How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
Zod said:
Digga said:
Zod said:
Just saying generally that Goldman is bad is really not very convincing. Maybe you could watch The Big Short and explain the bad things Goldman did in the movie and how they related to real life.
What, then watch Schindler's list and explain the bad things Genghis Kahn did in that?
Now I'm confused....
Digga said:
What do you think most 'predictions' are?
Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
I love how this is illustrated by Mark in this clip, the whole video is worth watching but this bit sums up what the reality is.Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
https://youtu.be/lq3s-Ifx1Fo?t=26m37s
Not-The-Messiah said:
It's not the news it's the analysis and interpretation and the way they present it that can't be trusted.
Anything bad= it's because of Brexit, they make it sound as bad as they can and shout it as loud as they can.
Anything good= It has nothing to do with Brexit , they make it sound like its one-off fluke and bury it in the back pages.
Places like the BBC ,sky news are full of pro EU supports. They cannot be trusted to give a fair and balanced opinion and don't do.
So where can we get our news from a PH acceptable source?Anything bad= it's because of Brexit, they make it sound as bad as they can and shout it as loud as they can.
Anything good= It has nothing to do with Brexit , they make it sound like its one-off fluke and bury it in the back pages.
Places like the BBC ,sky news are full of pro EU supports. They cannot be trusted to give a fair and balanced opinion and don't do.
The BBC, Sky, The Guardian, The Sun and The Express are all out according to this thread.
Edit: Probably best to drop the Daily Mail, too.
Edited by mx5nut on Tuesday 21st November 17:00
Zod said:
desolate said:
Just been reading that Davis said that the agencies were part of the negotiation - which I suppose is evidence that the EU 27 have used this to demonstrate they are playing hard ball.
Just makes himself look an idiot by saying that. In what universe would the EU allow two of its important regulatory agencies to be located in a Third Country?The EU are saying the UK should pay that bill, the UK are saying its an EU signed contract and the EU are pulling the plug and breaking the contract, so they have to pay.
It would be hundreds of millions cheaper for the EU to retain the current offices.
If it went to court, then it would be the EU breaking the contract with the building owner, they would be the ones having to pay.
jsf said:
I love how this is illustrated by Mark in this clip, the whole video is worth watching but this bit sums up what the reality is.
https://youtu.be/lq3s-Ifx1Fo?t=26m37s
Interesting take on Scottish health - I'm having haggis tonight !!https://youtu.be/lq3s-Ifx1Fo?t=26m37s
Spooky prediction on Merkel possibly resigning (this in 6 months before the election).
That cocktail is just wrong
Jockman said:
jsf said:
I love how this is illustrated by Mark in this clip, the whole video is worth watching but this bit sums up what the reality is.
https://youtu.be/lq3s-Ifx1Fo?t=26m37s
Interesting take on Scottish health - I'm having haggis tonight !!https://youtu.be/lq3s-Ifx1Fo?t=26m37s
Spooky prediction on Merkel possibly resigning (this in 6 months before the election).
That cocktail is just wrong
Eddie Strohacker said:
Strange bedfellows indeed. So hard to keep up with but this week, Morrisey's cool, so are the Russians but Blankfein must swing from a lamp post. Stay tuned for the next instalment.
Not sure about Morrisey http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42050...Jockman said:
jsf said:
I love how this is illustrated by Mark in this clip, the whole video is worth watching but this bit sums up what the reality is.
https://youtu.be/lq3s-Ifx1Fo?t=26m37s
Interesting take on Scottish health - I'm having haggis tonight !!https://youtu.be/lq3s-Ifx1Fo?t=26m37s
Spooky prediction on Merkel possibly resigning (this in 6 months before the election).
That cocktail is just wrong
He has some decent ideas and, at the very least, it approaches issues from a reasoned point of view.
James TiT said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
You know people can see this right? This embarrassing lower sixth schtick you keep typing out?
What makes you generate all this total meaningless invective?
Sway said:
I'm aware they've already got regulated entities in the rEU - I've worked in a few!
They may not have much interest in capital intensive business - however the regulators do, and seeing as much of the required capitalisation has been funded by the BoE, I wonder how supportive the British electorate will be with that capital being moved to a foreign entity to support that business risk, rather than the UK business...
Whilst I'm now out of FS, I do look at the chellenges of divesting customers into a new legal entity, when nothing of the regulatory or location landscape is changing - nearly a decade and frankly RBS are nowhere near it. Achieving the same whilst moving across legislative borders (which they are - there's little in the way of pan-EU detailed harmonisation) seems a far bigger task. For those who are serving majority of their customers in rEU, why aren't they already based in rEU? Could it be increased fragmentation killing resource efficiency, increasing consumer costs, and duplication of bodies in regulated roles? That's not necessarily going to create a growth condition compared to today...
Pre-ref, you were quoting up to 400k jobs moving, what's your current prediction?
To my knowledge Lloyds (the government has sold all its holdings) has almost no rEU business and while RBS may have some from ABN this is still minimal so no UK investment will be going overseas. They may not have much interest in capital intensive business - however the regulators do, and seeing as much of the required capitalisation has been funded by the BoE, I wonder how supportive the British electorate will be with that capital being moved to a foreign entity to support that business risk, rather than the UK business...
Whilst I'm now out of FS, I do look at the chellenges of divesting customers into a new legal entity, when nothing of the regulatory or location landscape is changing - nearly a decade and frankly RBS are nowhere near it. Achieving the same whilst moving across legislative borders (which they are - there's little in the way of pan-EU detailed harmonisation) seems a far bigger task. For those who are serving majority of their customers in rEU, why aren't they already based in rEU? Could it be increased fragmentation killing resource efficiency, increasing consumer costs, and duplication of bodies in regulated roles? That's not necessarily going to create a growth condition compared to today...
Pre-ref, you were quoting up to 400k jobs moving, what's your current prediction?
As I said in wholesale banking capital is not a major issues.
The FS companies who matter are JPM, HSBC, CS, Goldman, MS, HSBC, NT, State Street, Citi, Blackrock etc. etc.
The models are in place and in 2018 will be built, client involvement is part of that, redocumentation is always a pain but it will be done.
As for job loses did I say 400k? I cannot remember. I would expect 30-50k initially, but for many of the above firms having 60/70% of the wholesale business in the rEU it could easily end up as 400k in 5 years.
Us old city hands will sit around and reminisce about the good old days.
digimeistter said:
Because he likes to try to be clever, when in fact he answers no questions of interest, has little to say apart from trying to belittle people's opinions and plays the superior linguist card, when in fact he is a cretin. Quite amusing tbh
Sneer. Check. Whine. Check
Swing & a miss. Check.
Standard dimlow leaver schtick.
Oh & you answered a bot, genius.
jsf said:
Mark is well worth listening to. He doesn't always gets things right, you cant expect him to get all the politics on the ground spot on being based in the USA, but his thought process on what could happen is usually sound.
I miss the good old days, seems like much more than a month ago I was getting pelters for citing a German on Brexit. He can''t possibly understand anything, he's not British! Just as long as I know we're all into foreign commentators now...
Eddie Strohacker said:
jsf said:
Mark is well worth listening to. He doesn't always gets things right, you cant expect him to get all the politics on the ground spot on being based in the USA, but his thought process on what could happen is usually sound.
I miss the good old days, seems like much more than a month ago I was getting pelters for citing a German on Brexit. He can''t possibly understand anything, he's not British! Just as long as I know we're all into foreign commentators now...Nightshift clocking on. 
I did actually expect the government to do something almost maybe a bit effective at trying to protect our FS industry, but it does seem like they are doing cock all.
Are they really trying their best, or have they just given up?
Have they actually tried to protect any part of the economy yet? If they have, I can't think or any examples, or even any soothing statements that might give business some reassurance of what the outcome will be. "We haven't started trade talks yet" is a bit of a lame excuse.
Getting a bit late, isn't it?
I did actually expect the government to do something almost maybe a bit effective at trying to protect our FS industry, but it does seem like they are doing cock all.
Are they really trying their best, or have they just given up?
Have they actually tried to protect any part of the economy yet? If they have, I can't think or any examples, or even any soothing statements that might give business some reassurance of what the outcome will be. "We haven't started trade talks yet" is a bit of a lame excuse.
Getting a bit late, isn't it?
ORD said:
I agree. But you can substitute the word 'stupid people' for 'social media' and the point almost always stands.
Stupid people are behind Corbyn.
Stupid people explains Trump's victory.
Stupid people are full of celebrity stories and fake news.
Soundbite arguments of 140 characters or fewer work on stupid people.
Virtue signalling works well on stupid people.
I agree with you about social media. But doesn't this leave you in a quandary?Stupid people are behind Corbyn.
Stupid people explains Trump's victory.
Stupid people are full of celebrity stories and fake news.
Soundbite arguments of 140 characters or fewer work on stupid people.
Virtue signalling works well on stupid people.
The general view is that leave voters were old and stupid. But what's the stronger demographic of social media users?
“Everyone's stupid" is probably a pretty accurate logical conclusion to draw
ORD said:
I find this attitude very troubling. You seem to think that making predictions is not a genuine or useful activity.
If that is right, why not vote for the Labour Party? Presumably because you predict that a spend-happy Corbyn administration would cause a run on the pound and hurt the economy. If so, is that not predicting the economic effects of anticipated policies? Why is that different?
I haven't said that I dismiss all expert analysis and opinion. Just the sorts of prediction highlighted. I've said it many times on here but the economic arguments are zero sum IMO, and crucially they are wholly unprovable. There will be economists on both sides adamant they were right until the day they die and it will be impossible to prove them wrong. Or right.If that is right, why not vote for the Labour Party? Presumably because you predict that a spend-happy Corbyn administration would cause a run on the pound and hurt the economy. If so, is that not predicting the economic effects of anticipated policies? Why is that different?
I like people like Blyth as he's measured and argues based on theories that I find logical. Equally I like reading articles from Yannis for similar reasons. Well researched and thought through info. I disagree with his politics and conclusions, but I can accept his reasoning.
I tend to dismiss people whose track record in predictions is poor. Whatever juju they are using evidently isn't well thought through and the "broken clock" metaphor works well for them.
I trust little that the media spews out, other than to question what it is they are hiding. On that basis reading their guff can be helpful.
Any predictions that are hyperbole driven get dismissed instantly too. IMO this is where the Remain campaign was lost. Cameron, Osborne, Carney etc all turned the hyperbole dial to 11. I assume because they felt the electorate was thick and wouldn't understand nuance. If they'd have been more honest they should have coasted the referendum. I was quite shocked when I woke up to see we'd voted out. But I reckon history will show the Remain campaign was incredibly weak.
As for voting Labour... Experts not required to know that Corbyn and his cronies are weapons grade bell ends.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff