Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Full bodied red]

I think the best solution to this is no trade deal and issues are settled in court.

Lot of sense there.

Except that the the ECJ would likely be about as independent and impartial as Freisler's Sondergericht Court, so which court ?

I reckon the best thing for the UK is to ask for nothing and wait for the EU to tell them what the EU wants from BREXIT and what they will offer to the UK in return.

At the moment, it seems, that the EU just wants a mountain of cash to cover the loss of the UK's contributions - we've heard nothing about whether the EU wants the same levels of trade, tarrif free, or whether they are happy to have reduced levels with tarrifs imposed on specific products.

Until we hear what the EU wants, the UK should just stay silent from now on - including about the cash blackmail.

 

[Dobba]

He's making it up as he goes along.

 

[Full bodied red]

Don't think so....

I posted six weeks ago that post-BREXIT the the ECJ has no jurisdiction over the UK - one of the reasons for leaving.

 

[devilish]

Lot of sense there.

Except that the the ECJ would likely be about as independent and impartial as Freisler's Sondergericht Court, so which court ?

I reckon the best thing for the UK is to ask for nothing and wait for the EU to tell them what the EU wants from BREXIT and what they will offer to the UK in return.

At the moment, it seems, that the EU just wants a mountain of cash to cover the loss of the UK's contributions - we've heard nothing about whether the EU wants the same levels of trade, tarrif free, or whether they are happy to have reduced levels with tarrifs imposed on specific products.

Until we hear what the EU wants, the UK should just stay silent from now on - including about the cash blackmail.

None of them seem too warm 4 a deal. The uk keep insulting the eu while the eu came out with a salty bill that keeps growing by the second

In my opinion, the uk should make a serious economic impact assessment and then work its way from there

 

[Stanley Road]

The uk keep insulting the eu

That will carry on until the EU stop insulting our intelligence

 

[Wibble]

It's the principle. The assumption that youngsters know best, so the oldies should hurry up and die.

I didn't see him say that.

That said on average the politics of older people seems to not care as much as it shoyld about the future younger people will live in.

 

[Jippy]

None of them seem too warm 4 a deal. The uk keep insulting the eu while the eu came out with a salty bill that keeps growing by the second

In my opinion, the uk should make a serious economic impact assessment and then work its way from there

You'd kind of hoped that they'd done the impact assessment ahead of agreeing to the referendum...

 

[Abizzz]

TBF that 100bl bill is a bit too much and I am very much pro EU. I think both EU and UK are fed up with one another and are finding excuses not to handle one another a decent deal. Its naive for the UK to think that one can show the middle finger to a set of rules/rights so many countries had invested on for decades and after that it would still be business as usual let alone expect to cherry pick a deal.

Yeah 100 billion seems over the top, can't imagine it amounting to that much in the end... But I do agree with the EU's stance to hold the UK to its commitments of the past, if they want to be taken seriously in the future...

 

[devilish]

Yeah 100 billion seems over the top, can't imagine it amounting to that much in the end... But I do agree with the EU's stance to hold the UK to its commitments of the past, if they want to be taken seriously in the future...

The EU first wanted the divorce to be settled and then it tied it to any possible trade deal made. That is controversial (they are two unrelated things) but as you said its fair enough.

What I find concerning is that the fee keeps growing bigger and bigger. Its like a person who goes to a showroom to buy an expensive car he can barely afford but would like to own one. Instead of reducing the price the salesman keeps raising the price by 10% no 20% actually 50%. Soon enough you would start wondering if the salesman truly want to sell the car after all or just want you out of the damn place.

 

[devilish]

You'd kind of hoped that they'd done the impact assessment ahead of agreeing to the referendum...

I agree. Its time for the UK to get real and value all its options. A sound Plan B (ie hard Brexit) need to be considered too as the EU seem reluctant to bulge on this fee of theirs who keep growing bigger by the minute. If the UK cant afford losing its access to the single market then maybe its time to consider an EEA entrance. Its still Brexit after all and the Tories will be hurt by it but its was better then a massive recession

 

[AshfordLad]

The EU first wanted the divorce to be settled and then it tied it to any possible trade deal made. That is controversial (they are two unrelated things) but as you said its fair enough.

What I find concerning is that the fee keeps growing bigger and bigger. Its like a person who goes to a showroom to buy an expensive car he can barely afford but would like to own one. Instead of reducing the price the salesman keeps raising the price by 10% no 20% actually 50%. Soon enough you would start wondering if the salesman truly want to sell the car after all or just want you out of the damn place.

I dont think the council now has the option / or will be inclined to back down on the 100bn number. Which pretty much ensures that there is not going to be a deal at-least in the foreseeable future. The UK is not going to pay it even if it could (which it can anyways). Both parties should now spend this time preparing for a no deal scenario.

The only way I see a deal happening now is if May is actually fooling the brexiters right now.

 

[sun_tzu]

The EU first wanted the divorce to be settled and then it tied it to any possible trade deal made. That is controversial (they are two unrelated things) but as you said its fair enough.

What I find concerning is that the fee keeps growing bigger and bigger. Its like a person who goes to a showroom to buy an expensive car he can barely afford but would like to own one. Instead of reducing the price the salesman keeps raising the price by 10% no 20% actually 50%. Soon enough you would start wondering if the salesman truly want to sell the car after all or just want you out of the damn place.

to be honest its all posturing isnt it - there will be a bill - probably one more hefty than the Uk will admit to right now and probably not as big as what the current EU leaked demands suggest.

I think how that bill is structured will probably be more problamatic than what the final amount it...
e.g. what about share of assets (http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/ ) but more fundamentally how will any "divorse" settlement be paid - cash up front seems unlikely so will it be annual payments - if so what about interest?, and is it in euros or pounds... how about the abilty to overpay (EG another greek crisis or a wobble on the italian economy and the euro plummets?)... or could the payment be recouped by a tarrif? - what in the event of no agreement - IMF as arbritrators or UN sanctions or fek it war?... or actually nobody knows what
I honestly think it will be a struggle to get that sorted out in 2 years let alone a trade agreement...

 

[Jippy]

I agree. Its time for the UK to get real and value all its options. A sound Plan B (ie hard Brexit) need to be considered too as the EU seem reluctant to bulge on this fee of theirs who keep growing bigger by the minute. If the UK cant afford losing its access to the single market then maybe its time to consider an EEA entrance. Its still Brexit after all and the Tories will be hurt by it but its was better then a massive recession

I think we're too stubborn and may have burnt too many bridges to go down the EEA route tbh.

 

[Abizzz]

The EU first wanted the divorce to be settled and then it tied it to any possible trade deal made. That is controversial (they are two unrelated things) but as you said its fair enough.

I don't see how the two are unrelated. In effect the new trade deal will replace the old arrangements, and I find it perfectly reasonable to expect a settled 'divorce' before entering into a new relationship with each other. The obstructive attitude that has dominated UK EU politics for a long time, and is currently defining them (even if not covered much in the UK press), doesn't make me believe they'd be willing participants in any talks post trade deal. We have witnessed the UK foreign minister lie about us a plenty, it certainly doesn't take much to believe he is lying to us as well.

What I find concerning is that the fee keeps growing bigger and bigger. Its like a person who goes to a showroom to buy an expensive car he can barely afford but would like to own one. Instead of reducing the price the salesman keeps raising the price by 10% no 20% actually 50%. Soon enough you would start wondering if the salesman truly want to sell the car after all or just want you out of the damn place.

I agree that it's far from perfect to have hugely differing numbers out there. The EU isn't attempting to sell the UK anything though, it's attempting to keep the UK to commitments the UK has made in the past, and has been very straight forward about the fact that it doesn't have a exact number yet (And i'm absolutely opposed to making the UK pay any kind of 'penalty' beyond that).

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

If the 100 billion figure is true and is the EU's assessment of the UK's share of as yet unpaid commitments then it follows that the EU's total unfunded commitment is close to 1000 billion Euros.

It is amazing to me that any organization can get to the point where its unfunded commitments equal ten times its anual income in fees.

Is anyone inside the EU concerned about this at all?

 

[Abizzz]

If the 100 billion figure is true and is the EU's assessment of the UK's share of as yet unpaid commitments then it follows that the EU's total unfunded commitment is close to 1000 billion Euros.

It is amazing to me that any organization can get to the point where its unfunded commitments equal ten times its anual income in fees.

Is anyone inside the EU concerned about this at all?

How is it an unfunded commitment to the EU when member states have agreed to fund them? They are only unfunded if member states decide to walk away from their commitments... Don't really see that as a troubling prospect, not even Orban or Kaczyński would threaten that .

 

[Mozza]

If the 100 billion figure is true and is the EU's assessment of the UK's share of as yet unpaid commitments then it follows that the EU's total unfunded commitment is close to 1000 billion Euros.

It is amazing to me that any organization can get to the point where its unfunded commitments equal ten times its anual income in fees.

Is anyone inside the EU concerned about this at all?

It's not all due now so how is that unusual?

 

[Full bodied red]

How is it an unfunded commitment to the EU when member states have agreed to fund them? They are only unfunded if member states decide to walk away from their commitments... Don't really see that as a troubling prospect, not even Orban or Kaczyński would threaten that .

The UK agreed to the last EU Long Term Budget - which expires in 2020, and nothing after 2020.

On that basis, the UK has to pay until 2020, which is for the two years they will still remain in the EU, plus an additional year at around €12 billion.

Anything more than that is just EU blackmail which the UK should rightly laugh at.

 

[Pexbo]

This could be big news:

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...paigns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard


TL;DR:
The vote leave and leave.EU campaigns were covertly collaborating and funded by US Billionare Mercer.

That would be illegal as it would break U.K. Electoral rules on a number of levels including the actual act of two campaigns working together (creating an unfair playing field), a foreign entity influencing British politics and also as it would effectively be one campaign with two fronts, it would break financial caps.

One targeted middle England citing things like the NHS while the other targeted the lower classes who reacted to pictures of middle eastern immigrants coming into the country.

Mercer also links together Farage and Trump and has strong links to Bannon.

 

[Rightnr]

Nothing surprises me about that 'revelation'. Anyone with half a brain could see Brexit is for the rich despite what the Tories claim.

If May's concern for JAMs is real, no wonder she was a reluctant remainer.

A colleague of mine has also mentioned the same interests that brought about Brexit and Trump are now focussing on getting California independence.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

This could be big news:

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...paigns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard


TL;DR:
The vote leave and leave.EU campaigns were covertly collaborating and funded by US Billionare Mercer.

That would be illegal as it would break U.K. Electoral rules on a number of levels including the actual act of two campaigns working together (creating an unfair playing field), a foreign entity influencing British politics and also as it would effectively be one campaign with two fronts, it would break financial caps.

One targeted middle England citing things like the NHS while the other targeted the lower classes who reacted to pictures of middle eastern immigrants coming into the country.

Mercer also links together Farage and Trump and has strong links to Bannon.

It is hugely important, but will be ignored. I posted an article last week from the same source to receive laughing smilies due to the Guardian group being involved. Whether you are leave or Remain we should all be hugely concerned about a small cabal of incredibly wealthy people influencing democratic process like this.

 

[711]

Nothing surprises me about that 'revelation'. Anyone with half a brain could see Brexit is for the rich despite what the Tories claim.

If May's concern for JAMs is real, no wonder she was a reluctant remainer.

A colleague of mine has also mentioned the same interests that brought about Brexit and Trump are now focussing on getting California independence.

Just in case you haven't come across it yet, you may feel at home in the Flat Earth thread.

 

[Rightnr]

Just in case you haven't come across it yet, you may feel at home in the Flat Earth thread.

Smarmy remark that has no substance. Just about what I'd expect from your lot.

 

[Crossie]

This could be big news:

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...paigns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard


TL;DR:
The vote leave and leave.EU campaigns were covertly collaborating and funded by US Billionare Mercer.

That would be illegal as it would break U.K. Electoral rules on a number of levels including the actual act of two campaigns working together (creating an unfair playing field), a foreign entity influencing British politics and also as it would effectively be one campaign with two fronts, it would break financial caps.

One targeted middle England citing things like the NHS while the other targeted the lower classes who reacted to pictures of middle eastern immigrants coming into the country.

Mercer also links together Farage and Trump and has strong links to Bannon.

Let's assume UK politicians have more moral fibre than US GOP politicians. What would be the next steps and what could be possible outcomes?

 

[WackyWengerWorld]

I think the best solution to this is no trade deal and issues are settled in court.

Which court, if the ECJ no longer has any over the UK why would the UK abide by any decision it makes? Why would the UK pay anything without an incentive?

to be honest its all posturing isnt it - there will be a bill - probably one more hefty than the Uk will admit to right now and probably not as big as what the current EU leaked demands suggest.

I think how that bill is structured will probably be more problamatic than what the final amount it...
e.g. what about share of assets (http://bruegel.org/2017/02/the-uks-brexit-bill-could-eu-assets-partially-offset-liabilities/ ) but more fundamentally how will any "divorse" settlement be paid - cash up front seems unlikely so will it be annual payments - if so what about interest?, and is it in euros or pounds... how about the abilty to overpay (EG another greek crisis or a wobble on the italian economy and the euro plummets?)... or could the payment be recouped by a tarrif? - what in the event of no agreement - IMF as arbritrators or UN sanctions or fek it war?... or actually nobody knows what
I honestly think it will be a struggle to get that sorted out in 2 years let alone a trade agreement...

It might be posturing but The UK has no incentive to pay a dime without first getting a guarantee on trade deals. I can see the point in a subscription fee for access to the single market but why pay for an agreement we are no longer part of? Why pay them money for WTO tarrifs?

The end play for me currently looks like no trade deal, Britain pays nothing in a divorce bill with WTO tarrifs in place for all parties. The alternative would be a structured 'divorce', ie Britain paying pretty much nigh on what it currently pays to retain access to the single market. However I do wonder if The Torries are thinking tarrifs and no payments may raise the amount of tax they can raise to reduce the deficit. We do have a trade deficit with the EU after all.

The 'no trade agreement until completion of a divorce bill' is code for 'no trade deal, we'll punnish you'. So the UK might not have any alternative but a hard brexit.

BTW I'm actually a remainer but in the event of Brexit you have to play the hand you're given.

 

[sun_tzu]

It might be posturing but The UK has no incentive to pay a dime without first getting a guarantee on trade deals. I can see the point in a subscription fee for access to the single market but why pay for an agreement we are no longer part of? Why pay them money for WTO tarrifs?

.

I dont know about that... I mean if we are expecting our share of the assets (which i assume we are) then its fair about the liabilities being shared as well
Of courese a number of these assets (property etc) are not exactly liquid so there needs be a lot of "horse trading" and offsetting etc... whilst you dont make a payment until deals are in place I think its reasonable to at least agree what liabilities / assets and how they are valued etc will form part of that pre trade deal agreement

From the EU standpoint I'd probably do the same and start with a high figure knowing its going to be chipped down... Id actually probably take a different course to the UK government though and Id come out and formally grant EU citizen rights (subject to reciprocal arrangement) and I'd also formally publish something with the liabilities we accept and the offest we expect in assets rather than the continual leaking... would probably put the EU on the back foot and also give cause to claim that we are trying to push the basis of an agreement forwards... at the very least when the EU rejects the UK financial assessment they will probably be forced to reveal the make up of their assessment thus the "horse trading" rather than posturing can begin.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

So far as the bulk of any bill goes, the figure must be fairly well fixed and a readily quantifiable amount. Consequently, the sudden doubling of the number just comes across looking daft. More-so when you consider that May had opened the door to future ongoing contributions (though diminished) during her fist major speech.

 

[sun_tzu]

So far as the bulk of any bill goes, the figure must be fairly well fixed and a readily quantifiable amount. Consequently, the sudden doubling of the number just comes across looking daft. More-so when you consider that May had opened the door to future ongoing contributions (though diminished) during her fist major speech.

And thats the difficult part...

I mean how do you value the assets? - take property for example the UK could say its worth X and the EU will say but it would take years to find a buyer so its value for a fire sale is Y and thats the value we are going to use if you want to treat it as an asset that can be bartered

Will the UK fix a price in Euros - Will the EU fix a price in £ ... do we do what a lot of international agreements do and fix in a third traditionally stable currency (e.g. yen) - and is it apyment up front or payment over a number of years - if so is there flexibility on over / underpayments - what about interest rates - etc etc etc... I dont think you can just fix a number I honestly dont - It took us a year to agree a pricing schedule in yen for three years payment schedule for asset financing aprox quarter of a billion euros of infrastructure with one government - let alone 27 when they are looking to offset assets - and the Uk rebate etc etc... fecking complex proposition they face and thats even before a trade deal... Joining the EEA as a transition agreement whilst its all figured out is the logical one but politically Im not sure there is the will on either side

 

[devilish]

Which court, if the ECJ no longer has any over the UK why would the UK abide by any decision it makes? Why would the UK pay anything without an incentive?

Do you think its wise for global Britain to treat its former allies and trade partners that way? The message send on the global fora would be that global Britain is fickle and will show the middle finger to any trade deal signed whenever it feels like. Considering its small market and the effort needed to sign a trade deal then most countries would just opt to stay away from such fickle trade partner.

 

[Kentonio]

Consequently, the sudden doubling of the number just comes across looking daft.

You mean the figure that no-one has actually provided at any point, and that is purely just speculation on the part of the press and pundits?

 

[PedroMendez]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/15/jp-morgan-landmark-office-dublin-brexit

JP Morgan appears to make good on Brexit threat with new Dublin office

 

[sun_tzu]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/15/jp-morgan-landmark-office-dublin-brexit

inevitable... wont matter for EU based banks but all the USA, Japanese etc will need some european expansion for passporting etc and none of them are going to hand about 2 years on the off chance a financial services deal is secured.

Dublins a fairly logical place as well I suppose - relatively easy to relocate staff (and families etc) due to speaking English and fairly close to London - wouldnt be surprised to see a few more follow them there.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

You mean the figure that no-one has actually provided at any point, and that is purely just speculation on the part of the press and pundits?

Somebody did provide the figure, the Tories

 

[Javi]

I read other estimates that the City is about to lose 20'000-25'000 jobs from a total of 700'000. They will take a hit but it doesn't look like their rank in the worlds biggest financial districts is threatened. Standard Chartered for example are relocating 20 jobs to Frankfurt (they have 1'700 in London). With JP Morgan it looks like 700-800 (makes sense to have room to grow in the new builduing) from 11'000.

 

[Full bodied red]

Do you think its wise for global Britain to treat its former allies and trade partners that way? The message send on the global fora would be that global Britain is fickle and will show the middle finger to any trade deal signed whenever it feels like. Considering its small market and the effort needed to sign a trade deal then most countries would just opt to stay away from such fickle trade partner.

A Trade Deal is a Trade Deal....

Membership of the EU is / was just ever so slightly more than just a Trade Deal....

And most of those potential new Trade Partners know exactly what the EU can be like and are unlikely to ever consider the UK to be a fickle partner.

 

[devilish]

A Trade Deal is a Trade Deal....

Membership of the EU is / was just ever so slightly more than just a Trade Deal....

And most of those potential new Trade Partners know exactly what the EU can be like and are unlikely to ever consider the UK to be a fickle partner.

A trade deal is a lengthy process which is often negotiated by big teams of highly paid people. It has an impact on several industries each different in shape and style but need consistency to operate efficiently. Would anyone be willing to seal a deal like that with a unreliable player? Trump thought of doing the same with NAFTA and guess what? He backtracked furiously. We're talking about the US here a financial and military superpower with an enormous market of its own. The UK isn't even remotely near to the US.

The EU is a tough player. However its way less tough than other market leaders of its size/magnitude. China, the US and India are way more conservative in terms of trade deals then the EU is. None of them will ever agree to an unrestricted access to their market especially the US whose lead by the most protectionist president in the past half a century.

I am confident that the UK will be able to sign a number of trade deals. However I doubt that these trade deals can ever compensate to the one it will lose with the EU.

 

[PedroMendez]

I read other estimates that the City is about to lose 20'000-25'000 jobs from a total of 700'000. They will take a hit but it doesn't look like their rank in the worlds biggest financial districts is threatened. Standard Chartered for example are relocating 20 jobs to Frankfurt (they have 1'700 in London). With JP Morgan it looks like 700-800 (makes sense to have room to grow in the new builduing) from 11'000.

that is probably more or less true. Somewhere between 20k-80k people might get relocated.

here is a decent look at the issue: https://piie.com/system/files/documents/pb17-9.pdf

 

[devilish]

I read other estimates that the City is about to lose 20'000-25'000 jobs from a total of 700'000. They will take a hit but it doesn't look like their rank in the worlds biggest financial districts is threatened. Standard Chartered for example are relocating 20 jobs to Frankfurt (they have 1'700 in London). With JP Morgan it looks like 700-800 (makes sense to have room to grow in the new builduing) from 11'000.

It would be unwise to move all operations at once. This hemorriage will take years if not decades.

 

[Javi]

It would be unwise to move all operations at once. This hemorriage will take years if not decades.

I haven't read anything of the sort of what you're suggesting. But I'm lacking the legal framework knowledge of the financial sector in the EU. Maybe @PedroMendez can help out also.

So I'm guessing the EU have completely aligned regulations for all their members and have also eliminated all barriers between members to make business. This then resulted in banks being able to manage office operations from one place, mostly London. Now the UK will again have barriers and possibly different regulation - although they could just copy the EU's, don't know. Could said banks now, in order to keep their EU business running, just relocate minor staff to an EU country (Ireland and Germany are apparently top of the list) to do some minor thing and then somehow "shift" the services inside the company to that EU country and from there to the entire EU? TIA.

 

[PedroMendez]

I haven't read anything of the sort of what you're suggesting. But I'm lacking the legal framework knowledge of the financial sector in the EU. Maybe @PedroMendez can help out also.

So I'm guessing the EU have completely aligned regulations for all their members and have also eliminated all barriers between members to make business. This then resulted in banks being able to manage office operations from one place, mostly London. Now the UK will again have barriers and possibly different regulation - although they could just copy the EU's, don't know. Could said banks now, in order to keep their EU business running, just relocate minor staff to an EU country (Ireland and Germany are apparently top of the list) to do some minor thing and then somehow "shift" the services inside the company to that EU country and from there to the entire EU? TIA.

As long as the UK accepts the same regulation, they’ll also get access to the single market via equivalence assessment. So one day one after leaving, they could still get the same access as long as London is not changing any laws/regulations. The whole process that can grant access via equivalence assessment isn’t really created to deal with the EU-UK situation, because this situation too complex and would be inherently unstable. Financial regulations are constantly evolving and the UK won’t just copy EU laws/regulations. So without additional agreement, they’ll lose access.
Losing access means, that UK companies need to found subsidiaries in the EU, that follows all the EU laws. These subsidiaries have to be legally, financially and organisationally separated from their parent company. It is not possible to just create them „on paper“. Yet what's often overlooked is, that different financial sectors have very different requirements/needs when it comes to accessing the single market. Retail/business banking, trading, wealth management, investment banking, insurance/re-insurance, asset management, market infrastructure (e.g. clearing; broker; securities) all have to follow different rules and regulations. Some of them won’t be affected by Brexit at all while some sectors might be hit quite hard. Yet it is possible, that both sides agree on a deal, that allows only one of these sub-sectors to access the single market. That could make a major difference.
For example: UK Investment banking relies heavily on access to the single market, while insurance/re-insurance companies are already using subsidiaries in most countries (don’t ask why that is; the single market is not perfect). The gist is, that this is not a „access vs. no-access“ situation. Details in each sub-sector will determine the future of the industry in London. Yet even if everything goes wrong, London will continue to be the capital of financial services.