Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)

Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)

Author
Discussion

Pan Pan Pan

7,688 posts

75 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
Iminquarantine said:
992_GT3 said:
We have cut the cord from the EU, NOT the Europeans.
Nope, the Brexit deal requires that the UK maintain EU product standards and minimum labour standards with our nearest-biggest trading partner.
As they must match UK standards, if they want to continue selling goods into the UK. Level playing field and all that. I wonder how checking that all the goods the EU sells into the UK, meet the UK standards. will hold things up at the borders?

stongle

4,092 posts

126 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
jsf said:
Insurers have called on the UK government to water down Solvency II.......

UK insurers have been critical of both aspects, arguing they unnecessarily increase capital requirements and make it more difficult to invest in long-term assets such as infrastructure projects.
This is an interesting one for the govt and regulators here. Last week the UK ditched the spivvy inclusion of intangible software assets for bank capital the EU allows, I don't know how much appetite they have to reduce loss absorption buffer here.

I cut the first and last para, as the actual answer may well be in getting rid of the spivvy crap, and allowing inclusion of certain asset or infrastructure backed debt (or reduce its risk weighting to compensate).

I don't see too much give on prudential standards myself, but simplification of nonsense rules we lumbered ourselves with as members (and helped draft).

This is why watching how Staley and co approach Brexit is so interesting. Too critical of the UK government or Brexit, they dont get the bonfire of regs they really want. Barclays in particular. The UK regulators / govt probably won't give much on prudential standards or ratio's, but better calibration and reduction in administration overhead for firms (pointless reporting).

Its not sane for either side to get into a huge equivalence spat (no matter how much the nutters want to see the UK punished). It escalates into some pretty nasty costs (whatever doom bumfluff the Guardian says, there is a st ton of risk add-on that can go the other way).

DeepEnd

4,240 posts

30 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
jsf said:
DeepEnd said:
It’s true that business makes business, not govt. But govt can’t half get in the way (in a bad way). This doesn’t seem a good area for such box ticking.
What doesn't specifically?
As per the earlier post - "The criteria to sign players is based on a points system which considers the number of senior and youth international appearances, club appearances as well as the quality of the selling club, its league position and the league itself."

This bureaucracy, presumably staffed by the govt, seems to threaten to overrule any claim/application by an importing club that they want the player as they have decided they are talented.

I'd say the view of the club will be based on far more than just some simple immigration box ticking and should not constrain their ability to get the players they want. You can assume Allardyce really wanted those three players but has been denied by an immigration box ticker overruling his extensive footballering judgement.

I'd see that as a bad thing - I don't think an immigration officer should be overruling Allardyce's judgement on the merits of a given footballer - do you?

It's basically anti-free market and a lesson in why the four freedoms are not such a bad idea after all.




Iminquarantine

908 posts

8 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all

Iminquarantine

908 posts

8 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
Pan Pan Pan said:
As they must match UK standards, if they want to continue selling goods into the UK. Level playing field and all that. I wonder how checking that all the goods the EU sells into the UK, meet the UK standards. will hold things up at the borders?
Yes, though you would need to ponder if it would be a good or bad idea for the U.K. to unilaterally diverge from EU standards, given the U.K. economy is only 15% the size of the EU economy.

powerstroke

10,247 posts

124 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
So the EU don’t want their members trading with the U.K. oh dear just goes to show what a great thing leaving was ,proved true what we leavers said about gravy train and politics and that it wasn’t to make the lives of millions of Europeans better... nasty grubby cabal ...

Iminquarantine

908 posts

8 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
powerstroke said:
So the EU don’t want their members trading with the U.K. oh dear just goes to show what a great thing leaving was ,proved true what we leavers said about gravy train and politics and that it wasn’t to make the lives of millions of Europeans better... nasty grubby cabal ...
Well the EU cannot tell it’s members who to trade with, not have they tried to. So I guess your post comes from the fantasy land of rainbows and unicorns.

If you are referring to the smallness of the UK economy compared to the EU, well that would not be an issue if the U.K. was still in the EU.

Nickgnome

6,107 posts

53 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
Iminquarantine said:
I've been following this.

Uk fisherman sold quota years ago and unlike some of our EU counterparts did not invest in those larger vessels.


gooner1

10,223 posts

143 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
DeepEnd said:
jsf said:
DeepEnd said:
It’s true that business makes business, not govt. But govt can’t half get in the way (in a bad way). This doesn’t seem a good area for such box ticking.
What doesn't specifically?
As per the earlier post - "The criteria to sign players is based on a points system which considers the number of senior and youth international appearances, club appearances as well as the quality of the selling club, its league position and the league itself."

This bureaucracy, presumably staffed by the govt, seems to threaten to overrule any claim/application by an importing club that they want the player as they have decided they are talented.

I'd say the view of the club will be based on far more than just some simple immigration box ticking and should not constrain their ability to get the players they want. You can assume Allardyce really wanted those three players but has been denied by an immigration box ticker overruling his extensive footballering “
I'd see that as a bad thing - I don't think an immigration officer should be overruling Allardyce's judgement on the merits of a given footballer - do you?

It's basically anti-free market and a lesson in why the four freedoms are not such a bad idea after all.
A lot of “presumably “ “seemed” “I’d say” and “I think” in there not to mention the “ assume “

Have you still not found your EU comfort blanket DeadEnd. Work permits have been denied to footballers long before we parted ways with the happy vaccine deniers.

Iminquarantine

908 posts

8 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
More phenomenal winning, brought to you by the only country in the world to introduce an internal border within itself. World beating, Britain sure is the first here!

www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-56147603

“ Supermarkets bringing meat products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland face new bureaucracy from Monday.

The change is a consequence of Brexit and the Irish Sea border.

Retailers must now use Export Health Certificates (EHCs) to import chilled, processed meat - this covers products like fresh sausages and minced meat.”



Edit: Special Quitter bonus points for this one.

Pick one of these questions to answer:
1. Why is this not a problem at all?
2. Why is this restriction on meat movement actually a really great benefit?

Edited by Iminquarantine on Tuesday 23 February 14:11

gooner1

10,223 posts

143 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
Nickgnome said:
Iminquarantine said:
I've been following this.

Uk fisherman sold quota years ago and unlike some of our EU counterparts did not invest in those larger vessels.
Ffs, you’ll discover Cantona’s muse re seagulls and trawlers next.

Edited by gooner1 on Tuesday 23 February 14:15

Nickgnome

6,107 posts

53 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
gooner1 said:
Nickgnome said:
Iminquarantine said:
I've been following this.

Uk fisherman sold quota years ago and unlike some of our EU counterparts did not invest in those larger vessels.
Ffs, you’ll discover Cantona’s muse re seagulls and trawlers next.
As it happens my heritage is part Cornish on Dad's side and spent most of my young life there. I still have the accent and never had any desire to lose it.

It is sad but was pretty obvious what was going to happen though.

I put a good Cornish male voice choir up there with some of the best Welsh ones.

gooner1

10,223 posts

143 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
Iminquarantine said:
More phenomenal winning, brought to you by the only country in the world to introduce an internal border within itself. World beating, Britain sure is the first here!

www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-56147603

“ Supermarkets bringing meat products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland face new bureaucracy from Monday.

The change is a consequence of Brexit and the Irish Sea border.

Retailers must now use Export Health Certificates (EHCs) to import chilled, processed meat - this covers products like fresh sausages and minced meat.”



Edit: Special Quitter bonus points for this one.

Pick one of these questions to answer:
1. Why is this not a problem at all?
2. Why is this restriction on meat movement actually a really great benefit?




Edited by Iminquarantine on Tuesday 23 February 14:11
1, I’m a vegan.
2. I’m still a vegan. Answering on behalf of my mate , who is a vegan.

Mrr T

8,892 posts

229 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
jsf said:
Insurers have called on the UK government to water down Solvency II, the EU’s insurance capital regime, in what would be the first major departure for the financial sector from Brussels’ rule book since Brexit.

The Association of British Insurers has urged ministers to reduce the capital buffer their members are required to hold, and to give them more freedom over how they invest their assets. The changes would allow insurers to redeploy a total of £95bn, the trade body said, including passing a slice of that on to shareholders.

https://amp.ft.com/content/c75d5323-5193-4f19-9b28...

“We’ve had the costs, now we must seize the opportunity,” said Evans. “The opportunity comes in having a Solvency II framework that provides strong policyholder protection — as strong as we had before — but with a set of rules that are designed for the UK market, not for [the EU] 28.”

The UK’s life insurers, which would be the major beneficiaries of the ABI’s proposed changes to Solvency II, have little to gain from equivalence as they mostly operate in their domestic market.

Solvency II was introduced in 2016 as a way to harmonise the bloc’s insurance capital rules. The regulations, which run to thousands of pages, took over a decade to negotiate and were given added urgency by the 2008 financial crisis.

The matching adjustment and risk margin — two of the regime’s most contentious areas — were agreed after lengthy discussions between the member states. UK insurers have been critical of both aspects, arguing they unnecessarily increase capital requirements and make it more difficult to invest in long-term assets such as infrastructure projects.
This has been doing the rounds for ages. What the story misses is that these are not really EU regulations. No one will of heard of the IAIR but the Solvency regulations where proposed by the IAIR and the EU is doing no more than implementing the agreed standards. The UK is a full member of the IAIR and helped agree the regulations. So no there will not be changes.

I was involved a little in the implementation and the UK regulators made a major mess of it.

As for the UK market being seperate that maybe true in a technical sense but most providers are parts of group which operate in many markets. Which is why international standards are needed.

crankedup

25,736 posts

207 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
What’s gone wrong at the Port of Dover? as of 8th February 2021 traffic flow rates are at 90% with no hold ups. Where has the anticipated severe hold ups disappeared, surely it’s not businesses getting to grips already with the new paperwork chase on exports. Remainers were preying that major disruption was inevitable because we left the EU.
Like all problems, solutions are found.

992_GT3

286 posts

3 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
Mrr T said:
This has been doing the rounds for ages. What the story misses is that these are not really EU regulations. No one will of heard of the IAIR but the Solvency regulations where proposed by the IAIR and the EU is doing no more than implementing the agreed standards. The UK is a full member of the IAIR and helped agree the regulations. So no there will not be changes.
Mrr T's GoogleFu fails him, his post is spectacularly wrong in almost every area!

The IAIR is the International Association of Insolvency Regulators and has absolutely nothing to do with the regulation of insurance companies in the UK, EU or anywhere else.

The regulator for European Insurers is EIOPA, an independent advisory body to the European Commission.

The IAIS (The International Association Insurance Supervisors) is seeking to support the move to a global capital standard over time, but this is very much a path for the future). They don't set rules but coordinate the rule-making authorities across the world and so they had nothing to do with Solvency II. EIOPA is very much part of this initiative.

The Solvency II rules were some 10+ years in the making, came into force in 2016 and were broadly based on existing UK insurance regulation at that time.

Implementation of those regulations is left to local regulators, as this is not considered an EC competence. For this reason, interpretation of the rules can differ in different countries. The UK has been criticised for gold-plating the rules in some areas.

Although the regulations are meant to be based on economic risk, in practice there are a number of fudges in some areas. Also, because it would have caused significant solvency issues for a number of European insurers, the implementation was watered down, such that companies have up to 16 years to be fully compliant with the rules.

Given the different types of insurers in different jurisdictions, and the different types of business written, there is certainly scope to change the rules for UK insurers to make them more applicable, without lowering standards.

There have been a number of consultation papers about what areas the UK regulator will look to change now that it has the power to do so.

Mrr T said:
I was involved a little in the implementation and the UK regulators made a major mess of it.
Absolute nonsense on both accounts. Please explain!

Mrr T said:
As for the UK market being seperate that maybe true in a technical sense but most providers are parts of group which operate in many markets. Which is why international standards are needed.
More nonsense. There are no international solvency standards for insurers, although there are some developing accounting standards.

Different regions have their own standards but my recognise others - for example, EIOPA recognise Switzerland, Japan and Bermuda as 'equivalent' solvency standards for insurers. However, contrary to some claims, that does not mean that the EU or EIOPA set out the rules by which insurers in those regions are subject to. Their own regulator manages the insurance sector and applies its own rules.

Edited by 992_GT3 on Tuesday 23 February 15:33

gooner1

10,223 posts

143 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
Nickgnome said:
gooner1 said:
Nickgnome said:
Iminquarantine said:
I've been following this.

Uk fisherman sold quota years ago and unlike some of our EU counterparts did not invest in those larger vessels.
Ffs, you’ll discover Cantona’s muse re seagulls and trawlers next.
As it happens my heritage is part Cornish on Dad's side and spent most of my young life there. I still have the accent and never had any desire to lose it.

It is sad but was pretty obvious what was going to happen though.

I put a good Cornish male voice choir up there with some of the best Welsh ones.
On your last two sentences we are in complete accord .

DeepEnd

4,240 posts

30 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
crankedup said:
What’s gone wrong at the Port of Dover? as of 8th February 2021 traffic flow rates are at 90% with no hold ups. Where has the anticipated severe hold ups disappeared, surely it’s not businesses getting to grips already with the new paperwork chase on exports. Remainers were preying that major disruption was inevitable because we left the EU.
Like all problems, solutions are found.
Would you be happy with a 10% drop in our £300Bn EU exports for the whole year then? Is that a victory?

992_GT3

286 posts

3 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
gooner1 said:
On your last two sentences we are in complete accord .
Nickgnome said:
As it happens my heritage is part Cornish on Dad's side and spent most of my young life there. I still have the accent and never had any desire to lose it.

I put a good Cornish male voice choir up there with some of the best Welsh ones.
As far as I'm concerned, you're either 100% Cornish or you're nothing.


Edited by 992_GT3 on Tuesday 23 February 15:56

gooner1

10,223 posts

143 months

Tuesday 23rd February
quotequote all
DeepEnd said:
Would you be happy with a 10% drop in our £300Bn EU exports for the whole year then? Is that a victory?
A year in which most of the world , which includes the EU (mis) led countries, has been dealing with a deadly pandemic ,it’s acceptable. Though confirmation of your oft “dodgy” figures has to be taken into account here.