Forum menu
Pretty gloomy predictions for sure eh? 🙁
Yup - but according to THM all this is bogus
It is true that some are now estimating less than they were but one thing is certain - its a good few thousand by the day we leave with many more to come - and each of those city jobs creates other jobs in service industries so they will also be lost
Again - this is exactly as I said it would go down a year ago. the right wing fantasists on here insisted it would not happen and now deny the evidence of it happening
those quotes are all from the quality press within the last month
EY was the original scare story which had been proven to be overly optimistic. 4K was the original DB estimate made at similar time. Many other banks had figured in the few thousands and are now talking few hundreds.
Current guesstimates are potentially around 5% of uk workforce may have to leAve depending on nature of deal.
Poops - loss of passporting affects certain activities. For sure all banks have drawn up plans for a move from passporting fo various forms of equivalence. All the UK banks are prepared but exact numbers of job moves will depend on nature of deal.
There will be lots of noise - not just from Stw remoaners - on this issue as it’s central to the type of deal and our future relationship with EU and one reason why we are correct to reject Norway deal and EU stupid to propose it
A compromise deal will happen. As always.
THM
Poops - loss of passporting affects certain activities. For sure all banks have drawn up plans for a move from passporting fo various forms of equivalence. All the UK banks are prepared but exact numbers will depend on nature of deal.
Surely the EU won't stand for any sort of equivalence though?
How would that work?
Correct poopscoop. any deal on financial services has been pretty much ruled out. LOndon cannot get better terms than new york or geneva have
LONDON — The EU's chief Brexit negotiator has ruled out a free trade deal with Britain which includes financial services unless Britain remains in the single market, dealing a significant blow to the government's aim of securing a bespoke Brexit trade deal.Speaking to newspapers including the Guardian, Michel Barnier said: "There is no place [for financial services]. There is not a single trade agreement that is open to financial services. It doesn’t exist."
Barnier said the result would be a consequence of "the red lines that the British have chosen themselves. In leaving the single market, they lose the financial services passport."
Oh - and contrary to THMs fantasy in a quoted post we have not moved on to the second stage of negotiations yet
Nothing can happen on the second stage of negotiations - the difficult and complex bit until march. given that the easy bit took 18 months ( for May and co to cave in on every demand) then the idea we can negotiate a comprehensive bespoke trade deal in a year is simply ridiculous
Barnier was speaking three days after EU leaders agreed the UK had made enough progress on the Brexit divorce – citizens’ rights, the Brexit financial settlement and the Irish border – [b]to allow talks on the future.[/b]He said the next key moment would be an EU summit [b]in mid-March,[/b] when EU leaders are due to sign off guidelines that will lay out red lines and hopes for the future. “I hope very much that we will have a clear position from the British government by this time.”
new york or geneva
Both the US and Switzerland have equivalence in many fields
More rubbish in the Independent being corrected
[img] 
:large[/img]
mefty - Member
new york or geneva
Both the US and Switzerland have equivalence in many fields
Genuine question,
Do they have a good terms as London does at the moment within the EU?
Correct poopscoop. any deal on financial services has been pretty much ruled out. LOndon cannot get better terms than new york or geneva have
Not so TJ. Barnier has already said otherwise, see my earlier post on recognising uk regulations as equivalent to eu. No deal on financial services (financial and otherwise) means no deal at all means no money post March 2019. We won’t have full “passporting” and in fact nor should we, its not desirable imho. Not worth the trade offs.
EU want a deal on agriculture and UK want one on services. That will be the trade off / agreement. See TM’s trade deal priorities for the UK, services and manufacturing. EU’s priority is agriculture first and manufacturing second.
New York has no deal at all with EU on financial services. Switzerland has a bespoke one. Switzerland is a net exporter to the EU, UK a net importer. It makes sense for the EU to agree a “better deal” with UK on services than it does with Switzerland in order to get tariff free access to our market fpr other goods.
Brexit caused 37 percent fall in new London financial jobs in December - report - Reuters
https://apple.news/AQJCVJStaSli6oB9byCJxqA
New York has no deal at all with EU on financial services.
Fair point, but New York isn't the financial capital of Europe either
Poops. Very good question which unfortunately has been hijacked above by nonsense and Ill-informed comment.
It’s both very complicated and simple at the same time. Official documentation runs to many hundreds of pages and our own internal one does too. The reason it is complicated is that different activities are covered by different passports which in turn have different treatments under equivalence (which is itself complicated). To keep things very simple, the most positive outcome is a deal that includes passporting. If that doesn’t happen we will move to equivalence (several different forms and process itself is complec but let’s keep it simple). This may require the relocation of some activities to Europe and again may require banks to have different legal structures (this is where it gets complicated). So skip the detail, Uk banks have subsidiaries in EU already - all in different centres despite the BS about Paris ^ - that already gives them passporting rights. So there is a lot of noise on the issue but as normal banks have already positioned themselves for all outcomes. Ultimately it’s a red herring. The CEO of Barc said as much last year.
All that remains is the ultimate detail which will determine which activities will need to be physically located. Bank estimates have gone from the 000s to the 00s ie approx 5% of people currently located in London max.
Bottom line - yes it’s a PITA but it is manageable and indeed has already been managed. In the meantime, the EU will creates lots of noise around “equivalence” as part of their negotiating tactic. This can be ignored unless you want to get lost in the kind of ill-Informed twiddle and mis-edukated comments that are being used to stifle understanding and overturn the democratic process.
If you want to get into the detail I would refer you to the EUs own study on the impact which is very thorough but stops before what banks are currently doing. It’s a long read though.
We won’t have full “passporting” and in fact nor should we, its not desirable imho. Not worth the trade offs.
I disagree with J’s conclusion here. We “may” continue with full passporting and this would clearly be the preferred option and the most desirable for both sides. Narrow self interest may get in the way in the meantime.
We shall see. As with the thread the surrounding noise while be entertaining if not informative .
If that doesn’t happen we will move to equivalence (several different forms and process itself is complec but let’s keep it simple).
Can I ask how you know this?
I’m 100% involved. I have to know.
Anyone that's read an FT summary on the matter should/would know this Twodogs.
Interesting
Doesn't really explain how you know we WILL move to equivalence?
Doesn't really explain how you know we WILL move to equivalence?
It will be some grown ups behind the scenes stuff that you wouldn't understand.
2D that’s a good question
The details are very complex so I simplify deliberately. (and didn’t correct Jambas above. )
Your point is very valid for the simple reason that equivalence is determined by the EU not by us. Hence it is up to their diacretion and why Barnier is starting all the noise in prep for the detailed negotiation
So the “will” comes from understanding the perspectives of both sides and what is in their interests. I am not alone here are the EU says exactly the same thing. Yes, I am more definitive because that is my judgement from being in the eye of the storm as it were. Good question though !!!
You really don't need to simplify it for me, given my job
"Will" is not correct..it's an aspiration.
Not so TJ. Barnier has already said otherwise, see my earlier post on recognising uk regulations as equivalent to eu. No deal on financial services (financial and otherwise) means no deal at all means no money post March 2019. We won’t have full “passporting” and in fact nor should we, its not desirable imho. Not worth the trade offs.
#Simply untrue
Which bit isn't true, TJ?
It’s also the desired outcome of the EU and a position that banks are already prepared for.
So aspiration or not it doesn’t matter. It’s noise
Two dogs
Barnier has not said otherwise
NO deal on financial services does not mean no deal at all
Both those assertions from Jamba are incorrect.
also no deal does not involve no money after 2019. We have already agreed to pay infor longer thanthat
My point is that you criticize others for conflating facts and speculation, yet you're doing exactly that. You cannot know that there will be equivalence....trust me, I know.
Ok, thanks TJ
Trust me - it will happen, indeed may be better
The Eu thinks the same too. If you think we will have not passporting and no equivalence then it really is tin hat tin
Plus as a precursor Barnier lready confirmef equivalence in some areas - no, really ??? - so the idea that there will no equivalent is fanciful in the extreme
Any financial institution that assumes there will be passport and doesn't also prepare for other, worse scenarios, is foolish, putting it mildly.
And with that, I'm off..thanks THM, you've confirmed what I thought (and I don't mean about passporting) - be careful what you say as there are people out there who almost certainly know more than you
I know **** all and I reckon we are at the same level.
Edit 🙂
This is the point where someone will feel compelled to contradict me whicheck will mean I know more than them.
2d
I have said that and haven’t prepared for that either. We are ready for worst case scenario
I had assumed that your job also required to read what is posted accurately - with that I’m off too!
Happy and prepared
How much is my chocolate going to cost?
Regardless of crop output projections.
I too want to be prepared.
How much is my chocolate going to cost?
No-one knows. This pile of uncertainty and problems caused by people who had no idea of the implications of their vote. Isn't democracy great?
Can anyone post a link to the assessment reports published by Mayor of Londons Office/Camecon?
They’re being discussed in the news but I can’t find the reports.
This one?
Thanks for that.
Can someone just remind me of the upside of Brexit? Hell, can anyone even tell me the base case for it?
I'm still as angry about it today as I was on the morning of the result.
Everyone can read the report and decide how convincing the predcitions are. When they talk in generalities I agree with most of their comment but the precision of their numbers misleads as to their accuracy.
Economic forecasts are like the British weather forecast, just replace a timescale of days with years. Tomorrow's forecast won't be far wrong but in ten days it might be snowing (in June) when the forecast said sunshine. There are a huge number of variables, too many to make more than guestimates long term. When you see 166.9 for 2030 read 170 +or- 50.
Farage just said he would back a second 'in/out' referendum.
Blimey.
video here: [url= https://twitter.com/ReasonCoffeeShp/status/951389479650185216 ]https://twitter.com/ReasonCoffeeShp/status/951389479650185216[/url]
really!?
i'll take your word for it. i don't want to look at that shit's face any more than i have to.
He clearly thinks he could win.
Bit like May with a snap general election it may not be as clear cut as he thinks...
He think he is right to think that Leave would more than likely win a second referendum, and right to recognise that it will be necessary to hold it. Obviously, I'll be voting to remain. I think I'm still allowed to do that, without being called undemocratic.