The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
Mrr T said:
don'tbesilly said:
I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
I am always fascinated whether people read more than the headline before posting.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
The first paragraph then says:
“in the next two years as a result of Brexit”
Now the UK government appears to have signed up to the EU exit time table which means all EU rules, including passporting, will apply for the next five years. I would suggest his remarks are entirely logical.
London424 said:
Mrr T said:
don'tbesilly said:
I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
I am always fascinated whether people read more than the headline before posting.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
The first paragraph then says:
“in the next two years as a result of Brexit”
Now the UK government appears to have signed up to the EU exit time table which means all EU rules, including passporting, will apply for the next five years. I would suggest his remarks are entirely logical.
Burwood said:
///ajd said:
KrissKross said:
Trabi601 said:
Ahhh, you're one of those, aren't you.
One of millions.What next? My Dad's bigger than your Dad
Burwood said:
London424 said:
Mrr T said:
don'tbesilly said:
I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
I am always fascinated whether people read more than the headline before posting.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
The first paragraph then says:
“in the next two years as a result of Brexit”
Now the UK government appears to have signed up to the EU exit time table which means all EU rules, including passporting, will apply for the next five years. I would suggest his remarks are entirely logical.
“While this does not entail moving many people in the next two years, we do suspect that following Brexit, there will be constant pressure by the EU not to ‘outsource’ services to the United Kingdom but to continue to move people and capabilities into EU subsidiaries.”
Mrr T said:
Burwood said:
London424 said:
Mrr T said:
don'tbesilly said:
I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
I am always fascinated whether people read more than the headline before posting.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
The first paragraph then says:
“in the next two years as a result of Brexit”
Now the UK government appears to have signed up to the EU exit time table which means all EU rules, including passporting, will apply for the next five years. I would suggest his remarks are entirely logical.
“While this does not entail moving many people in the next two years, we do suspect that following Brexit, there will be constant pressure by the EU not to ‘outsource’ services to the United Kingdom but to continue to move people and capabilities into EU subsidiaries.”
Burwood said:
Trai601, providing a laugh a minute. The uks net contribution is ' a drop in the bucket''
You aren't a student if finance of any kind are you. It sounds to me that we'll get a sweat deal based on the size of the cheque we cut them. Careful you don't end up looking stupid
Yes, he should be worried about looking stupid. With sweat deals and everyfink. You aren't a student if finance of any kind are you. It sounds to me that we'll get a sweat deal based on the size of the cheque we cut them. Careful you don't end up looking stupid
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
Would that be the same 'constant pressure' they've been exerting for the last decade or more without any success?
You might want to read up on Lord Hill and his role. Was eurosceptic, and also vaguely EU sceptic too, but saw some value in the co-operation within EU. Not sure how or why he's relevant in this?
Mrr T said:
Burwood said:
London424 said:
Mrr T said:
don'tbesilly said:
I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
I am always fascinated whether people read more than the headline before posting.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
The first paragraph then says:
“in the next two years as a result of Brexit”
Now the UK government appears to have signed up to the EU exit time table which means all EU rules, including passporting, will apply for the next five years. I would suggest his remarks are entirely logical.
“While this does not entail moving many people in the next two years, we do suspect that following Brexit, there will be constant pressure by the EU not to ‘outsource’ services to the United Kingdom but to continue to move people and capabilities into EU subsidiaries.”
Digga said:
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
Would that be the same 'constant pressure' they've been exerting for the last decade or more without any success?
You might want to read up on Lord Hill and his role. Was eurosceptic, and also vaguely EU sceptic too, but saw some value in the co-operation within EU. Not sure how or why he's relevant in this?
Mrr T said:
don'tbesilly said:
I wonder how many more 'u' turns or 3 point turns are due:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
I am always fascinated whether people read more than the headline before posting.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/04/jam...
The first paragraph then says:
“in the next two years as a result of Brexit”
Now the UK government appears to have signed up to the EU exit time table which means all EU rules, including passporting, will apply for the next five years. I would suggest his remarks are entirely logical.
Can you give a link where May has done anything that you suggest above, and give us a credible timetable of when the banks are moving the thousands of jobs to EU cities, you seem to be the forum expert on Banking.
According to the banks, and you/other remain voters/supporters, it was going to happen before the referendum, immediately following a vote to Leave, every month from July 16 until this month, and now according to your post and what May 'appears' to have agreed to in your post above it won't be until 2022.
As the expert who appears to have been wrong to date, can you give us some clarity.
One would hope Jamie Dimon would agree with the expertise we have available on the forum.
jjlynn27 said:
Digga said:
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
Would that be the same 'constant pressure' they've been exerting for the last decade or more without any success?
You might want to read up on Lord Hill and his role. Was eurosceptic, and also vaguely EU sceptic too, but saw some value in the co-operation within EU. Not sure how or why he's relevant in this?
KrissKross said:
Burwood said:
///ajd said:
KrissKross said:
Trabi601 said:
Ahhh, you're one of those, aren't you.
One of millions.What next? My Dad's bigger than your Dad
Make up your minds.
I think the picture spoke a thousand words, don't you? I'm sure you're bright enough to join the dots.
Pointing out the obvious motivation behind the picture post is not freeble or infantile. Are you saying it was OK? Careful now - we don't want a repeat of the glasgow train thread.
jjlynn27 said:
Digga said:
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
Would that be the same 'constant pressure' they've been exerting for the last decade or more without any success?
You might want to read up on Lord Hill and his role. Was eurosceptic, and also vaguely EU sceptic too, but saw some value in the co-operation within EU. Not sure how or why he's relevant in this?
There should be less bickering between posters on the Brexit subjects.
The vote split people down the middle and in-fighting is not going to be good for anyone.
To give a balanced opinion; there are a huge amount of people on the leave vs remain issue that would have voted not knowing the full implications of the result.
If anyone suggests that they knew all aspects of the result then delusion is high. Not even the UK MPs or the euro MPs to this date know all the implications.
So with this in mind it is a very unstable high horse that people are balancing on when they argue points on a basis of my vote was the correct one and yours was not.
To be honest, I voted leave but I have had days whereby I have questioned my choice. As factors come in to play and as more elements are revealed it does pull on various strings that sway opinion in one way or the other.
I would question anyone's choice of leave based purely up on "just get us out of here - leave at any cost".
And I would question anyone's choice based purely up on "there's nothing wrong with the EU - so just stay".
The vote split people down the middle and in-fighting is not going to be good for anyone.
To give a balanced opinion; there are a huge amount of people on the leave vs remain issue that would have voted not knowing the full implications of the result.
If anyone suggests that they knew all aspects of the result then delusion is high. Not even the UK MPs or the euro MPs to this date know all the implications.
So with this in mind it is a very unstable high horse that people are balancing on when they argue points on a basis of my vote was the correct one and yours was not.
To be honest, I voted leave but I have had days whereby I have questioned my choice. As factors come in to play and as more elements are revealed it does pull on various strings that sway opinion in one way or the other.
I would question anyone's choice of leave based purely up on "just get us out of here - leave at any cost".
And I would question anyone's choice based purely up on "there's nothing wrong with the EU - so just stay".
Sway said:
jjlynn27 said:
Digga said:
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
Would that be the same 'constant pressure' they've been exerting for the last decade or more without any success?
You might want to read up on Lord Hill and his role. Was eurosceptic, and also vaguely EU sceptic too, but saw some value in the co-operation within EU. Not sure how or why he's relevant in this?
https://www.ft.com/content/6d543d2a-eddd-11e6-ba01...
Or euro-clearing. That'll stay here, obviously. For people to enjoy rolling hills of Surrey.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-cleari...
Luckily, we'll have £35-60bn that you'll save once your proposals for NHS kick in.
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
jjlynn27 said:
Digga said:
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
Would that be the same 'constant pressure' they've been exerting for the last decade or more without any success?
You might want to read up on Lord Hill and his role. Was eurosceptic, and also vaguely EU sceptic too, but saw some value in the co-operation within EU. Not sure how or why he's relevant in this?
https://www.ft.com/content/6d543d2a-eddd-11e6-ba01...
Or euro-clearing. That'll stay here, obviously. For people to enjoy rolling hills of Surrey.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-cleari...
Luckily, we'll have £35-60bn that you'll save once your proposals for NHS kick in.
It's just another example of what they've been trying to do in FS for decades.
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
jjlynn27 said:
Digga said:
jjlynn27 said:
Sway said:
Would that be the same 'constant pressure' they've been exerting for the last decade or more without any success?
You might want to read up on Lord Hill and his role. Was eurosceptic, and also vaguely EU sceptic too, but saw some value in the co-operation within EU. Not sure how or why he's relevant in this?
https://www.ft.com/content/6d543d2a-eddd-11e6-ba01...
Or euro-clearing. That'll stay here, obviously. For people to enjoy rolling hills of Surrey.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-cleari...
Luckily, we'll have £35-60bn that you'll save once your proposals for NHS kick in.
That really got to you didn't it petal. However, when the NHS itself admits that 75% of A&E activity was due to a previous failure in the NHS as a whole there's clearly a massive target. Beyond that, no one has yet come up with a single plausible difference between healthcare provision and every single other form of industry. All the others have delivered at least 25% improvements in cost of service over the last 50 years of the development of the approaches necessary, so why not healthcare. I get that a doctor saved the life of your kid, but you're putting the industry of healthcare provision on an emotional pedestal, not a rational one.
First link I can't read through paywall...
Euro clearing: the headline states "top EU lawmaker" - no he's not. He's a EuroParl MP who can ratify at best the proposals from the Commission. Who are noted as saying nothing (apart from thier chief negotiator reported to say Euro stability is dependant on achieving a FS deal).
That's the personality. Now onto facts. MrrT, massive proponent on here for the need for a passporting deal, someone who has worked in central bank funding, was amazed to find out Target2 does not require reconciliation. Everywhere else, it occurs overnight at minimum. That's to avoid systemic risk.
What the EU/ECB has done, is wilfully create a staggeringly vast Ponzi scheme, with systemic risk increase built into it by design. Frankly, that should be terrifying anyone who actually understands what that means.
To suggest that the capital and fx markets would accept an order of magnitude increase in that systemic risk by moving Euro denominated clearing in the Eurozone is naive at best. The sharks (not Soros as per the ERM, because of his love of the projeckt, but there are plenty more out there who wouldn't be so reticent to make billions off the shorting and collapse that would occur) would smell blood and eat meat within days.
London is pre-eminent in FS for a number of reasons. One is that overall, it's one of the safest and most stable markets in the world. The Euro is shaky, and has been for sometime for entirely predictable structural reasons. If Barnier suggests trying to dual negotiate is a risky strategy, it's nothing on trying to force Euro clearing to the continent...
Sway said:
To suggest that the capital and fx markets would accept an order of magnitude increase in that systemic risk by moving Euro denominated clearing in the Eurozone is naive at best...
I raised the issue of counterparty risk a while back, but it was not grasped.The big issue is that using a Eurozone bank to clear exposes the other party to Eurozone risks. Given what (rational and sentient) people know is going on within Eurozone banks, not least the Italian ones (and hence the risk to their respective counterparties) this presently represents a significant hurdle to getting rid of the city of London.
Sway said:
To take your points in turn :
That really got to you didn't it petal. However, when the NHS itself admits that 75% of A&E activity was due to a previous failure in the NHS as a whole there's clearly a massive target. Beyond that, no one has yet come up with a single plausible difference between healthcare provision and every single other form of industry. All the others have delivered at least 25% improvements in cost of service over the last 50 years of the development of the approaches necessary, so why not healthcare. I get that a doctor saved the life of your kid, but you're putting the industry of healthcare provision on an emotional pedestal, not a rational one.
First link I can't read through paywall...
Euro clearing: the headline states "top EU lawmaker" - no he's not. He's a EuroParl MP who can ratify at best the proposals from the Commission. Who are noted as saying nothing (apart from thier chief negotiator reported to say Euro stability is dependant on achieving a FS deal).
That's the personality. Now onto facts. MrrT, massive proponent on here for the need for a passporting deal, someone who has worked in central bank funding, was amazed to find out Target2 does not require reconciliation. Everywhere else, it occurs overnight at minimum. That's to avoid systemic risk.
What the EU/ECB has done, is wilfully create a staggeringly vast Ponzi scheme, with systemic risk increase built into it by design. Frankly, that should be terrifying anyone who actually understands what that means.
To suggest that the capital and fx markets would accept an order of magnitude increase in that systemic risk by moving Euro denominated clearing in the Eurozone is naive at best. The sharks (not Soros as per the ERM, because of his love of the projeckt, but there are plenty more out there who wouldn't be so reticent to make billions off the shorting and collapse that would occur) would smell blood and eat meat within days.
London is pre-eminent in FS for a number of reasons. One is that overall, it's one of the safest and most stable markets in the world. The Euro is shaky and has been for sometime for entirely predictable structural reasons. If Barnier suggests trying to dual negotiate is a risky strategy, it's nothing on trying to force Euro clearing to the continent...
If by 'got to me' you meant to say 'you laughed so hard at my idiocy', you most certainly did. That really got to you didn't it petal. However, when the NHS itself admits that 75% of A&E activity was due to a previous failure in the NHS as a whole there's clearly a massive target. Beyond that, no one has yet come up with a single plausible difference between healthcare provision and every single other form of industry. All the others have delivered at least 25% improvements in cost of service over the last 50 years of the development of the approaches necessary, so why not healthcare. I get that a doctor saved the life of your kid, but you're putting the industry of healthcare provision on an emotional pedestal, not a rational one.
First link I can't read through paywall...
Euro clearing: the headline states "top EU lawmaker" - no he's not. He's a EuroParl MP who can ratify at best the proposals from the Commission. Who are noted as saying nothing (apart from thier chief negotiator reported to say Euro stability is dependant on achieving a FS deal).
That's the personality. Now onto facts. MrrT, massive proponent on here for the need for a passporting deal, someone who has worked in central bank funding, was amazed to find out Target2 does not require reconciliation. Everywhere else, it occurs overnight at minimum. That's to avoid systemic risk.
What the EU/ECB has done, is wilfully create a staggeringly vast Ponzi scheme, with systemic risk increase built into it by design. Frankly, that should be terrifying anyone who actually understands what that means.
To suggest that the capital and fx markets would accept an order of magnitude increase in that systemic risk by moving Euro denominated clearing in the Eurozone is naive at best. The sharks (not Soros as per the ERM, because of his love of the projeckt, but there are plenty more out there who wouldn't be so reticent to make billions off the shorting and collapse that would occur) would smell blood and eat meat within days.
London is pre-eminent in FS for a number of reasons. One is that overall, it's one of the safest and most stable markets in the world. The Euro is shaky and has been for sometime for entirely predictable structural reasons. If Barnier suggests trying to dual negotiate is a risky strategy, it's nothing on trying to force Euro clearing to the continent...
I'm still surprised that one of the big four didn't snap you and made you multi-millionaire in the process (no, not really surprised).
As for the rest, I'm sure that view of some PH 'management consultant', carry more weight than the opinion of Sir Charles Bean, it's not like that he understands anything, is it?
Sir Charles Bean said:
"I will not say that it is likely that we will lose it: I will say that it is certain that we will lose it."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff