Forum menu
Indeed I was, its a criminal offence to deliberately mislead financial markets and Ms Botin is no fool. Indeed she is very bright. I agree there is unlikely to be a problem which was my original answer. All circles get squared in the end. Well done, that was only about three pages.
It's quicker to point you in the direction of the one that does - EEA. I have provided the links that explain this before. Feel free to read them and then dismiss them of course since they don't suit your narrative.
You are correct, the truth is worthless. You have proved that. BTW I forget to add that Brexshit means we'll leave the ECHR to the list of new truths. It's great this make-it-up-as-you-go-along stuff.
The captain - you can get "access" by making agreements with the EU - however this will not be on the same terms as those who are members of the single market. Normally tariffs are involved.
Its another leaver bit of nonsense to confuse equating "access" with "membership"
China can sell steel in the EU for example - they have "access" to the market but its not free trade without quotas or tariffs. so china has "access" to the single market to sell steel but has to pay significant tariffs on it.
This is the situation the UK will be in after we leave - we will have "access" but not tariff free as the EU will not allow us to undercut them
as mefty noted, that their UK retail banking operations are not directly affected.
I don't know what proportion of the pound selling in the run up to and post Brexit is people like myself removing money from UK high street banks but to claim that UK retail banking is not directly affected is simply no true.
Oh good more progress, distinctions between "membership of" and "access to" even if the rest of the post above contains inaccurate conclusions
IIRC China has access to EU steel markets via WTO, something that we are trying to avoid. But lets not let this get in the way.
Very little Edukator unless you are George Soros in disguise. If you have £assets and £liabilities you are not directly affected by moves in the FX rate. There are indirect effects true, hence my use of the term "direct"
>sigh<
For so many industries, not just the financial sector, the least damaging option is to continue to be in the Single Market even after we are no longer full members. Both EEA members and Switzerland have achieved this, to various degrees and in various sectors, and have to accept FoM and transnational court jurisdiction.
Why do some of us try and avoid "access" as a term, despite it being how the various treaties describe the status of non-members operating in the Single Market? Because Leave campaigners continuallly used it to refer to all sorts of ways of trading with the Single Market, but not being in it. I for one would like us to be "in the Single Market" not just a third country with an FTA like distant countries have, and May has ruled this out.
ECHR… May wants out of this as well… and, of course it is linked to us leaving the EU and the Single Market, as both require ECHR, something we Brits insisted on.
THM, can you define 'access to' single market for us please?
As discussed before, "IN" the term you prefer is simple misleading. It is fundamental to understand the key distinction between "membership of" and "access to". I have provided the links that explain this.
Re the different options you cannot simply say one is better than the other. They lie along a spectrum of liberalising and facilitating trade at one end (EEA) to maximising the level of sovereignty at the other (WTO). The options in between involve compromises along that spectrum together with other complexities. So it depends on your own individual priorities as to which is better or worse.
I agree with you - I would, as I am a supporter of full FoM - that are interests are better served towards the EEA end of the spectrum than the other end. I am strongly opposed to the WTO option.
Where I disagree is the notion that things have been ruled out. Both sides have stated their opening positions broadly and both are incompatible with reality. No surprise, they are simply starting points in the negotiation. Interestingly apparent hard liners on both sides have ALREADY made conciliatory noises DESPITE the fact that A50 has yet to be triggered and that negotiations have yet to start.
So we may agree on a preferred end position but disagree on the likelihood of reaching it. In the end, we are most likely to have a compromise deal which will involve considerable and enduring complexity for business ( 🙁 ) along with significant compromise on both sides. None of this requires the exagerated claims and BS made over the past few pages.
Of course, the ultimate irony in all of this is that the EU is unlikely to be in its current form at the end if this tortuous process but that is the elephant in the room that I noted at the start of this thread,
The whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, effort and money.
MOl, this is the best summary that I am aware of:
From the outset, it is important that the Government, Parliament and the public are clear about the distinction between ‘access to’ and ‘membership of’ the Single Market.Many countries have ‘access to’ the EU’s Single Market, either through agreed tariffs at the WTO or via a FTA.
However, the only countries which have full membership of the Single Market—which entails the liberalised movement of goods, services, people and capital (the ‘Four Freedoms’), secured through common rules interpreted by the European Court of Justice (CJEU)— are EU Member States.
The EEA states only enjoy partial membership, because the EEA agreement does not include a customs union. On the other hand, Turkey’s inclusion in a customs union with the EU does not entail the free movement of services, people or capital. Fundamentally, full membership of the Single Market is predicated upon acceptance of all Four Freedoms.
HTH - precision is key. "In" does not provide it.
Kelvin again we need to be clear esp when talking about the EEA (as you were ^):
The EEA gives full membership of the single market for services but only partial access for the market in goods
In contrast, the CU gives ALMOST full membership of the single market for goods, but no access to the single market for services
In the case of FTA, that depends on the depth of the FTA itself. No one has tried to achieve anything as complex as this before. Its unknown territory.
of course it is linked to us leaving the EU and the Single Market, as both require ECHR,
?
More good news.........
Good to see further realism from the City in past 24 hours. Latest indications from MS is that they are considering plans to move 300 of their 6000 LDN employees not the 1000 originally stated - so that's a whopping 5% of total staff under consideration.
In the meantime, read an interesting piece from my old pals at Oliver Wyman which outlines the different scenarios and their impacts
One end: minimal, poss 2% decline in rev's <1% job losses and <1% in tax revenues
T'other end: 9% decline in revenues, 28% job losses, @10% loss in tax revenues
Most likely outcome: somewhere * between the two
* but also noting that
EU businesses have an interest in retaining access to the UK as an international financial centre, not only for the services provided directly but also as a conduit for global investment into the EU. The best outcome would recognise these dynamics and deliver mutually beneficial results for the UK, the EU and the rest of the world.
In other words, pursuing a win/lose is more likely to produce a lose/lose
So likely outcome more likely towards "better" end of the range.
Don't panic Mr Mainwaring!!!
In other news, I've been out on my bike - very pleasant below the snow line 🙂
Just to add into the additional work small businesses will have to deal with over the next few years:
And how long before they move the Apprentice Levy 'downwards' to smaller payrolls.
All cost, cost, cost.
Cost, cost, cost
plus
Uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty
Had lunch with investor yesterday who is preparing direct investment into Scottish company. Like me a firm remainer, but now wants to get on with things. His single biggest concern (excluding the obvious) is not econ downside but simply the fact that uncertainty is going to endure for a considerable time. Like me, he wants clarity ASAP but knows that this is not going to happen. So we potter (*) along at sub-trend growth for some time
* Mr Nuttall excluded IGMC
THM
Yep, using s STW analogy; light, strong, cheap. Pick two.
Currently feels like. Pick one.
But it's ok you saying to get on with it, but we still won't know really the plan is until March 2019, so we still have to plan expecting the worst.
And our Govts have got too use to the rest of us picking up the pieces from their inability to plan.
Agreed, as before, my motto is plan for the worst and hope for the best. But it is the responsibility for business to lead not to expect to be led, That wont happen. By leading and getting on with things you can shape Gov behaviour.
More back and frorward on banking this afternoon, with the Bundesbank adding their 2p worth. Even wth their warnings of no silly games, they expect the effect in terms of staf numbers to be relatively small.
Still what do they know....?
[I]By leading and getting on with things you can shape Gov behaviour.[/I]
Only if you're of a size/noise that they care, the rest of us just have to hope that we're 'lucky' in our decision-making processes outcomes 🙂
That's a good report Kelvin.
[url= http://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/0627_Digital_Pages-Open_Europe_Intel-Thriving_after_Brexit-V1.pdf ]Here is the link to full one.[/url]
Whilst I would prefer a bit more detail, it is difficult to get hold of. The numbers that don't surprise me at all but do illustrate a point I have made in the the past is as follows. The number of passports applied for by UK based banks for wholesale activities in all 27 EU countries - 102, EU banks passports to operate in London - 552. More than five times as many for one financial centre, it shows how important the wholesale market in London is for EU Banks, they come here to fund themselves and that need won't disappear. They will be as keen for a sensible deal to be done as we will.
For sure
More wishful thinking mefty? Once we are out of the EU then passporting rights will not apply and london banks will no be able to do business in the EU in the same way - this is why the banks are all moving their EU investment operations to Frankfurt and Paris as per all those links I posted.
Any evidence for your wishful thinking? Its completely at odds with what the banks are saying, with what the european central bank is saying, with what the EU politicians are saying ad the reality is the jobs are moving.
so any evidence to back it up? I've provided plenty to support my position.
They will be as keen for a sensible deal to be done as we will.
And there lies the problem, initially, at least in the German media, there was a wish to find a practical mutually beneficial solution. But May and teams tub thumping appeals to populist hatred has made that much more difficult. Now the EU governments have to sell any deal to their own electorates that they haven't backed down to a UK government that spits venom on the ideals that they promote.
Evidence? MS likely to need to move 5%, let's assume 10% to be safe, from LDN work force
Perspective please (however unlikely)
DD already indicated compromises on payments and FoM - hardly hard line stuff and we haven't started yet
Where did DD indicate any compromise on FoM? I thought he merely said that we would need lots of immigrants. May has repeatedly said that FoM is a red line for the govt.
correct the captain. Davis has said we will still need immigrants from the EU for a few years but no movement whatsoever on freedom of movement. May has made that 100% clear
Mefty - no evidence for your wishful thinking that the EU will continue to allow the city of london to dominate even outside the EU. funny you can't . Is it because all the evidence is the other way?
TJ with the greatest respect you seem to know very little about how global finance actually works, either that or you've simply dug yourself into a hole trying to exaggerate the Brexit impact on London as a global financial centre.
Interesting piece on how and why Vote Leave spent a whopping £3m plus with a small Canadian digital marketing company
Jamba - I fully accept Iknow little about the detail hence I read what the experts have to say and what the companies involved have to say. I do understand the politics of it tho and I can read. All the evidence points to the banks having to relocate their investment bits that deal with the EU into the EU once we leave. All the main players are saying they are going to. All the press say they are going to. All the economists / experts I ave read say they are going to. The European central bank states passporting is not going to be allowed for a UK out of the EU.
All I hear from you and mefty is wishful thinking and a complete absence of anything resembling evidence.
If you are so sure of your ground then lets see something to counter the large number of quotes I posted. Some proper evidence please.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, (Jake was lying low, cos somebody had sawn the legs off his bed)
RBS announce,...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/28/rbs-reports-469m-loss-for-the-third-quarter
(I have no idea if this has anything to do with anything) 8)
Any evidence Jamba / Mefty? Anything to support your position? I have provided plenty to support mine
Anything? An FT article perhaps? Something in the economist?
"Brexit has made Paris bolder. Once Britain leaves Europe’s single market, the many international banks and other firms that have made London their EU home will lose the “passports” that allow them to serve clients in the other 27 states. Possibly, mutual recognition by Britain and the EU of each other’s regulatory regimes will persist. But no one can rely on the transition to Brexit being smooth, rather than a feared “cliff edge”. Best to assume the worst.Britain is expected to start the two-year process of withdrawal next month. Given the time needed to get approval from regulators, find offices and move (or hire) staff, financial firms have long been weighing their options. London will remain Europe’s leading centre, but other cities are keen to take what they can."
Different institutions have their own priorities. HSBC, a big British bank, has already said that it expects to move around 1,000 jobs to Paris, where it already has a subsidiary; some other banks still sound wary of the place, despite the best efforts of the French. Switzerland’s UBS, which also says around 1,000 London jobs are at risk, set up shop in Frankfurt last year: that seems a natural base, although its bosses have also mentioned Madrid. Fund managers not already in Dublin or Luxembourg are likely to head there. Lloyd’s of London, an insurance market, and Blackstone and Carlyle, two American private-equity giants, reportedly favour Luxembourg for their EU home.
Its the most pro your arguement I can find and its not really very pro
All the evidence points to the banks having to relocate their investment bits that deal with the EU into the EU once we leave. All the main players are saying they are going to.
More reading required as this is simply untrue. Banks may have to relocate a relatively small subset of the EU operations. That is what they are saying. Nothing more, nothing less.
The wild exaggerated claims simply highlight a lack of basic understanding of the issues involved. But at least its filled a few pages so Mark will be happy.
Like Brexshiteers, Romoaners now have to make exaggerated claims to make their headlines. Its all rather sad and irrelevant.
TJ, if you want to stop yourself looking a little silly, it might be worth reading up on exactly which part of EU legislation is relevant to UK-domiciled banks EU activities and which is not. Its significantly more nuanced than your current level of understanding suggests - hence the impact is far less dramatic.
Rather than simply dismissing those who are directly experienced in this field you may consider learning from their greater level of understanding. Its a bit like your dodgy pension, and almost as important.
I doubt you will take the advice so as they French would say - tant pis
Bon Nuit a tous!
Exaggerated claims? Did I miss those? TJ looks to have quoted and linked to some reasonable reporting to me.
Possibly - but that would be difficult to do. The last few pages are littered with them.
At times Google is not your friend.
Anyway in the world in the world of post truth politics who cares - live the daydream
Which of his links takes you to a "post truth" article?
I don't really see much impact tbh so the banks can go if they wish coz nobody is stopping them. They can relocate to Italy, Greece, Spain or Portugal if they wish. No big deal really.
teamhurtmore - Member
Like Brexshiteers, Romoaners now have to make exaggerated claims to make their headlines. Its all rather sad and irrelevant.
Actually Brexiteers don't really need to exaggerate claims coz they know exactly what they want or don't want without actually being influenced.
EU bureaucratic system is doom from the start go and only silly goose thinks EU bureaucratic system is the best idea since fried noodle. 😆
Sorry I've been out for the evening with lots of bankers at my daughter's school quiz, I must say most of the bankers were certainly losers tonight, as we got back to winning ways - I do have one banker on my team, very good at the music round.
Other than Gulliver, who was forthright - very typical of him - most are couched with "coulds" and "mays" and that is what I am seeing, are they making contingency plans? Yep, of course, I have never denied that and said as much but I don't think Paris and Frankfurt will be the big gainers - doing business in France is difficult and families don't want to live in Frankfurt.
The report that Kelvin linked to and I did too is very good. It goes through broad business lines quite well. It is premised on the fact passporting will not be available but discusses equivalence which I and many others think will happen, why? Because it is in the interest of Europe to link itself to financial centres as it has done with Tokyo, Singapore, New York, etc by granting equivalence. Equivalence still leaves gaps but we are now into only a few areas where there is a significant impact - wholesale banking being the main one - do I think there will be a solution, probably just because of weight of money - European Banks and governments borrow alot of money in London and will still need to. However even if it isn't resolved, it isn't the most profitable business.
Markets can't just be transferred, they are weird things built on a number of factors, they are illogical. How can you hedge funds be trying to cut nanoseconds from the processing of their trades on markets which still have open outcry - but you do. Going back in time, was London any richer than other European centres, no, but as Walter Bagehot in Lombard Street effectively said London was better at mobilising its money. It still is and it will continue to be.
THM, care to deal with your claim that DD is going soft on FoM?
so no actual evidence then Mefty - just wishful thinking. This is not contingency planning on behalf of the banks - its action they are taking.
One thing that is utterly hilarious is I am sure the folk who are saying the banks will not move are the same folk who said if we taxed the bankers properly they would all move immediately tpo avoid being taxed fairly.
Rather than simply dismissing those who are directly experienced in this field you may consider learning from their greater level of understanding. Its a bit like your dodgy pension, and almost as important.
You can almost touch the arrogance and condescension. 😆
What blinkers for EU mass debating?
Reading the last few pages of this thread it's obvious why the banking industry stumbles from crisis to crash. Three of the people above are responsible for managing lots of money some of which could be mine.
In view of the head-in-the-sand optimism displayed bu Mefty, THM and Jamba and their collective rubbishing of any news that might inconvenience them or even screw their industry I'm beginning to think I'd be better off investing in an empty field and doing nothing with it.
The last few weeks of this thread can be summed up as "three Brexit bankers in denial versus those working in the real world producing goods and services rather than just taking a cut".
Snow beckons.
THM, calling TJ names makes you look... well, like what you are. You've been doing it for as long as I can remember. Playing the man not the ball makes you look... well, like what you are.
jambalaya - Member
Interesting piece on how and why Vote Leave spent a whopping £3m plus with a small Canadian digital marketing company
I think the use of Cambridge Analytica's 'people search engine' by Leave.EU (and Trump) is more interesting.
To him, the internet had always seemed like a gift from heaven. What he really wanted was to give something back, to share. Data can be copied, so why shouldn't everyone benefit from it? It was the spirit of a whole generation, the beginning of a new era that transcended the limitations of the physical world. [B]But what would happen, wondered Kosinski, if someone abused his people search engine to manipulate people? He began to add warnings to most of his scientific work. His approach, he warned, "could pose a threat to an individual's well-being, freedom, or even life."[/b] But no one seemed to grasp what he meant.
[url= https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win ]Leave.EU and Trump use of 'people search engine'[/url]
[url= https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b#.nbhhb35fh ]The weaponised AI propaganda machine[/url]
[url= https://medium.com/@pdehaye/microtargeting-of-low-information-voters-6eb2520cd473#.mrgi9ogdj ]Facts don't work - targeting low information voters[/url]
Edukator - nothing to do with optimism it's simply about realism and understanding
More exaggeration again! So understanding is what leads to financial crises and crashes! Brilliant. Enjoy your empty field and it's barren harvest.
While you are there you might want to start by taking one EU related activity - let's say EU equity sales and trading - and consider how regulations affect it now and in the future
Once you have done that you will understand why the exaggerated claims made above simply make the posters look silly. At least TJ has watered down his original claims but is still over- egging the case. That's the stuff that leads to crises not reasoned analysis
A grain of truth can be turned into a loaf of hyperbole as we can see.
P.S. don't forget I voted to remain. One reason was to avoid the harm that this WILL cause the FS industry. But that doesn't prevent me from understanding the nature and limits of that harm.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3152049/Cost-English-farmland-trebles-10-years-outperforming-FTSE-100-index-central-London-property-market.htmlEnjoy your empty field and it's barren harvest.
THM, care to deal with your claim that DD is going soft on FoM?
A more important issue is that for every £100k job moved you've lost the tax to support probably a dozen folk (in normal jobs).
Or a £1m job loses the monies to keep an MP in comfort
So the Dutch Government has commissioned a study as to whether its possible to leave the euro. Will be interesting, personally I am expecting a Cameron/Osborne level of scaremingering but Wilders lead in the polls has made this happen.
b r yes I absolutely get that and have made that point repeatedly. The numbers get even starker as you go up to (say) £200k, £300k etc (above £150k tye tax take is 45+2+12.8 NI = 60%) It's just that the past 5 years have been on here no one has given much of a toss about bankers before. We've lost 10,000's of £100k plus jobs. Lloyds/HBOS merger/takeover/rescue saw 40,000 jobs go.
We'll have all the immigrants we need post Brexit. They wil be granted visas after having made an application supported by their employers, farmers and the NHS included
More likely to be 6 month work visa with very little involved, like I had to go to Australia 20 years back. Didn't even need a job or reference. Just get on a plane, find work if I could, come home when money runs out if not.
We'll have all the immigrants we need post Brexit. They wil be granted visas after having made an application supported by their employers, farmers and the NHS included
I doubt that. The current process for people coming from outside the EU is a lot more onerous. And it's hard to see the government making it easier.
You have to find an employer who will sponsor you (which itself requires jumping through hoops for the employer that only larger companies can afford).
You and your employer have to pay the government some money (not sure how much but it's enough to put people off on low salaries).
And worst of all, if your employer decides to let you go, you have a couple of weeks in which to find a new employer or you have to leave the country. Which is a pretty strong deterrent to putting down any kind of roots.
I think we will struggle to fill places.
https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-general
[b]DD pre-Brexshit referendum[/b]
We face a "disastrous migration crisis
[b]DD post-Brexshit referendum, pre-A50 trigeer[/b]
UK workers will not/can not fill jobs currently taken by EU immigrants (at least not for some time)
Any immigration controls will have to be PHASED IN over time
This will take "MANY YEARS"
If that is DD with a hard on, he is going to need quite a few little blue tablets when the proper negotiations start. More likely he will continue his semi-flaccid stance. Why do you reckon that I "woody" DS was so quick to refute this conciliatory tone?
Bring on the negotiations and lets see....
TJ - I linked a 72 page report which discusses in some depth, which business don't need either passporting or equivalence (Retail Asset Management and Direct Insurance for example), which need equivalence (Sales and Trading for example) and which need passporting or an alternative solution (wholesale banking). The report also links to quite a lot of other material to back up its points. If newspaper stories are your limit, [url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/eu-negotiator-wants-special-deal-over-access-to-city-post-brexit ]there is this story.[/url] However that Economist story is consistent with much of what I have said as well.
Second lets be realistic about how banking works, it is managed trans-nationally so when I got my approval for a transaction I could book it in which ever entity within our European management group I needed to. Local approval was merely a rubber stamp. I didn't need to move from London to close a deal in a number of jurisdictions - I haven't even been to some of the countries I've booked deals in.
Edukator, THM voted remain as he noted earlier, it surprises me that you haven't noticed this - perhaps you have tunnel vision - as I can think of few posters who were more vociferous in their support before the vote. I also voted remain, although I was never particularly concerned about the effect on the City other issues worried me. Jamba obviously was Leave, however like many on here I think much of his personal manifesto is a bit mad. But don't worry about me with your money, I have been semi-retired for 10 years and just do individual projects now.
Useful link Mefty, but, there could be very real political pressure for EU counties to reduce their reliance on a City that will no longer be in the EU. In fact, the more May seeks to cut us off from our European partners, the more incentive they have to reject measures proposed (by both UK and rEU companies and institutions) to keep arrangments as close to the current situation as possible.
I"d better preempt the "May is looking for the best possible access" comment, and clarify that May hasn't said that she is seeking to cut us off at all… she is just boxing us into that corner with her FoM and court jurisdiction positions.
I hadn't missed the tens of times THM has repeated he voted reamin, Mefty. I've also noted the many times he's told us to respect the vote and make the most of it. He's then gone on to deny that the vote is having any effect in areas where there's a mass of declarations from companies and institutions to say they will be impacted and how they plan to react. In the last few pages it's been banking and Tj has presented a series of links to demonstrate THM is in denial and that as with any change in the rules, banks will change their business models to suit - more rubber stamping and people holding those rubber stamps in Europe and less in the UK to borrow from your example.
Companies go where the pools of capital are deepest. Barnier is a smart cookie (thx for the link mefty, good article for a paper report) and knows this and the importance of not cutting off noses to spite faces.
Its in everyone's interests - bar Paris and FFurt real estate brokers etc - to keep things as close to the status quo as possible.
Kelvin, those are the things the people voted for, she just has to stay smart and let rhetoric keep the loonies happy while negotiating quietly with the real power brokers - they did this with austerity, so they have form here.
Don't forget that banks are also lobbying BOTH sides very hard on all these issues.
[mefty, my specific and as yet unanswered question reflects that 15 years of my life involved selling IB services directly to EU institutions - albeit a few years ago now - and that current clients still do this. So I am v much involved still]
Its in everyone's interests - bar Paris and FFurt real estate brokers etc - to keep things as close to the status quo as possible.
You really think that no European politician has his/her eye on the 11.5% of tax revenue that financial services contribute to the UK economy. A part of that is domestic but even if you strip that out there's a huge pot of money for Euro governments to share if they cut out the city.
Macron launched an appeal while in London to French expats working in the City to return to France. If he wins the election I fully expect him to use Brexit to make the City less attractive to both European banks and bankers.
Jamba, how come you keep saying "we"? You don't even live in the UK, you stay in France with your French wife. Like every bigot with the ridiculous contradiction in their lives they ignore. Farage with the German wife. Trump with the wife who wouldn't get int he country now. My yank ex-father in law who hated Messicans even though he was married to one?
Ridiculous
I hadn't missed the tens of times THM has repeated he voted reamin, Mefty. I've also noted the many times he's told us to respect the vote and make the most of it.
Two sentences that are true - remarkable. Keep it up...
He's then gone on to deny that the vote is having any effect in areas where there's a mass of declarations from companies and institutions to say they will be impacted and how they plan to react.
Knew it wouldn't last. Total tosh.
Not only have I confirmed it, I have even quoted specific numbers that quantify the impact under different scenarios from people I have worked with in the past. Proper research not just journo stuff.
What I have rejected is the wild exaggerations of the truth that others have used ^. They are simply untrue.
In the last few pages it's been banking and Tj has presented a series of links to demonstrate THM is in denial and that as with any change in the rules, banks will change their business models to suit - more rubber stamping and people holding those rubber stamps in Europe and less in the UK to borrow from your example.
Talking of which...
TJ has quoted many. many links and kindly repeated some of them for our benefit.
All falsify his conclusions (1) that all banks are planning to leave the City of London and later (2) that they are moving all their EU IB businesses. They are not. They are planning and almost certainly will move some specifics parts of their businesses - I gave you estimates of the size. The update I provided from this week's update from M Stan also showed how those plans have been scaled back considerably from previous guestimates. Remember?
The idea TJ put forward that EU IB activities were very profitable was, we can safely assume, for amusement purposes only.
Of course, they want the tax revenue and Macron has been very vocal too. Why wouldn't he? He's a politician with a country that has a fiscal hole.
But carry on making things up about about the topic, my views and whatever else takes your fancy. Its fun to read.
[i]Of course, they want the tax revenue and Macron has been very vocal too. Why wouldn't he? He's a politician with a country that has a fiscal hole.[/I]
Are you want the UK to hurry up and give it away?
No I want her to accelerate the negotiations in order to remove the far more damaging levels of uncertainty. If she is smart the losses could be in the 1-5% region. If we dilly-dally and end up with WTO they could be significantly more (20-30%). Its obvious which is preferable.
Plus I have to make my own professional plans which are also affected by the outcome. The last 12 months have delayed them significantly. Enough....time to get back to work properly.
Fintech companies look to cut and run
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/25/brexit-fintech-exodus-begins-london-eu-luxembourg
He said: “Most of that money would have gone into the UK. We have 20 people in London, and that has grown rapidly. Without Brexit I would have been very confident that within five years it would be 200 people in London. Now it would be more like 40 to 50, and most of the difference will go into Luxembourg.“
Delaying the start of negotiations was a wise move by May. Time to prepare (and recruit) was needed.
The timescale she choose was purely political, but realistically she couldn't delay any longer than she has due to the timing of both UK and EU parliament elections.
Any cries of "get on with it" underestimate the task.
An earlier start would have resulted in less time to negotiate a deal, as we'd have wasted the first 6 months trying to get in a position to start. Less time to negotiate would have made WTO rates, or worse, more likely, as both exit and new trade agreements were less likely to be arrived at.
I think you will find it was only dear old Jezza and a few of the nutcases who wanted an earlier start
Sound like anyone we know:
[I]One of the many depressing aspects of the referendum has been the way some of the more extreme Brexiters have been exulting in interpreting it as the first step on the road to the break-up of the European Union. What is it about these people? Don’t they realise that the postwar arrangement that evolved into the EU was set up principally so that we should not yet again see Europe tearing itself apart?[/I]
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/brexit-whitehall-farce-threatens-heart-europe
Yourguitarhero, I am UK resident. I have been here (in France) a lot the past 9 months for personal reasons. Out of my 32 year career I have been based in London for all but 5 years of it.
Jamba obviously was Leave, however like many on here I think much of his personal manifesto is a bit mad. But don't worry about me with your money, I have been semi-retired for 10 years and just do individual projects now.
Ouch 😐 and nice 🙂 aiming for something very similar as a matter of interest (or not)
[I]No I want her to accelerate the negotiations in order to remove the far more damaging levels of uncertainty. If she is smart the losses could be in the 1-5% region. If we dilly-dally and end up with WTO they could be significantly more (20-30%). Its obvious which is preferable.[/I]
While I don't disagree with your analysis you're doing no more than guessing the percentages - and once past a 5% hit to GDP, that we probably won't ever recover is too much for the country to handle IMO.
While I don't disagree with your analysis you're doing no more than guessing the percentages - and once past a 5% hit to GDP, that we probably won't ever recover is too much for the country to handle IMO.
I think I have to disagree, THM does know what he's talking about and he does see his figures as being factual and true, everyone else is speculating though.
I presumed THM was talking about % of financial sector business moving out of the UK, not GDP lost.
What is it about these people? Don’t they realise that the postwar arrangement that evolved into the EU was set up principally so that we should not yet again see Europe tearing itself apart?
This is my very real concern, European history has always been a grouping forms then ends in bloodshed as it falls apart. Why should the break up of the EU be any different to every previous case? The EU is not perfect but do we really need to see another few million die to massage egos?
[i]I presumed THM was talking about % of financial sector business moving out of the UK, not GDP lost. [/I]
Why would you assume FS?
Why would you assume FS?
Because that was the topic at the time.
THM does know what he's talking about and he does see his figures as being factual and true, everyone else is speculating though.
[b]Everyone[/b] is still speculating at this stage. Including, and especially, those still working in FS.
I was pretty clear in what I was talking about - with those numbers couldn't possibly be GDP unkess you are our resident amateur on these issues who does like to make outlandish and totally inaccurate claims about the hit to GDP (with incorrect links)
Furthermore, all I was dong was quoting an Oliver Whymann analysis. Why? Because I have worked with them in the past and they take a sensible approach to guesstimating. Their analysis is also good because it lays out the range of outcomes and the reasons for them. In addition, they debunk the absurdly pessimistic precautions made over several pages of this thread. Not that this is/was hard.
[b]Everyone[/b] is still speculating at this stage. Including, and especially, those still working in FS.
I can't agree, THM's level of speculation is far more right than anyone else's level of speculation, he even has data to prove it and friends and everyfink.
In addition, they debunk the absurdly pessimistic precautions made over several pages of this thread.
There's only one thing that will do that. Time. Bookmark the thread.
Some people get proved right, Dominique de Villepin for example.
[I]I was pretty clear in what I was talking about - with those numbers couldn't possibly be GDP unkess you are our resident amateur on these issues who does like to make outlandish and totally inaccurate claims about the hit to GDP (with incorrect links)[/I]
No, just using your figures and a little google seems to show it's not implausible that we could have a huge hit to GDP, as per 2008/9
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp
Different thing b r, different thing.
it's not implausible that we could have a huge hit to GDP, as per 2008/9
That's what the Treasury and Osbourne said wouod definitely happen. Except it didn't. That and the Treasury has acknowledged being so wrong has damaged their reputation
Many of the assumptions in the Treasury analysis have come exactly true, others stil have to happen since they modelled events that have still to be experienced.