How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
Greater productivity, more jobs, more investment, more wealth.
What jobs? What investment? How is this greater productivity and wealth achieved?You can't just say something and expect it to happen, which does seem to be the tactic at the moment.
I'm an engineer, I like to at least have some workings done before I go forward with a proposal to demonstrate it's feasible. You are reminding me of some Muppet of a project manager who tells a client what they want to hear, and not what is feasible.
Sway said:
Mrr T said:
paulrockliffe said:
Mrr T said:
paulrockliffe said:
Is now the time to turn the Euro Clearing computers off for an hour or two?
The shareholders of the LSE may object.As for post brexit, as I have said, this will not be an issue LCH will have a model in place to service its rEU clients.
It maybe they can still sell the UK CCP. If not I am sure LCH will have a rEU resident CCP ready for brexit.
Can the new CCP in the rEU use the UK based computer systems?
If not I am sure. If not LCH will just set up another version in the rEU.
The fact is if LCH was not able to service rEU customers post brexit it would suffer serious fincial damage.
So as I have said before there are lots of well built, tanned, senior vice presidents in FS currently working to make sure when we lose passporting we will still be able to service our rEU customers.
For any loss of business to the continent for euro clearing, then four things need to happen:
The ESMA oversight proposal would need to be ratified. This is by no means straightforward, as the very rationale (reducing systemic risk) is circumvented by the proposal (the ECB being able to define spreads and leverages in times of Euro crisis)!
ESMA would need to rule LCH (and the big clearing houses in the US, as they're broadly equivalent from a systemic risk perspective) are too risky to be outside the ECB's jurisdiction and are required to relocate.
A staggering amount of investment in infrastructure, personnel and capability would need to be made - this is a multi year task, and will be sniped at by the UK and US Governments, the fx markets (as they have chosen the current houses for a reason, and will not like the ECB to be able to play games with the rules to 'save' failing eurozone economies) and the clearing market, who will not like the increased costs to pay for that infrastructure/relocation packages/increased salaries due to increased salary taxes/etc.
The market would have to choose to use those relocated clearing houses, rather than merely shifting to a house still located in their location/legislative framework of choice.
That's at least a decade's worth of effort, and any issue at any stage would be likely to completely scupper it. In short, clearing is going nowhere...
So no problem for the rEU if the UK leaves without a deal.
vonuber said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Greater productivity, more jobs, more investment, more wealth.
What jobs? What investment? How is this greater productivity and wealth achieved?You can't just say something and expect it to happen, which does seem to be the tactic at the moment.
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
Mrr T said:
paulrockliffe said:
Mrr T said:
paulrockliffe said:
Is now the time to turn the Euro Clearing computers off for an hour or two?
The shareholders of the LSE may object.As for post brexit, as I have said, this will not be an issue LCH will have a model in place to service its rEU clients.
It maybe they can still sell the UK CCP. If not I am sure LCH will have a rEU resident CCP ready for brexit.
Can the new CCP in the rEU use the UK based computer systems?
If not I am sure. If not LCH will just set up another version in the rEU.
The fact is if LCH was not able to service rEU customers post brexit it would suffer serious fincial damage.
So as I have said before there are lots of well built, tanned, senior vice presidents in FS currently working to make sure when we lose passporting we will still be able to service our rEU customers.
For any loss of business to the continent for euro clearing, then four things need to happen:
The ESMA oversight proposal would need to be ratified. This is by no means straightforward, as the very rationale (reducing systemic risk) is circumvented by the proposal (the ECB being able to define spreads and leverages in times of Euro crisis)!
ESMA would need to rule LCH (and the big clearing houses in the US, as they're broadly equivalent from a systemic risk perspective) are too risky to be outside the ECB's jurisdiction and are required to relocate.
A staggering amount of investment in infrastructure, personnel and capability would need to be made - this is a multi year task, and will be sniped at by the UK and US Governments, the fx markets (as they have chosen the current houses for a reason, and will not like the ECB to be able to play games with the rules to 'save' failing eurozone economies) and the clearing market, who will not like the increased costs to pay for that infrastructure/relocation packages/increased salaries due to increased salary taxes/etc.
The market would have to choose to use those relocated clearing houses, rather than merely shifting to a house still located in their location/legislative framework of choice.
That's at least a decade's worth of effort, and any issue at any stage would be likely to completely scupper it. In short, clearing is going nowhere...
So no problem for the rEU if the UK leaves without a deal.
As I've said all along, FS really is the MAD mechanism. They can f
k about all they like, on both sides, but any impact on London kills the eurozone within a week and us over a longer term. Due to this, the valid concerns really are exceptionally unlikely and a deal will be done.In many ways, enhanced equivalency is perhaps the most appealing, most likely outcome - by which we not only have processing equivalency but also EU consumers don't have increased costs due to fragmentation of front office functions. Otherwise, they get the impacts with us not really experiencing much downside other than effort - which will be priced in...
All that is way over my head, but WTF is rEU ?
On Barnier, I love the way he spent more time on the Irish issue than anything else, saying it's our problem to resolve, it's the only thing he can use in reality, how about some guidance on that Mr EU?.
You can bet your bottom dollar if it was any other Country with a direct European land border wanting to leave, The EU would be dictating a hard border on their terms.
On Barnier, I love the way he spent more time on the Irish issue than anything else, saying it's our problem to resolve, it's the only thing he can use in reality, how about some guidance on that Mr EU?.
You can bet your bottom dollar if it was any other Country with a direct European land border wanting to leave, The EU would be dictating a hard border on their terms.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th November 15:44
digimeistter said:
On Barnier, I love the way he spent more time on the Irish issue than anything else, saying it's our problem to resolve, it's the only thing he can use in reality, how about some guidance on that Mr EU?.
He may be spending time on the Irish border because it matters to Eire. It also matters for N Ireland but he is not there to represent the UK.The EU has offered a solution, that NI remains in the SM and CU and the hard border is at the sea. This is not acceptable to the UK.
If the UK will not accept that solution there is no acceptable solutions.
The UK wants to leave the EU and the SM and CU, but not have a hard border for goods in Ireland. This is not possible. So Barnier has suggested the UK should solve the problem since we are creating it.
mx5nut said:
She must have found the magic money tree again 
Well, not really. We'd be paying ~€11bn a year anyway in membership. €20bn or so of that is what we'll pay during transition when things stay pretty much as they are and we'd be paying as members anyway. So if we're talking €20bn on top, that is under 2 years' contributions we'd have to cough up if staying anyway.I'd be far more concerned if we start getting into annual payments for access. As a lump sump, even €60bn inc. the €20bn, we're talking about less than 4 years contributions after the transition phase. If it is enough of a carrot for the EU members to strike a decent deal then why not? 4 year's contributions in order to get a decent trade deal which will hopefully last 50 years looks cheap at the price to me.
Mrr T said:
.
The EU has offered a solution, that NI remains in the SM and CU and the hard border is at the sea. This is not acceptable to the UK.
It is also quite obviously unacceptable to the Unionist side of the argument in NI and stands a good chance of kicking the whole thing off again. The EU is (apparently) wishing to avoid that so you could ask why they'd be so stupid as to suggest something which may well do so.The EU has offered a solution, that NI remains in the SM and CU and the hard border is at the sea. This is not acceptable to the UK.
It is unacceptable to the UK because they know what the reaction will be in NI.
Sway said:
As long as they confer equivalence then there's little issue. Of course, as you we'll know there's significant lobbying within the EU to do anything to prevent London keeping the market share it has won, so may not be too straightforward for Barnier...
As I've said all along, FS really is the MAD mechanism. They can fk about all they like, on both sides, but any impact on London kills the eurozone within a week and us over a longer term. Due to this, the valid concerns really are exceptionally unlikely and a deal will be done.
In many ways, enhanced equivalency is perhaps the most appealing, most likely outcome - by which we not only have processing equivalency but also EU consumers don't have increased costs due to fragmentation of front office functions. Otherwise, they get the impacts with us not really experiencing much downside other than effort - which will be priced in...
If your comments apply to CCP’s I will believe you because it’s not an area I know much about.As I've said all along, FS really is the MAD mechanism. They can f
k about all they like, on both sides, but any impact on London kills the eurozone within a week and us over a longer term. Due to this, the valid concerns really are exceptionally unlikely and a deal will be done.In many ways, enhanced equivalency is perhaps the most appealing, most likely outcome - by which we not only have processing equivalency but also EU consumers don't have increased costs due to fragmentation of front office functions. Otherwise, they get the impacts with us not really experiencing much downside other than effort - which will be priced in...
In the areas of FS I know a lot about the situation is very different.
It has always been clear equivalence is not passporting, it’s just needed for passporting.
As far as I am aware all the FS company I know are planning for the loss of passporting. For most including my own this will require setting up businesses within the rEU.
As I have said several time the FS industry is getting ready for the loss of passporting. It will be ready to service customers post brexit. This will involve jobs moving to the rEU.
The rEU are also not worried they have already said there will be no special deal for FS.
Mrr T said:
He may be spending time on the Irish border because it matters to Eire. It also matters for N Ireland but he is not there to represent the UK.
The EU has offered a solution, that NI remains in the SM and CU and the hard border is at the sea. This is not acceptable to the UK.
If the UK will not accept that solution there is no acceptable solutions.
The UK wants to leave the EU and the SM and CU, but not have a hard border for goods in Ireland. This is not possible. So Barnier has suggested the UK should solve the problem since we are creating it.
He represents an EU member state who has to abide by their regulations, ergo they should advise.The EU has offered a solution, that NI remains in the SM and CU and the hard border is at the sea. This is not acceptable to the UK.
If the UK will not accept that solution there is no acceptable solutions.
The UK wants to leave the EU and the SM and CU, but not have a hard border for goods in Ireland. This is not possible. So Barnier has suggested the UK should solve the problem since we are creating it.
How can anyone resolve it when they flatly refuse to talk about trade until we pay a ransom? Until we get down to the nitty gritty, we can't resolve the Irish issue.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 20th November 15:58
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff