How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
Gloria Slap said:
Begging now Theresa? Really? Not very "Great Britain" behaviour, is it?
The Brussels Brexit chief {...} cited research by the European Central Bank that any problem caused by losing access to London's banks "appears limited" and said the claim was "not what we hear from market participants, and is not the analysis that we have made ourselves".
But I thought loosing access to markets was catastrophic and could never be survived? That's what you've been telling us Brexit means to the UK. Why does it suddenly not mean the same for Europe? The Brussels Brexit chief {...} cited research by the European Central Bank that any problem caused by losing access to London's banks "appears limited" and said the claim was "not what we hear from market participants, and is not the analysis that we have made ourselves".
Let's not forget the size of the European debt, nor the fact that one third of it is managed by London. Do you really swallow the claims that this is of 'limited' importance to Europe? You've told us so many times how bad this will be for the UK - what magic sauce does the EU have? Is it the same magic sauce that has drained tens of thousands of jobs from the City to Frankfurt and Amsterdam? Oh, wait... that was one of the earlier bold predictions made by Europhiles and proven to be nonsense.
don'tbesilly said:
Good read - ought to lead to some reconsideration of positions for some on here. I doubt it however. Apparently we’re on course ‘Doomed’.My view for what it’s worth is that an EEA/Efta route would have nicely dealt with the Irish issue and a whole load of other problematics. But actually I suspect that whichever way we come out of this I’m of the view it will probably be positive.
don'tbesilly said:
We have gone through the issues with the economic model that the treasury have been using to forecast both trade with the EU after Brexit, and GDP as a result, before.Most "Project Fear" posters aren't listening, so no doubt we will have months more of forecasts of Armageddon.
don'tbesilly said:
An excellent read, thanks for the link.Link said:
It turns out that Project Fear was wrong by almost 5 per cent of GDP. The consequences of this giant error for the rest of the Osborne/Treasury prognosis have been drastic. Instead of employment falling by hundreds of thousands, it has risen by hundreds of thousands. Instead of house prices going down, they have gone up. Instead of the public finances lurching more heavily into deficit, they have been better than at any time since the Great Recession, making the prospect of an eventual surplus far from silly. Above all, Osborne’s scary rhetoric about a return of the Great Recession now looks preposterous. Despite all his supposed capability (endorsed by Blair) he could not have been more wrong. Further, the grotesque misjudgment was not about something distant from his department’s area of responsibility. This was a subject where Osborne had direct ministerial accountability and which was perhaps the defining public-policy issue of his career.
The failure of Project Fear raises wider constitutional questions, particularly about the role of the Civil Service in modern government. In 2013 Anthony King and Trevor Crewe wrote a book, The Blunders of our Governments, which surveyed a list of cock-ups of various kinds from the poll tax to the Millennium Dome. The list included mistakes in economic policy, notably the Treasury’s complicity in the fiasco of UK membership of the European exchange rate mechanism in the early 1990s. Was Project Fear yet another cock-up? One interpretation is that civil servants operated so closely to politicians that they lost their objectivity and saw themselves as serving those politicians.
Brackets = my addition from earlier in the link.The failure of Project Fear raises wider constitutional questions, particularly about the role of the Civil Service in modern government. In 2013 Anthony King and Trevor Crewe wrote a book, The Blunders of our Governments, which surveyed a list of cock-ups of various kinds from the poll tax to the Millennium Dome. The list included mistakes in economic policy, notably the Treasury’s complicity in the fiasco of UK membership of the European exchange rate mechanism in the early 1990s. Was Project Fear yet another cock-up? One interpretation is that civil servants operated so closely to politicians that they lost their objectivity and saw themselves as serving those politicians.
Osborne and Blair, zero credibility on this issue. Civil Service, oh dear.
PurpleMoonlight said:
That's a well-chosen list of opinions for The Guardian to assemble and then knock down. Fair play to the red rag. Politicians' views have turned out to be wrong.What Osborne and HM Treasury did on CMD's watch, using civil servants to do their dirty work, was a league apart.
On a technical but relevant note, the negotiations are far from finished and we haven't as yet Brexited. In contrast there is now insufficient time for the Osborne/HM Treasuey 'Project Fear' 2-year post-vote armageddon manure to mature into the stink they said we would be smelling right now.
Rather than facing armageddon within two years of a Leave vote, this country is on the up which for some curious reason sticks in the gullets of Remainers who seemingly search for national failure to help them feel better about the vote going against their preference.
What remains is that the most widely held reason for voting Leave, according to Michael Ashcroft polls with reassuringly large sample sizes, was to regain greater self-determination for the UK. That will happen (greater was never the same as total) and with the total failure of Project Fear and the advent of an EU army and EU-wide taxation on the menu (thanks, Macron) a second referendum would likely produce another vote to Leave.
At the moment Blair & Co aren't gaining traction so we may never know.
LOL @ good read.
Written by
http://www.timcongdon4ukip.com/
and published by Gove and co. The epitome of unbiased, expert opinion. Then again, it reached the target audience.
Written by
http://www.timcongdon4ukip.com/
and published by Gove and co. The epitome of unbiased, expert opinion. Then again, it reached the target audience.
jjlynn27 said:
LOL @ good read.
Written by
http://www.timcongdon4ukip.com/
and published by Gove and co. The epitome of unbiased, expert opinion. Then again, it reached the target audience.
Our EU financed Finnish friend never fails to deliver.Written by
http://www.timcongdon4ukip.com/
and published by Gove and co. The epitome of unbiased, expert opinion. Then again, it reached the target audience.
Tuna said:
Gloria Slap said:
Begging now Theresa? Really? Not very "Great Britain" behaviour, is it?
The Brussels Brexit chief {...} cited research by the European Central Bank that any problem caused by losing access to London's banks "appears limited" and said the claim was "not what we hear from market participants, and is not the analysis that we have made ourselves".
But I thought loosing access to markets was catastrophic and could never be survived? That's what you've been telling us Brexit means to the UK. Why does it suddenly not mean the same for Europe? The Brussels Brexit chief {...} cited research by the European Central Bank that any problem caused by losing access to London's banks "appears limited" and said the claim was "not what we hear from market participants, and is not the analysis that we have made ourselves".
Let's not forget the size of the European debt, nor the fact that one third of it is managed by London. Do you really swallow the claims that this is of 'limited' importance to Europe? You've told us so many times how bad this will be for the UK - what magic sauce does the EU have? Is it the same magic sauce that has drained tens of thousands of jobs from the City to Frankfurt and Amsterdam? Oh, wait... that was one of the earlier bold predictions made by Europhiles and proven to be nonsense.
I am also fascinated what you think you mean by:
Tuna said:
Let's not forget the size of the European debt, nor the fact that one third of it is managed by London.
I suspect you have no idea.The fact is the loss of passport will see a lot of job move from the UK and London’s importance as a centre of FS diminished. This will have a serious effect on UK tax revenues.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Do you regard as ' promises ' the mass unemployment, recession, Nissan buggering off and half a hundred other similar of the Remain campaign stuff ?Deptford Draylons said:
Do you regard as ' promises ' the mass unemployment, recession, Nissan buggering off and half a hundred other similar of the Remain campaign stuff ?
The point is both campaigns were fundamentally flawed. Remain tried to frighten everyone, leave promised whatever people wanted.Criticising one but not the other because you happen to side with one is unfair.
wc98 said:
Mrr T said:
I suspect you have no idea.
The fact is the loss of passport will see a lot of job move from the UK and London’s importance as a centre of FS diminished. This will have a serious effect on UK tax revenues.
nope,not fact, you're opinion.The fact is the loss of passport will see a lot of job move from the UK and London’s importance as a centre of FS diminished. This will have a serious effect on UK tax revenues.
Mrr T said:
wc98 said:
Mrr T said:
I suspect you have no idea.
The fact is the loss of passport will see a lot of job move from the UK and London’s importance as a centre of FS diminished. This will have a serious effect on UK tax revenues.
nope,not fact, you're opinion.The fact is the loss of passport will see a lot of job move from the UK and London’s importance as a centre of FS diminished. This will have a serious effect on UK tax revenues.
In fact, they've been a lot wronger than me, and I can't stop dribbling.
Mrr T said:
I suspect you have no idea.
The fact is the loss of passport will see a lot of job move from the UK and London’s importance as a centre of FS diminished. This will have a serious effect on UK tax revenues.
I'm trying to understand the situation - just as you're trying to understand parts of the negotiation that are outside your area of expertise.The fact is the loss of passport will see a lot of job move from the UK and London’s importance as a centre of FS diminished. This will have a serious effect on UK tax revenues.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-exclusive-banks-de...
article said:
Industry executives say as much as 70 percent of sovereign debt in Europe is arranged by London-based firms, either acting as market makers in government bond auctions or selling debt directly to investors through "syndicated" deals.
Several billion euros of European government bonds are sold every week to primary dealers through auctions, which they then sell on. In addition, Thomson Reuters data shows 148 billion euros of bonds were sold via syndication last year.
https://www.ft.com/content/18dcf566-5025-11e7-bfb8-997009366969Several billion euros of European government bonds are sold every week to primary dealers through auctions, which they then sell on. In addition, Thomson Reuters data shows 148 billion euros of bonds were sold via syndication last year.
article said:
It is a critical part of London’s financial services sector and the volume of business can exceed a notional $900bn a day. It centres on the processing of euro-denominated derivatives contracts by clearing houses such as the London Stock Exchange’s LCH.
Insulting someone and then attempting to pass opinion off as 'fact' could be regarded as a pretty weak way to make an argument. How did your previous predictions of changes in the London financial market pan out?Your opinion seems to be that loss of passporting is of little concern to the EU - so they would happily remove that right and in the process damage London. My position is that yes, removing passporting could have a big impact, but it doesn't look so likely in the face of the scale of business that the EU relies on. Of course some commentators are going to be calling for passporting to be removed - let's face it, Paris and Amsterdam have failed to grab business from London any other way. For those who want to see business move, having legislation force the issue might seem very attractive, even if it were to do immense damage to both sides in the process.
Edited by Tuna on Friday 27th April 11:24
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff