Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Paul the Wolf said:
As was pointed out hundreds of times before the referendum and thousands of times since, the UK have decided to leave the EU Customs Union and the Single Market - this cancelled their right to have a deal on financial services - there is no leverage whatsoever, there is no negotiation , if the UK leaves those institutions that is what is going to happen - the EU is not going to change the rules. The Uk decided to leave and there are massive consequences of that, if they wanted to maintain it they should not have left. They can't just have the bits they like.
Click to expand...

JPRouve said:
It's not thinly veiled, any deal will have to benefit the EU, that's the all point of the EU. And bear in mind that more than 40% of the UK's export go to the EU while around 16% of the EU exports go to the UK, who do you think has leverage? Also the financial industry is something that EU members will partially and gladly take away from the UK, it is worth money and there is little reason to give it to the UK.
Click to expand...

devilish said:
The UK made flexibility impossible by opting out of the single market, FOM, the custom union (or any custom union) prior to even discussing it. I understand the government need to satisfy the will of the people. However the will of the people on the other side is for the eu not to put our interest first and foremost.

There are no equal partners. There is a small market and a big market with the latter exerting its power to carve the better deal. That is how trade deals work. Just wait when you start dealing with US. Oh wait you already had a taste with open skies
Click to expand...

Personally I don't mind remaining in the Single Market and the Customs Union, so for me the compromise would be on that. The problem is that the gov might feel that staying in those and allowing freedom of movement etc may be getting too close to not being true to the Brexit people voted for, but when you consider the actual vote was more something along the lines of 'Shall we leave the EU' then imo it still should be an option.

Imo the financial services sector is too imoportant too simply cast aside without strong access. Yes there's a lot more to it than just the EU, and the job losses aren't actually that huge relative to the overall sector as well as there being a huge amount of skills and workers in the UK / London for financial services compared to other EU countries for the forseable future, but I feel over the long long-term it'll cause it'll cause a weakening of that sector here. Knowing a lot of people who work in financial services I'd much rather see that sector protected.

If they really are adamant about leaving the single market then I'd hope the gov at least threaten to enact tariffs on goods to the detriment of the EU if they are intent on no flexibility over financial services, but imo remaining in the single market may well end up be the solution that gov has to take considering it deals with the questions on the Ireland and Gibraltar borders too.
 
marktan said:
Personally I don't mind remaining in the Single Market and the Customs Union, so for me the compromise would be on that. The problem is that the gov might feel that staying in those and allowing freedom of movement etc may be getting too close to not being true to the Brexit people voted for, but when you consider the actual vote was more something along the lines of 'Shall we leave the EU' then imo it still should be an option.

Imo the financial services sector is too imoportant too simply cast aside without strong access. Yes there's a lot more to it than just the EU, and the job losses aren't actually that huge relative to the overall sector as well as there being a huge amount of skills and workers in the UK / London for financial services compared to other EU countries for the forseable future, but I feel over the long long-term it'll cause it'll cause a weakening of that sector here. Knowing a lot of people who work in financial services I'd much rather see that sector protected.

If they really are adamant about leaving the single market then I'd hope the gov at least threaten to enact tariffs on goods to the detriment of the EU if they are intent on no flexibility over financial services, but imo remaining in the single market may well end up be the solution that gov has to take considering it deals with the questions on the Ireland and Gibraltar borders too.
Click to expand...

Tariffs are paid by the buyer not the seller, so it's an empty threat, it's a bit like threatening to jump from a roof. From the EU pov, the only problem is convenience, it's better to not have tariffs because it reduces frictions, encourages trade and therefore increases effectiveness.
Also something that is important to remember, UK's balance is inflated by the fact that EU supply chains are partially in the UK, said supply chains could relatively easily be relocated in the EU during the next 10 years.

https://www.lloydsloadinglist.com/f...paring-to-cut-UK-from-supply-chains/70701.htm
 
marktan said:
Personally I don't mind remaining in the Single Market and the Customs Union, so for me the compromise would be on that. The problem is that the gov might feel that staying in those and allowing freedom of movement etc may be getting too close to not being true to the Brexit people voted for, but when you consider the actual vote was more something along the lines of 'Shall we leave the EU' then imo it still should be an option.

Imo the financial services sector is too imoportant too simply cast aside without strong access. Yes there's a lot more to it than just the EU, and the job losses aren't actually that huge relative to the overall sector as well as there being a huge amount of skills and workers in the UK / London for financial services compared to other EU countries for the forseable future, but I feel over the long long-term it'll cause it'll cause a weakening of that sector here. Knowing a lot of people who work in financial services I'd much rather see that sector protected.

If they really are adamant about leaving the single market then I'd hope the gov at least threaten to enact tariffs on goods to the detriment of the EU if they are intent on no flexibility over financial services, but imo remaining in the single market may well end up be the solution that gov has to take considering it deals with the questions on the Ireland and Gibraltar borders too.
Click to expand...


Well that's the UK prerogative to decide upon as much as its the EU prerogative what sort of deal it wants to give the UK. My point is that the UK can't first remove almost everything off the table (FOM, Single market, Customs union) and then expect if not demand a deal that was never been given before (ie a trade deal with financial services attached) especially since the UK is leaving the very union they influenced to shape. The UK has little leverage, its reputation with the EU had hit rock bottom and after Davis's Boris's and May's gaffes I can't really blame the EU if they think that the UK politicians are a bunch of idiots who has absolutely no idea what they want or what they are doing.

Brexit will hit the EU hard. However a lack of trade deal on goods is far less damaging one can think. Don't forget that the UK has made it quite obvious that they wish to lower tariffs to everyone. That means that irrespective of any deal made the EU's market share in the UK is set to shrink as there's no way that European farmers can compete with chlorinated chicken from the US or products from Africa etc. However, can the UK afford losing out on a market were its sells half of its products?
 
marktan said:
Personally I don't mind remaining in the Single Market and the Customs Union, so for me the compromise would be on that. The problem is that the gov might feel that staying in those and allowing freedom of movement etc may be getting too close to not being true to the Brexit people voted for, but when you consider the actual vote was more something along the lines of 'Shall we leave the EU' then imo it still should be an option.

Imo the financial services sector is too imoportant too simply cast aside without strong access. Yes there's a lot more to it than just the EU, and the job losses aren't actually that huge relative to the overall sector as well as there being a huge amount of skills and workers in the UK / London for financial services compared to other EU countries for the forseable future, but I feel over the long long-term it'll cause it'll cause a weakening of that sector here. Knowing a lot of people who work in financial services I'd much rather see that sector protected.

If they really are adamant about leaving the single market then I'd hope the gov at least threaten to enact tariffs on goods to the detriment of the EU if they are intent on no flexibility over financial services, but imo remaining in the single market may well end up be the solution that gov has to take considering it deals with the questions on the Ireland and Gibraltar borders too.
Click to expand...

Agree with what @JPRouve said.
Being in the SM and CU would solve the financial services and the border problems but that means the UK would be in the EU in all but name but with no vote so worse than now and thus pointless for them to leave.
Should they not accept the CU/SM then they would have to apply for WTO membership and abide by the WTO rules.

As indicated by the government assessment whichever way the UK goes, they are going to be worse off, it just depends on the degree.
All this was classed as scaremongering beforehand, it really wasn't.
 
marktan said:
Personally I don't mind remaining in the Single Market and the Customs Union, so for me the compromise would be on that. The problem is that the gov might feel that staying in those and allowing freedom of movement etc may be getting too close to not being true to the Brexit people voted for, but when you consider the actual vote was more something along the lines of 'Shall we leave the EU' then imo it still should be an option.

Imo the financial services sector is too imoportant too simply cast aside without strong access. Yes there's a lot more to it than just the EU, and the job losses aren't actually that huge relative to the overall sector as well as there being a huge amount of skills and workers in the UK / London for financial services compared to other EU countries for the forseable future, but I feel over the long long-term it'll cause it'll cause a weakening of that sector here. Knowing a lot of people who work in financial services I'd much rather see that sector protected.

If they really are adamant about leaving the single market then I'd hope the gov at least threaten to enact tariffs on goods to the detriment of the EU if they are intent on no flexibility over financial services, but imo remaining in the single market may well end up be the solution that gov has to take considering it deals with the questions on the Ireland and Gibraltar borders too.
Click to expand...

Since the City is, quite frankly, toxic and GB was one of the biggest reason we didn't get proper regulation after the last crash, it is likely one of the main goals of the EU to deny the City as much access to the single market as possible. To be honest, I hope they crush it. It's better for everyone. It's the single benefit I see in Brexit.
 
marktan said:
Personally I don't mind remaining in the Single Market and the Customs Union, so for me the compromise would be on that. The problem is that the gov might feel that staying in those and allowing freedom of movement etc may be getting too close to not being true to the Brexit people voted for, but when you consider the actual vote was more something along the lines of 'Shall we leave the EU' then imo it still should be an option.
.
Click to expand...

and especially as 48% voted to stay in as well... I think any deal is going to be so unpalatable that in the end a 2nd referendum about accepting the final deal will become inevitable - sadly if there is a 2nd referendum it probably will be less about the technicalities and economic impact of any deal but will again become divisive sound bite politics
 
fcbforever said:
Since the City is, quite frankly, toxic and GB was one of the biggest reason we didn't get proper regulation after the last crash, it is likely one of the main goals of the EU to deny the City as much access to the single market as possible. To be honest, I hope they crush it. It's better for everyone. It's the single benefit I see in Brexit.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it provides a huge portion of Britain’s tax base. It should have been heavily reformed after the global crash but to just destroy it now leaves a massive hole in the nations finances that can’t easily be replaced.
 
Kentonio said:
The problem is that it provides a huge portion of Britain’s tax base. It should have been heavily reformed after the global crash but to just destroy it now leaves a massive hole in the nations finances that can’t easily be replaced.
Click to expand...

Yeah but...now you are out, why should I actually care? We are talking about the investment banking parts here and that can go to hell.
 
fcbforever said:
Yeah but...now you are out, why should I actually care? We are talking about the investment banking parts here and that can go to hell.
Click to expand...

No reason at all why you should care. You said it was good for everyone though, and much as I wish that was true, it’s not that simple.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
As indicated by the government assessment whichever way the UK goes, they are going to be worse off, it just depends on the degree.
All this was classed as scaremongering beforehand, it really wasn't.
Click to expand...

Not really that simple though, a lot of people voted based on wanting sovereignty and don't really care for the financial repurcissions (especially outside of London where a lot of that is based). You see that to an extent now with the vote in Italy swinging to the right and reform parties, mostly due to anti-immigration and anti-EU sentiment.

If it were up to me, I'd just stay due to the financial, co-operation etc benefits, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should simply dismiss other people's concerns, regardless of whether we judge it to be right or wrong, because at the end of the day their vote counts as much as ours.
 
fcbforever said:
Yeah but...now you are out, why should I actually care? We are talking about the investment banking parts here and that can go to hell.
Click to expand...

Lol that would be pretending you actually cared for the UK before we left, and by judging by your posts in this forum over the last few years I sincerely doubt that/

fcbforever said:
Since the City is, quite frankly, toxic and GB was one of the biggest reason we didn't get proper regulation after the last crash, it is likely one of the main goals of the EU to deny the City as much access to the single market as possible. To be honest, I hope they crush it. It's better for everyone. It's the single benefit I see in Brexit.
Click to expand...

That's just anti-UK sentiment and isn't really true. There's no guarantee simply removing the UK from the single market means anything will change. And don't forget the last crash was primarily due to subprime mortgage loans in the US. Of course it spread to the UK and the rest of the world but we weren't at cause for it. I have a lot of friends that work in banking (primarily in tech) and I'd hate to see people's livelihoods lost simply because people are looking to 'punish' the UK. Saying the City is toxic isn't remotely true either. Investment banking serves many useful purposes.
 
marktan said:
Not really that simple though, a lot of people voted based on wanting sovereignty and don't really care for the financial repurcissions (especially outside of London where a lot of that is based). You see that to an extent now with the vote in Italy swinging to the right and reform parties, mostly due to anti-immigration and anti-EU sentiment.

If it were up to me, I'd just stay due to the financial, co-operation etc benefits, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should simply dismiss other people's concerns, regardless of whether we judge it to be right or wrong, because at the end of the day their vote counts as much as ours.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand that there were other reasons including those you stated but the sovereignty question is misleading, I now live in France but the laws here are not the same as in the UK, the majority of laws are decided by the national governments of each country. As for immigration, is it because people just don't like people from another country or is it because they think the immigrants are causing economic problems to the UK which quite clearly is not the case.

Furthermore the UK have complete control over the immigration from outside the EU but the level of immigration from outside the EU is double the limit the government have set as their target, nothing to do with the EU. Moreover, the immigration from outside the EU will almost certainly increase as the immigration from the EU decreases, I doubt this was what the Brexit voters thought they were voting for.

The media in the UK have a great deal of responsibility for misleading the voters. Everyone is entitled to their vote but to vote in a particular way because you have been lied to is what I object to.
 
marktan said:
Lol that would be pretending you actually cared for the UK before we left, and by judging by your posts in this forum over the last few years I sincerely doubt that/



That's just anti-UK sentiment and isn't really true. There's no guarantee simply removing the UK from the single market means anything will change. And don't forget the last crash was primarily due to subprime mortgage loans in the US. Of course it spread to the UK and the rest of the world but we weren't at cause for it. I have a lot of friends that work in banking (primarily in tech) and I'd hate to see people's livelihoods lost simply because people are looking to 'punish' the UK. Saying the City is toxic isn't remotely true either. Investment banking serves many useful purposes.
Click to expand...

You are just salty that people on the continent are now watching out for their own interest just as much as the UK tries to do that for itself. I care about the economical well being of Europe, which included the UK at some point. That was the reason I was against Scottish Independence just as much as I was against Brexit. It doesn't belong to the EU anymore, so you are just a competitor that wants totake advantage and can be taken advantage of. It's in my interest as a European and a German that the EU get's the best deal possible. But with your mighty experience of almost 400 posts on this forum, please tell me more about my views on the UK as part of the EU or as an cmpetitor.

>Investment banking serves many useful purposes.

Some of it, yes. Most of it, no, none at all. It's basically betting and it has been responsible for all major economic downturns during my lifetime. World economy could do without it for the best part of the past 100 years. It doesn't serve systemic purpose but carries systemic risk. That's bad. If a bank is too big to fail, said bank shouldn't exist.
 
3500.jpg


"All my lies have been uncovered and I've been sent back to school for re-education and how to tell the truth"
 
fcbforever said:
Yeah but...now you are out, why should I actually care? We are talking about the investment banking parts here and that can go to hell.
Click to expand...
I see rhe govenor of ING bank just got a 50% payrise despite mark rutte saying if bankers want more money then feck off to London. One financial institution is as poisonous as the next.
 
fcbforever said:
You are just salty that people on the continent are now watching out for their own interest just as much as the UK tries to do that for itself. I care about the economical well being of Europe, which included the UK at some point. That was the reason I was against Scottish Independence just as much as I was against Brexit. It doesn't belong to the EU anymore, so you are just a competitor that wants totake advantage and can be taken advantage of. It's in my interest as a European and a German that the EU get's the best deal possible. But with your mighty experience of almost 400 posts on this forum, please tell me more about my views on the UK as part of the EU or as an cmpetitor.

>Investment banking serves many useful purposes.

Some of it, yes. Most of it, no, none at all. It's basically betting and it has been responsible for all major economic downturns during my lifetime. World economy could do without it for the best part of the past 100 years. It doesn't serve systemic purpose but carries systemic risk. That's bad. If a bank is too big to fail, said bank shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand investment banking at all if you think most of it is betting, which I presume is your way of saying buying/selling stocks, commodities etc the way those firms do in films like Wall Street etc. That's trading which is a subsection of IB. Investment banking is on the whole very varied and is very important to the running of the financial system. They deal with things like underwriting IPOs, debt raising for business / dealing bonds (like getting a mortgage but on a larger scale), dealing with mergers and acquisitions and more. It's crucial to the running of our society today, especially for large businesses, and it's very very false to say the world could've done without for the past 100 years. It exists because there's a need for it. I understand it's fashionable to say 'let's bash bankers', but without understanding what IB actually is it justs comes across as uninformed.

On the rest, idk maybe I'm confusing you with another Bayern supporter, but I'm fairly sure you're the poster who's very pro-German in both footballing threads and in this section. I'm just calling you out on it. But likewise as a Brit I care about the UK, I guess it's natural to be nationalistic. It's just a bit grating reading this thread when it's the same 4-5 pro-EU posters posting over and over again in a derogatory manner towards the UK in a thread that they themselves say is more important to the UK then the EU. Case in point, one of my earlier posts received a reply from 4 people saying the same thing and I'm fairly sure they all quoted me the last time I posted in this thread about 6 months ago. The circle wank is just a bit annoying really.
 
Ramshock said:
Its funny you are very good at replying but refused to interact with me when I brought up the potential conflict in NI.
Click to expand...
Maybe cos its solvable and there will be a solution. The banking world on the other hand isnt. I Did say if noone wants a border dont have one, then people replied that x rules dictate you have to. Ok dont join an org eith those rules in place. Nend the feckin rules.
 
marktan said:
But likewise as a Brit I care about the UK, I guess it's natural to be nationalistic. It's just a bit grating reading this thread when it's the same 4-5 pro-EU posters posting over and over again in a derogatory manner towards the UK in a thread that they themselves say is more important to the UK then the EU. Case in point, one of my earlier posts received a reply from 4 people saying the same thing and I'm fairly sure they all quoted me the last time I posted in this thread about 6 months ago. The circle wank is just a bit annoying really.
Click to expand...

I am a Brit and am disgusted at what a bunch of idiots have done to the country. The reason 4 people said the same thing is because that's what reality is.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalala is not going to change that.
Your words:I'd hope the gov at least threaten to enact tariffs on goods to the detriment of the EU - well done for calling people out.
Living in fantasy land and not wanting to hear or read things you don't want to is not going to solve the mess that Brexit voters have put the UK in.
 
marktan said:
You clearly don't understand investment banking at all if you think most of it is betting, which I presume is your way of saying buying/selling stocks, commodities etc the way those firms do in films like Wall Street etc. That's trading which is a subsection of IB. Investment banking is on the whole very varied and is very important to the running of the financial system. They deal with things like underwriting IPOs, debt raising for business / dealing bonds (like getting a mortgage but on a larger scale), dealing with mergers and acquisitions and more. It's crucial to the running of our society today, especially for large businesses, and it's very very false to say the world could've done without for the past 100 years. It exists because there's a need for it. I understand it's fashionable to say 'let's bash bankers', but without understanding what IB actually is it justs comes across as uninformed.
Click to expand...
80% of what you're describing is just banking, not investment banking.
marktan said:
On the rest, idk maybe I'm confusing you with another Bayern supporter, but I'm fairly sure you're the poster who's very pro-German in both footballing threads and in this section. I'm just calling you out on it. But likewise as a Brit I care about the UK, I guess it's natural to be nationalistic. It's just a bit grating reading this thread when it's the same 4-5 pro-EU posters posting over and over again in a derogatory manner towards the UK in a thread that they themselves say is more important to the UK then the EU. Case in point, one of my earlier posts received a reply from 4 people saying the same thing and I'm fairly sure they all quoted me the last time I posted in this thread about 6 months ago. The circle wank is just a bit annoying really.
Click to expand...
If you think this thread is grating imagine whats it's like to repeatedly, over years, hear UK politicianst lie about the EU, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands etc. Imagine how grating it is that the UK made the liar in chief foreing secretary. Imagine how grating it is when the one member of the club who has the (by far) best deal in the club describing that club in such a way as brexiteers have done.

If being dealt the truth about yourself is grating to you imagine being dealt lies about you.
 
Abizzz said:
80% of what you're describing is just banking, not investment banking.

If you think this thread is grating imagine whats it's like to repeatedly, over years, hear UK politicianst lie about the EU, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands etc. Imagine how grating it is that the UK made the liar in chief foreing secretary. Imagine how grating it is when the one member of the club who has the (by far) best deal in the club describing that club in such a way as brexiteers have done.

If being dealt the truth about yourself is grating to you imagine being dealt lies about you.
Click to expand...

This.

marktan said:
You clearly don't understand investment banking at all if you think most of it is betting, which I presume is your way of saying buying/selling stocks, commodities etc the way those firms do in films like Wall Street etc. That's trading which is a subsection of IB. Investment banking is on the whole very varied and is very important to the running of the financial system. They deal with things like underwriting IPOs, debt raising for business / dealing bonds (like getting a mortgage but on a larger scale), dealing with mergers and acquisitions and more. It's crucial to the running of our society today, especially for large businesses, and it's very very false to say the world could've done without for the past 100 years. It exists because there's a need for it. I understand it's fashionable to say 'let's bash bankers', but without understanding what IB actually is it justs comes across as uninformed.

On the rest, idk maybe I'm confusing you with another Bayern supporter, but I'm fairly sure you're the poster who's very pro-German in both footballing threads and in this section. I'm just calling you out on it. But likewise as a Brit I care about the UK, I guess it's natural to be nationalistic. It's just a bit grating reading this thread when it's the same 4-5 pro-EU posters posting over and over again in a derogatory manner towards the UK in a thread that they themselves say is more important to the UK then the EU. Case in point, one of my earlier posts received a reply from 4 people saying the same thing and I'm fairly sure they all quoted me the last time I posted in this thread about 6 months ago. The circle wank is just a bit annoying really.
Click to expand...

Telling me "how I don't have a clue about IB" and then spelling out how you don't have any clue about it is quite funny to be honest.
 
Stanley Road said:
I see rhe govenor of ING bank just got a 50% payrise despite mark rutte saying if bankers want more money then feck off to London. One financial institution is as poisonous as the next.
Click to expand...

That's a taxation issue and very much a national one and has got little to nothing to do with how banks are run. In general, most contemporary banks in Europe have been just as bad as the English ones in the past 30 years. They have largely left the truly hazardous markets since then though. But if we really want to get thorough change in the banking sector, the most important part is to throw the UK finance sector out it. Because there's zero will to increase regulation in the UK and it has been adamant in it's defense. Without London, we might have a chance. As I said, likely he only positive outcome of this.
 
Stanley Road said:
Maybe cos its solvable and there will be a solution. The banking world on the other hand isnt. I Did say if noone wants a border dont have one, then people replied that x rules dictate you have to. Ok dont join an org eith those rules in place. Nend the feckin rules.
Click to expand...

Its solvable, spoken like a man who doesnt know or give a shit about it
 
Yeah, this just reminds me why I've been avoiding this thread for so long. You guys enjoy yourselves.
 
marktan said:
Yeah, this just reminds me why I've been avoiding this thread for so long. You guys enjoy yourselves.
Click to expand...

Same as last time, remember you demanding I answer your question even though I already had but when the answers didn't suit your agenda you disappeared, hope your head doesn't go too deep in the sand.
 
fcbforever said:
That's a taxation issue and very much a national one and has got little to nothing to do with how banks are run. In general, most contemporary banks in Europe have been just as bad as the English ones in the past 30 years. They have largely left the truly hazardous markets since then though. But if we really want to get thorough change in the banking sector, the most important part is to throw the UK finance sector out it. Because there's zero will to increase regulation in the UK and it has been adamant in it's defense. Without London, we might have a chance. As I said, likely he only positive outcome of this.
Click to expand...
I'm sure their employees on 1.7% payrises would not agree. The bank was bailed out with my money ffs. I hope all banks collapse one day.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Same as last time, remember you demanding I answer your question even though I already had but when the answers didn't suit your agenda you disappeared, hope your head doesn't go too deep in the sand.
Click to expand...

This thread is literally just you EU lads dying to push down any semi pro-UK opinion, ironically in a thread about a topic that should matter more to the UK than the EU. As I say, enjoy yourself.

FFS I posted a perfectly valid description of Investment Banking, having read a 150 page book on investment banking a few years back when I was like 17, I still have the notes I made on paper and that book in the room I'm in now. I talk to people working in IB all the time and myself am involved with quite a few different investments. And yet what do you get? Apparently my description of IB means I know nothing about IB.

That's exactly what I mean, this thread is incredibly, incredibly tedious. Probably the most partisan thread I've come across on this forum.
 
marktan said:
This thread is literally just you EU lads dying to push down any semi pro-UK opinion, ironically in a thread about a topic that should matter more to the UK than the EU. As I say, enjoy yourself.

FFS I posted a perfectly valid description of Investment Banking, having read a 150 page book on investment banking a few years back when I was like 17, I still have the notes I made on paper and that book in the room I'm in now. I talk to people working in IB all the time and myself am involved with quite a few different investments. And yet what do you get? Apparently my description of IB means I know nothing about IB.

That's exactly what I mean, this thread is incredibly, incredibly tedious. Probably the most partisan thread I've come across on this forum.
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on the investment banking.

On the pro-Eu part , yes I'm in favour of the EU as are the majority of the other posters on here but I don't see anyone hoping the UK crashes and burns, in fact it's the opposite, quite dumbfounded that the Uk should decide to harm itself so much. The vitriol only seems to come from the Leavers hoping the EU destroys itself. I hope the UK succeeds, everyone's entitled to their opinion but truth should be at the top of the agenda not lies. For example, saying that aspirations of having financial deal is impossible without being in the CU/SM is not an anti-UK statement or a pro-EU statement , it's a statement of fact that was known prior to the referendum but which Leavers chose to ignore.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I'm not commenting on the investment banking.

On the pro-Eu part , yes I'm in favour of the EU as are the majority of the other posters on here but I don't see anyone hoping the UK crashes and burns, in fact it's the opposite, quite dumbfounded that the Uk should decide to harm itself so much. The vitriol only seems to come from the Leavers hoping the EU destroys itself. I hope the UK succeeds, everyone's entitled to their opinion but truth should be at the top of the agenda not lies. For example, saying that aspirations of having financial deal is impossible without being in the CU/SM is not an anti-UK statement or a pro-EU statement , it's a statement of fact that was known prior to the referendum but which Leavers chose to ignore.
Click to expand...

The investment banking point was an illustration of the tediousness of this thread.

"I don't see anyone hoping the UK crashes and burns"

"The vitriol only seems to come from the Leavers hoping the EU destroys itself"

"but truth should be at the top of the agenda not lies"

Sigh..

Also don't know why you're referring to the CU/SM again, I've already advocated remaining in it as it solves a lot of issues in one of my previous lengthier-posts. Also find it funny how your refer to 'Leavers' as somehow being the ignorants in this thread, when this thread is distinctly bereft of anyone but what the other side would call 'remoaners'.
 
@marktan You advocating for CU/SM is pointless when Theresa May has ruled it out. Judging by your posts I'd have no problem if you did the negotiations, but you are not. Those that are come up with stuff like this
EU chiefs have been compared by Liam Fox and Arlene Foster to gang leaders who are “throwing threats of violence around” to get what they want on Brexit.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-chiefs-issuing-threats-to-secure-brexit-deal

Blatant lies from those representing the UK side on more days than not.

Edit: There's a reason no leavers stick around anymore. After 564 pages pretty much all of their arguments have been taken apart.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
Which part, I think I missed it?
Click to expand...

Well he was speaking about how the EU should make it as difficult as possible to leave to deter its citizens from ever having the nerve to do so again. Doesn’t that kind of language open your eyes a little bit? The main reason the UK has voted to leave is because nobody knows what is going on, how we are being governed and who by.

People can come on redcafe and shout racist and blue passports all they like, but they need to wake up and grow up.
 
Steven Seagull said:
Well he was speaking about how the EU should make it as difficult as possible to leave to deter its citizens from ever having the nerve to do so again. Doesn’t that kind of language open your eyes a little bit? The main reason the UK has voted to leave is because nobody knows what is going on, how we are being governed and who by.

People can come on redcafe and shout racist and blue passports all they like, but they need to wake up and grow up.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell he said that he wanted a Brexit without cherry picking and that doesn't give the impression that being outside is more interesting than being inside. And was linked to this statement too, “We cannot grant the rights of Norway with the obligations of Canada. There’s no prospect of exclusive access to the Single Market."

Maybe you are talking about something else, otherwise your post is at the very least dishonest in his tone.
 
Steven Seagull said:
Well he was speaking about how the EU should make it as difficult as possible to leave to deter its citizens from ever having the nerve to do so again. Doesn’t that kind of language open your eyes a little bit? The main reason the UK has voted to leave is because nobody knows what is going on, how we are being governed and who by.

People can come on redcafe and shout racist and blue passports all they like, but they need to wake up and grow up.
Click to expand...

Inform yourself then. The British public have been spoonfed this information the past 3 years. You really think trading in the transperancy of the EU for the transperancy of the 1922 committee improves things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.