The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

London424

12,826 posts

174 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
He's preparing for a hard Brexit in 2 years time...but only moving a handful of people. Thought you said they can't do that?

Burwood

18,709 posts

245 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
He's preparing for a hard Brexit in 2 years time...but only moving a handful of people. Thought you said they can't do that?
do you really expect a sensible response. The blinkered are never wrong!

KrissKross

2,182 posts

100 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
Burwood said:
///ajd said:
KrissKross said:
Trabi601 said:
Ahhh, you're one of those, aren't you.
One of millions.
No denial then. Perhaps I have a valid point after all.
grow up man. Your level of retort is feeble and infantile smile
What next? My Dad's bigger than your Dad
I am still waiting to hear slashers point?

Mrr T

12,151 posts

264 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
He's preparing for a hard Brexit in 2 years time...but only moving a handful of people. Thought you said they can't do that?
do you really expect a sensible response. The blinkered are never wrong!
You did not quote this bit?

“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.”

Sway

26,070 posts

193 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
He's preparing for a hard Brexit in 2 years time...but only moving a handful of people. Thought you said they can't do that?
do you really expect a sensible response. The blinkered are never wrong!
You did not quote this bit?

“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.”
Would that be the same 'constant pressure' they've been exerting for the last decade or more without any success?

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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. hehe 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 smile
Yes, he should be worried about looking stupid. With sweat deals and everyfink.

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.

Digga

40,204 posts

282 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.
That he quit.

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?

London424

12,826 posts

174 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
He's preparing for a hard Brexit in 2 years time...but only moving a handful of people. Thought you said they can't do that?
do you really expect a sensible response. The blinkered are never wrong!
You did not quote this bit?

“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.”
So same as it's ever been then?

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.
That he quit.

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?
What do you think what, or who was one of the main reasons that 'constant pressures' were unsuccessful?

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.

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.
It was only the other day you were suggesting that the negotiations had already been concluded before they'd even started, and you're now using the language of the Guardian and Independent with the word 'appears'.

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.


Sway

26,070 posts

193 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.
That he quit.

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?
What do you think what, or who was one of the main reasons that 'constant pressures' were unsuccessful?
The fact that none of the power players would even consider moving from the Surrey Hills and working in CoL to shift to relatively parochial Frankfurt or punitive tax regime Paris have something to do with it?

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
KrissKross said:
Burwood said:
///ajd said:
KrissKross said:
Trabi601 said:
Ahhh, you're one of those, aren't you.
One of millions.
No denial then. Perhaps I have a valid point after all.
grow up man. Your level of retort is feeble and infantile smile
What next? My Dad's bigger than your Dad
I am still waiting to hear slashers point?
One minute you don't want me to point it out, the next you do.

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.

Digga

40,204 posts

282 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.
That he quit.

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?
What do you think what, or who was one of the main reasons that 'constant pressures' were unsuccessful?
Difficult to know if he, personally was instrumental in the rebuttal of a lot of the anti-London flak, or whether, at the other extreme, he was merely delivering the message from others. It is also difficult to say whether anyone else could have stepped into the role or will step into the role with equal or even better success. No one knows.

Atomic12C

5,180 posts

216 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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".

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.
That he quit.

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?
What do you think what, or who was one of the main reasons that 'constant pressures' were unsuccessful?
The fact that none of the power players would even consider moving from the Surrey Hills and working in CoL to shift to relatively parochial Frankfurt or punitive tax regime Paris have something to do with it?
Is that from the same book of wisdom as saving 30-50% of NHS budget while improving service? As long as you know who'll consider what. After all, highly skilled individuals are not likely to move to some backwater. Like EMA for example, they'll just stay here and enjoy the skyline.

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.

London424

12,826 posts

174 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.
That he quit.

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?
What do you think what, or who was one of the main reasons that 'constant pressures' were unsuccessful?
The fact that none of the power players would even consider moving from the Surrey Hills and working in CoL to shift to relatively parochial Frankfurt or punitive tax regime Paris have something to do with it?
Is that from the same book of wisdom as saving 30-50% of NHS budget while improving service? As long as you know who'll consider what. After all, highly skilled individuals are not likely to move to some backwater. Like EMA for example, they'll just stay here and enjoy the skyline.

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.
So something that they've been trying to pull from London while we have been in the EU is an example of why we should stay in, because they'll let us keep it?

It's just another example of what they've been trying to do in FS for decades.

Sway

26,070 posts

193 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.
That he quit.

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?
What do you think what, or who was one of the main reasons that 'constant pressures' were unsuccessful?
The fact that none of the power players would even consider moving from the Surrey Hills and working in CoL to shift to relatively parochial Frankfurt or punitive tax regime Paris have something to do with it?
Is that from the same book of wisdom as saving 30-50% of NHS budget while improving service? As long as you know who'll consider what. After all, highly skilled individuals are not likely to move to some backwater. Like EMA for example, they'll just stay here and enjoy the skyline.

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.
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...

Digga

40,204 posts

282 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.

jjlynn27

7,935 posts

108 months

Thursday 6th April 2017
quotequote all
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.
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."
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED