February.
Small wonder then that the EU ref debate on both sides lacked depth!
(rest of that blog post is well worth a read too)
Feel free to post the whole process in detail, I'll certainly read it.
Exactly my point. I don't know it and I haven't seen anyone on here who does as yet. Hence why as asked if I was missing something.
I'm not having a pop at you. I'm just hearing a lot of folks saying that all will be okay as we will go and negotiate our own deals or accept the additional tariffs. As you quite rightly point out, all of that is possible. I just don't know how realistic that is and wondered if anyone on here did?
It's hard enough doing finding new business within the UK, let alone in the EU and even harder in the rest of the world. I was just wondering why folks out there (not you personally) seem to think it is going to be so much easier because we have all of these whizzy new trade deals (in 10 years time)
Trading with Australia.. by pure coincidence I'm trying to have an informal call with someone in Sydney. It's taken a couple of days so far because of the time zone difference which means that he is leaving work as I'm starting. Pain in the balls.
Also what about Bank Passports, how important are they?
Those that have larger presences already in other capitals will probably wait and see, as it will be easier to upscale/downscale operations when more is known. Those that don't are going to have to start planning now, we will lose them in the period of uncertainty.
because [s]of the time zone difference which[/s] [b]I'm just lazy and not working 18hrs a day like Gove/BoJo wants[/b] means that he is leaving work as I'm starting. Pain in the balls.
FIFY š
Boss is back in the UK at the moment and it's a right pain this time of year.
Not BoJo!
In the Scottish Referendum the "Yes" campaign published Scotland's Future - a 670 page document laying out their proposals and addressing the various issues. This was released 10 MONTHS before the referendum so everyone got a good chance to debate it.In contrast the Vote Leave campaign published a 16-page document that was barely more than a Powerpoint presentation.
Both were full of bllx though. Unfortunately, one worked.....
Most banks have officrs / branches elsewhere in Europe anyway. Loss of passporting requires asditional local prescence. I forget when the passporting came in but we got on fine without it before. Its also true to say most European banks UK included are refocusing on domestic activities.
As I said previously EU regulations put my business at a disadvantage to my US and Asian competitors
Not BoJo!
Indeed, must make May a big favourite. She came out for Remain which was a bit of a surprise as she's highly eurosceptic. Her announcement statement was heavily Brexit. No Referendum, no election, Article 50 not in 2016 but Brexit is what we voted for
In contrast the Vote Leave campaign published a 16-page document that was barely more than a Powerpoint presentation.
Ooh I missed that, just saw something on the side of a bus.
Most banks have officrs / branches elsewhere in Europe anyway. Loss of passporting requires asditional local prescence. I forget when the passporting came in but we got on fine without it before. Its also true to say most European banks UK included are refocusing on domestic activities.
I think you underestimate the number of "small" US (& other) banks which picked London because of a) English and then when it came in b) Passporting.
It's an essential part of our business now so we'll have to do something.
She came out for Remain which was a bit of a surprise as she's highly eurosceptic.
Not really. That was the only sensible decision š
I think you underestimate the number of "small" US (& other) banks which picked London because of a) English and then when it came in b) Passporting.It's an essential part of our business now so we'll have to do something.
At this point I'd be investing in Guinness š
Her announcement statement was heavily Brexit. No Referendum, no election, Article 50 not in 2016 but Brexit is what we voted for
Now, I know that politicians are known for telling the truth and all that. But do you not think that there just might be a tiny possibility that she's saying what the Leavers side of her party want to hear, in order that they, I don't know, support her?
Conservative leadership contests often through up outsiders I think.
[i]I lived in Oz for a year with my wife in 2003. It took months to sort out her visa to work at a hospital there, despite her meeting all the criteria and them being desperate for UK doctors. I accompanied on a Working Holiday visa and we had to jump through various legally-grey hoops to make that work.
Not insurmountable, but quite a different experience to just having the right to work somewhere.
[/i]
Back in 2001 the company I worked for asked me to go work at their German offices. We went over for a weekend, found a house to rent and within a month I was working their. Bank accounts opened etc. My wife didn't work as we'd a little one, but she could've done. No visa's, no forms and no Govt to deal with.
I forget when the passporting came in but we got on fine without it before
We got along fine without a lot of things before, but now they are an advantage, and being outside the system will be a disadvantage.
As I said previously EU regulations put my business at a disadvantage to my US and Asian competitors
Interested to hear what these are. And why do these regulations exist? AFAIK in manufacturing industries EU regs make EU businesses less competitive because they are protecting the environment - so in some cases, you don't want to be competitive. Because if we didn't have the regs then there's no way we could persuade China &co to adopt them.
You do know what EFTA is, and that we left it in 1973, right?Now, how about you tell us some more about how we don't know what we voted for
Of course I do. We are leaving the EU, and I was replying to somone saying we could join EFTA and also have free reign to do whatever other trade deals we want, without the EU having a say in those deals. This is not true.
more scaremongering
Re what happens next, some interesting stuff from a piece co authored by three legal experts for the UK Constitutional Law Association. I know it's now accepted wisdom that people in this country have had enough of experts, but what the hey, it might be worth bucking the trend and having a look at what they have to say...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629
Genuine question here please. Post Brexit - when we are negotiating new deals what is it that we have that will give us the power we need to be successful as a country? As in, do we have stuff that others need and cannot get elsewhere or cheaper via EU trade deals?
Trading with Australia.. by pure coincidence I'm trying to have an informal call with someone in Sydney. It's taken a couple of days so far because of the time zone difference which means that he is leaving work as I'm starting. Pain in the balls.
Try getting up earlier ???
Put some credit on your skype account and call him using skype - will end up costing you for a local rate phone call in Australia.
MIFID 2 brings passporting into stark relief as you can't even deal with professional counterparties without being in the EU or obtaining "equivalency", we won't know where we stand on equivalence so my understanding is that organisations are already looking to apply for regulatory approval in Amsterdam or Dublin as a backstop.
Good post Graham S. Thm there was a lot of BS in the Better Together campaign for example naval ships were to be built on the clyde , where are they, and we were told again and again that the way to maintain eu membership was to vote no. That went well. Better Together was a poor campaign, helped out by a press/media that really only reflected one side of the argument.
Back on topic Remain lost this referendum as much as leave won it.IMO Cameron went for the same approach in the EU referendum project fear mk2 and it had the same result ie the relentless overblown warnings of disaster drove people away from Remain. Labour is also to blame the party at mp/mep/msp level has taken it's support for granted for decades, the lacklustre campaign by Corbyn and Alan Johnstone didn't get their vote out and may have let UKIP in. Then press /media also played a roll they didn't put forward any positive progressive case for leave, not all their fault since Corbyn was virtually invisible at times. The media really shaped the debate in tone and substance and too many politicians sunk to the same level. We may not need more control of the press but we do need a more diverse press (edit)
Labour is also to blame the party at mp/mep/msp level has taken it's support for granted for decades, the lacklustre campaign by Corbyn and Alan Johnstone didn't get their vote out and may have let UKIP in.
Labour voters were 63% remain vs 42% for Torys
edit sorry you meant GE?
Good point Kimbers but I just wonder how many stayed away
No Kimbers referring to the eu referendum . Sorry cross edits
what is it that we have that will give us the power we need to be successful as a country?
We're totally awesome obviously. Everyone will be falling over themselves to buy our hot buttered crumpets and warm ale.
Carney (BoE) just indicated interest rates may well be cut this summer. I interpret this as as a move to ease any recessionary pressures on the economy.
Carney (BoE) just indicated interest rates may well be cut this summer
Yeah [url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1607881/When-UK-rates-rise.html ]ThisIsMoney[/url] were tipping that a few days ago.
Not a lot of room left to cut them though is there? 0.25%? 0%?
@molgrips quite technical "risk retention" rules designed to make transactions safer for investors (which they don't really do) my competitors in US and Asia don't have to comply and as our joint client base is globally and as largely outside the EU they don't require then either. These rules have a cost so compliant deals (the ones I can buy) have a lower return (interest rate) and are thus less attractive to clients. As a solution to this I proposed personally relocating to the US but that wouldn't help as the firm itself is regulated in the UK
Obviously this is only one example and there will be many others where being in the EU is an advantage
@mefty I believe a full branch in an EU country would solve that, thats they way people used to organise themselves before these new rules. Has an overhead in terms of capital, regulatory staff etc so costs. I recall my old employer had relations and such structures in 50 different countries as its very internationally focused. As such its not that hard or expensive to do.
Of course it's to ease recessionary pressure - created entirely by the lunatic decision to leave the EU. It's the only measure the BoE can take to mitigate the utter insanity of what has happened.
The passporting I don't know what planet you are on Jamba, but why on earth would an FS business want to establish 50 branches, when they could just passport. In any case, they would need to be capitalised entities.
A new meaning for Eton Mess!
@jam so we have additional regulation designed to protect investors - and this is a bad thing? Would you see these regulations removed? Don't you think investors need protecting?
Mol they won't get removed - protection for unsophisticated investors in the UK is largely homegrown regulation. Protection for the big boys is going to be driven by supranational regulation, as is regulation around capital requirements etc. If there are any international Financial services businesses left in the UK in 2 years time, they'll comply with the supranational rules still.
The promise of reduced regulation post Brexit is a total crock.
So given the statements out of Brussels over the last week, and the utterly shambolic, totally clueless, plan-less nature of the Leave mob, does anyone NOT think that what we're going to end up with, a couple of years down the line is an agreement with the EU involving....
A) Britain paying the same amount into EU coffers, minus the rebate, as the price for access to the european market
B) The free movement of people, and thus immigration unchanged.
C) The acceptance of all EU rules, regulations and 'red tape'
D) No say in EU decisions any more.
I'd put my house on it
Are you realising this yet Jammers? Like Boris clearly has? Or are you still sticking with the frankly laughable notion that this great nation is going to be negotiating from a position of strength? š
Mol they won't get removed - protection for unsophisticated investors in the UK is largely homegrown regulation.
Ok, good - but the point is an academic one - regulation might well hurt profitability, but that could be a GOOD thing. It certainly is with regards environmental legislation.
binners +1
Of course it's to ease recessionary pressure - created entirely by the lunatic decision to leave the EU. It's the only measure the BoE can take to mitigate the utter insanity of what has happened.The passporting I don't know what planet you are on Jamba, but why on earth would an FS business want to establish 50 branches, when they could just passport. In any case, they would need to be capitalised entities.
Quite.
Agree with binners
I think the EUs own rules on migration may have changed by then, but yeah, if we want to keep the good stuff, like scientific collaboration and cultural exchanges, we'll have to pay in, will we get the Euro development grants too tho?
The lost years of stagnation while we negotiate, and the innate hatred of the poor of our even righter wing government, means the disadvantaged UKIP heartlands, will be even more dumped upon.
But at least we'll have all that power back, maybe out of the echr, probably air pollution laws too, halcyon days for sure
I agree with binners too. But at least we won't have the embarrassment of seeing Farage perform in the European parliament.
Gove has played Boris like a Violin..
I'm almost having to admire him for the shear treachery and depths and out and out shafting.
In a strange twist of fate, if we must negotiate he may be of some use, probably promise something and then before the EU knows it they have given the UK Ireland back and thrown in the Netherlands as a sweetener.
I am not so sure as they will IMHPO need to have another vote if we dont leave and none of the tories are saying anything other than respect the decision
TBH Gove is of such staggering hubris that his ego could make him do anything and he may well be in the pocket of his media "chums"
Is anyone else suffering from a kind of post-Brexit ennui? As the farce rumbles on I find myself more and more depressed by the whole sordid affair. We've done ourselves over and our political system is in meltdown yet there is nothing we can do about it. To start with I was hoping someone would have the balls to say the referendum was irrelevant and keep us in the EU, but I'm realising that they are all too spineless. Without sounding o.t.t. I just can't be arsed to do anything due to a total lack of faith in, or excitement for the future. Probably doesn't help I'm on holiday and am just reading the guardian website all day long!
t I'm realising that they are all too spineless
Why are we upset that we have politicians too spineless to ignore the will of the people?
Had we won would be encouraging them to ignore the voters?
Ferrals - yes, I have gone back to the angry phase having accepted it quite quickly last week. Triggered by the appalling behaviour of our two major parties.
For the BSers now to be essentially proposing the status quo is the last straw - well almost, perhaps that was an round robin email from Hargreaves Lansdowne talking about Brexit investment plans. Hargreaves was a backer of the BSers who have caused this unnecessary chaos.....I just held back from a very rude email this evening.
In a strange twist of fate, if we must negotiate he may be of some use, probably promise something and then before the EU knows it they have given the UK Ireland back and thrown in the Netherlands as a sweetener.
His dealings with the teachers consisted of slagging them in the daily mail and the Murdoch papers to try and turn the country against them. Which in the modern world of journalism meant it got repeated on the news.
But that public shouting domestically will barely reach the continent.
In fact that seams to be the tory party's only negotiating tactic these days. They would rather do a bad deal with lots of shouting that they can spin as a win, than a good deal done quietly.
[I]@molgrips quite technical "risk retention" rules designed to make transactions safer for investors (which they don't really do) my competitors in US and Asia don't have to comply and as our joint client base is globally and as largely outside the EU they don't require then either. These rules have a cost so compliant deals (the ones I can buy) have a lower return (interest rate) and are thus less attractive to clients. As a solution to this I proposed personally relocating to the US but that wouldn't help as the firm itself is regulated in the UK[/I]
Finally, after 246 pages we get to why you want to screw the country, your own financial gratification - f***ing Bankers!
@Junkyard, I think the very fact there was no plan drawn up for a leave vote suggests that few expected the result. The whole concept of a referendum was foolish and most MPs would like to remain in the EU. Politicians should stick up for their convictions and I naively thought someone would.
As team hurt more said it looks we'll end up a worse version of business as usual but without any ability to influence decisions. Oh, and we'll be being ruled by a non-elected PM, a cornerstone issue for leave voters, given that all conservative candidates have ruled out a snap election.
Politicians should stick up for their convictions
true but none of their convictions should include ignoring the will of the electorate as expressed in a plebiscite
Is it what is happening really the will of the electorate though? If there had been a sensibly fought referendum, with a clear manifesto and plan for what happens when we leave, I think, while I'd be disappointed, I could accept it. Given that everyone has just run away saying 'we didn't really mean that' / 'it's not for me to fix,' I struggle to believe that the majority of the country are happy
binners - Member
So given the statements out of Brussels over the last week, and the utterly shambolic, totally clueless, plan-less nature of the Leave mob, does anyone NOT think that what we're going to end up with, a couple of years down the line is an agreement with the EU involving....A) Britain paying the same amount into EU coffers, minus the rebate, as the price for access to the european market
B) The free movement of people, and thus immigration unchanged.
C) The acceptance of all EU rules, regulations and 'red tape'
D) No say in EU decisions any more.I'd put my house on it
So we basically lose the eu grants? This is what i reckon, and why leave have shafted the uk.
Not to mention greater costs regarding the borders, especially if Scotland leaves
EU Trade Commissioner: No trade talks until full Brexit -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
That's quite worrying.
[i]That's quite worrying. [/i]
Yes, and seems that she's just repeating what the 'rules' say - so presumably this was known BEFORE Cameron even offered the referendum, even more lies?
Given that everyone has just run away saying 'we didn't really mean that' / 'it's not for me to fix,' I struggle to believe that the majority of the country are happy
I dont disagree but we need another vote at the point where we have a Trade deal or we accept we cannot get EU Lite and its all or nothing and nothing is definitely economically bad and we did need those experts after all and we should have listened to them
There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.
You mean they were lying when they said we could leave , pay nothing , still have the free market and that we held all the cards because they needed us
I am truly shocked to discover this was all bluster and BS....problem is we dont know what % of the voters will actually be stunned to read that - all sun and DM readers I imagine
the very fact there was no plan drawn up for a leave vote suggests that few expected the result.
How would a leave plan work? There wasn't one group in charge. It wasn't a political party with a manifesto. It was different groups with the common aim of leave.
Job done.The plan was get out of the EU. Now that's settled the govt needs to carry out the wishes of the people to leave the EU.
Countries all over the world can trade with the EU without being in the single market. So if the EU won't grant access with realistic conditions so be it.
When listening to Gove earlier there was no acknowledgement that the result of the ref was close - you would have thought the leavers had it by a landslide - the 16 odd million who voted to remain can just go f*** themselves.
irc - MemberSo if the EU won't grant access with realistic conditions so be it.
"So be it"
Oh well thats ok then, whats to worry about? Put kettle on and lets have a brew.
How would a leave plan work?
YOu make a plan for what you do when you leave ..why are you asking?
The plan was get out of the EU. Now that's settled the govt needs to carry out the wishes of the people to leave the EU.
This sort of simplistic understanding is what got us into this mess
How are the govt meant to have a plan when the leavers only just won and all wanted something different
Whatever they implement it will be a minority view of all voters. hell it might even be a minority view of all leave voters because, as you note, they didn't all agree
Its pretty daft to campaign for something then trust the very poel who campaigned against it to deliver the outcome. Its very very naive.
@br - that issue is no longer relevant to me. I think Brexit is far better for the country economically, I've said that many times. I appreciate people here are trying to assign short term personal gain to justify my Leave vote but nothing couod be further from the truth.
@molgrips my point is the rule doesn't apply globally, so a US asset manager can buy cheaper assets, put them into a fund then sell them to a Middle Eastern investor for example or indeed a European investor with an offshore fund. What also ridiculous is my London based competitors also swerved the rules by designating a non-EU office as their HQ. Also smaller competitors with asset under management of ā¬250m or less can opt out ! If I may say its a perfect example of how a well intentioned objective is very poorly implemented by the EU Directive.
As I said its one example and there are many others where being outside the EU would make things more complicated.
@Larry the EU commission have had their noses put severely out of joint hence this sort of nonsense. We've already heard much more conciliatory remarks from Germany, France, Slovakia (EU President as of July) etc. In fact the Slovakians who are hosting the Bratislava meeting have said one key benefit is that meeting is far from Brussels interference.
Sarkozy said today the whole pf the EU should hold a referendum about its future direction - major stuff and further than Le Penn who wants one on the euro. He also proposed Schengen be split into an outer and inner zone with border checks at each, basically as he (France) doesn't trust the border control which exists (or not) at the oiter edges.