Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
I find Hammond's speech quite entertaining. On one hand he urges the EU's to maintain its spirit in tearing down walls which, in his opinion, is necessary to keep frictionless trades in the financial market. On the other hand he fail to mention Brexit which is everything about raising walls to immigrants and taking control away from the very EU that had been tearing such walls.

In my opinion they can only be one feasable deal. A transition period of 2 years in exchange of the UK paying its dues (which will give the UK time to sign trade deals) followed by hard brexit. If any deal is going to be made then it would be done once the UK leaves the EU and becomes a third country.
 
Last edited:
marktan said:
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'.
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's tedious because people don't agree with you, when people put points that disagree with your view you just ignore them and don't address them.
You said that the EU should give the UK a deal on financial services, the UK PM has ruled out being in the CU/SM so the UK cannot have a deal on financial services, that's not because I say it, it's not because the EU says it, that's the rules so the only person who has ruled that deal out is the UK PM but you want to punish the EU because the UK don't want to abide by the rules.

You have addressed none of the other points I raised in reply to your post about sovereignty and immigration.

The enemy of the UK is not the EU, it's not remainers, it's the people like Johnson, Farage, Rees-Mogg who have conned the British people into believing a pack of lies and the voters who voted Brexit are complicit in those lies.

The Leavers have gradually left this thread, there are still a few, but every single argument put forward has been shown to be empty nonsense.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Ok. Now tell me about your point from a brexit perspective.
Click to expand...

It's off topic, few posters expressed their disapproval of banking which made me think, "Surely they are thinking about shadow banking. By the way, how big is it in European financial places?".
 
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...

That's fair enough. What many on the continent can't understand is why the UK would leave this horrible institution and yet still expect if not demand to be as close to it as possible. That does stinks of opportunism and cherry picking
 
Paul the Wolf said:
So you're saying it's tedious because people don't agree with you, when people put points that disagree with your view you just ignore them and don't address them.
You said that the EU should give the UK a deal on financial services, the UK PM has ruled out being in the CU/SM so the UK cannot have a deal on financial services, that's not because I say it, it's not because the EU says it, that's the rules so the only person who has ruled that deal out is the UK PM but you want to punish the EU because the UK don't want to abide by the rules.

You have addressed none of the other points I raised in reply to your post about sovereignty and immigration.

The enemy of the UK is not the EU, it's not remainers, it's the people like Johnson, Farage, Rees-Mogg who have conned the British people into believing a pack of lies and the voters who voted Brexit are complicit in those lies.

The Leavers have gradually left this thread, there are still a few, but every single argument put forward has been shown to be empty nonsense.
Click to expand...

The point about the tediousness is that I get replies from someone who has no clue how banking works, so I give them a fairly long description of it, and they give me a one line reply telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I've already replied on the CU/SM point before. What were the other points on sovereignity and immigration? The ones from 6 months ago? I stopped replying because of precisely this: "but every single argument put forward has been shown to be empty nonsense."

There's no point discussing something with someone who's convinced their opinion is the right one.
 
marktan said:
The point about the tediousness is that I get replies from someone who has no clue how banking works, so I give them a fairly long description of it, and they give me a one line reply telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I've already replied on the CU/SM point before. What were the other points on sovereignity and immigration? The ones from 6 months ago? I stopped replying because of precisely this: "but every single argument put forward has been shown to be empty nonsense."

There's no point discussing something with someone who's convinced their opinion is the right one.
Click to expand...

You were not just moaning about the banking argument, you were moaning because four people gave you exactly the same answer, not an opinion answer, a factual answer.
There's a difference between an opinion and an unquestionable fact, I could say author x is a great writer and you could say someone else is better, that's an opinion.
If you say the UK will save £350m a week by leaving the EU, government figures will say the amount is about £154m - not an opinion , a fact. This is the type of nonsense I'm referring to.

The post I'm referring to is from yesterday not 6 months ago but as I said "nonsense" today your reasoning doesn't make sense.

I also do not understand why you think us and other remainers are anti-UK, this makes no sense either. The whole point is that we don't want the UK to be damaged by Leavers.
 
JPRouve said:
It's off topic, few posters expressed their disapproval of banking which made me think, "Surely they are thinking about shadow banking. By the way, how big is it in European financial places?".
Click to expand...

Not sure about Europe specifically, but I'd say it about 7-8% of overall financial services industry and growing. This is mostly concentrated around lending and wealth management products. Post crisis, banks have become very conservative around mortgage lending party by having burnt their fingers and partly by a incredibly demanding regulatory oversight. The scale has swung a bit too much to other side (in my opinion) that it has affected mortgage lending that would have been considered safe under normal circumstances. As people can't get access to mortgage (without paying 20% down, or without having higher rates due to lesser credit scores etc) most non-banking companies have jumped in to fill the gap.

But like any other unregulated financial services industry, I'm very sceptical on these shadow lenders. Ability of banks to lend towards mortgage needs to be enhanced by a slight relaxation of regulations and there really need to be a more stringent oversight over these non-bank lenders.

Yes, shadow banking is a risk waiting to happen...but it is a misnomer as it happens outside of traditional banking industry (a popular misconception).
 
fcbforever said:
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...

God save the queen!
 
Seen the latest analysis suggests even with a good deal with the E.U. established, our food prices will go up by 10-20% post-Brexit. Awesome news.

Later on, we'll be getting our meat from that shit-hole that is the U.S. too. Even more awesome news. I enjoy tortured, drugged up animal meat as much as the next person.

It's really starting to come home just how great this is for the lower classes. The folks who struggle to pay for food already and whose diets are shite already. Really going to improve the country when this kicks in, I can feel it.
 
The tariffs introduced by Trump on EU products will also affect the UK while it's still in the EU. Another cause for discord or a reason to speed up Brexit as the UK will try to negotiate an exclusive exemption.
 
Minimalist said:
Seen the latest analysis suggests even with a good deal with the E.U. established, our food prices will go up by 10-20% post-Brexit. Awesome news.

Later on, we'll be getting our meat from that shit-hole that is the U.S. too. Even more awesome news. I enjoy tortured, drugged up animal meat as much as the next person.

It's really starting to come home just how great this is for the lower classes. The folks who struggle to pay for food already and whose diets are shite already. Really going to improve the country when this kicks in, I can feel it.
Click to expand...
Not to mention how this Brexit idea was in no way concocted by rich cnuts who wanted to pay less taxes not at all.
 
This is, in fact, a classic example of why we need to be in the EU. A union of smaller states who together can tell the US what they have to give to get a deal from us, not just accept whatever shite they offer
 
marktan said:
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...
That's a tad disingenuous. I'm sure you know that investment banks' repackaging of sub-prime debt was a major cause of the financial crisis, albeit not the only one.

I agree it would be idiotic to damage the UK's financial services industry, but sadly that's where we're at. The vast bulk of major fund group CEOs I've spoken to are having to beef up either their Dublin or Lux operations ahead of Brexit.
 
Jippy said:
That's a tad disingenuous. I'm sure you know that investment banks' repackaging of sub-prime debt was a major cause of the financial crisis, albeit not the only one.

I agree it would be idiotic to damage the UK's financial services industry, but sadly that's where we're at. The vast bulk of major fund group CEOs I've spoken to are having to beef up either their Dublin or Lux operations ahead of Brexit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the point I was more trying to make (but didn't explain very well) is that the debt being handled was primarily American, and although a lot of British banks were involved in handling that debt, reducing the size of the City of London (as was being argued would be a good thing in this thread) wouldn't have meant that American banks (and EU ones) would've suddenly stopped dealing in that debt (if we imagine a scenario 10 years ago where London had a reduced financial services industry). I guess you could maybe make a case for saying that fewer players = less systematic risk as I doubt the remaining banks would've increased their risk to take up the equivalent deals vacated by the reduced UK banks, but I don't know enough about the debt figures for each bank to really quantify that.

It's a weird one for me regards to the City of London & Brexit. I live quite close to the City, so selfishly I don't want it to boom currently as I want to buy a property around here / have younger siblings here too, which maybe leaving the single market would help with. But then looking past my own personal interests, long-term obviously wouldn't want the City to lose it's competitive advantage for London and the country as a whole. If there was a way to quantify how many jobs stand to be lost in total relative to the total remaining size of financial services (everything not being moved elsewhere / not related to the EU), and then also estimate how much business say over the next 10-30 years would go to EU cities that could've come here instead, that would help me forming a more informed opinion. (Was reading a post on Quora that sort of does that, but obviously opinionated: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-inevita...e-world-following-Brexit/answer/Barney-Lane-1) Right now I'm in the weird camp of being afraid of a major long-term weakening but also thinking we could tough it out / selfishly wanting the short-term shocks. Imo just remaining in the singles market and customs union looks like it would be the easiest solution to everything, but then you're no longer able to regulate immigration so you hit another stumbling block.
 
Mozza said:
As a small nation we'll end up with a worse deal then the EU
Click to expand...

That's very much up for debate I feel. Whilst the logic usually should stand, in this case the reverse I think holds weight. A big reason Trump's suddenly thrown a hissy fit and enacted tariffs on steel/aluminium is to do with trade balances (more aptly trade deficits in this case). He's repeatedly called out China, Mexico and Canada (maybe the EU too, but can't recall) on the trade deficits the US has with them (like the whole of this week on twitter).



Unless my numbers are mistaken, the US net exports around $40b of services to the EU, but net imports $120b of good from the EU, leaving it with a trade deficit of $80b per year. We on the other hand I believe have a trade balance that's almost neutral with the US, with over the last 10 years it fluctuating between us having a trade surplus and a trade deficit with them. The EU's this week threatened to enact tariffs on goods like Levi Jeans and a couple of things from the US, but the resulting action from the US could see them lose out as they net export $120b of goods to the US. Something like 25% to 40% of BMW's sales are in the USA as an exmaple, so tit for tat action could very well end up being detrimental to the EU, as likewise a trade deal could end up being to reduce that trade deficit. The UK on the other hand has the more neutral trade balance in its favour, and I guess whatever good-will exists from Trump from his earlier posturing that we'd be at the front of the queue for a trade deal (which I'd take with a pinch of salt, I don't think Trump really cares much about the UK at all).
 
If having a trade surplus is the only way of him showing the US is winning why would he let the UK have one?

Besides which he's unreliable, how long before he has another hissy fit because he has a domestic audience to placate? The EU with its rules and regulations is the opposite
 
marktan said:
Yeah, the point I was more trying to make (but didn't explain very well) is that the debt being handled was primarily American, and although a lot of British banks were involved in handling that debt, reducing the size of the City of London (as was being argued would be a good thing in this thread) wouldn't have meant that American banks (and EU ones) would've suddenly stopped dealing in that debt (if we imagine a scenario 10 years ago where London had a reduced financial services industry). I guess you could maybe make a case for saying that fewer players = less systematic risk as I doubt the remaining banks would've increased their risk to take up the equivalent deals vacated by the reduced UK banks, but I don't know enough about the debt figures for each bank to really quantify that.

It's a weird one for me regards to the City of London & Brexit. I live quite close to the City, so selfishly I don't want it to boom currently as I want to buy a property around here / have younger siblings here too, which maybe leaving the single market would help with. But then looking past my own personal interests, long-term obviously wouldn't want the City to lose it's competitive advantage for London and the country as a whole. If there was a way to quantify how many jobs stand to be lost in total relative to the total remaining size of financial services (everything not being moved elsewhere / not related to the EU), and then also estimate how much business say over the next 10-30 years would go to EU cities that could've come here instead, that would help me forming a more informed opinion. (Was reading a post on Quora that sort of does that, but obviously opinionated: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-inevita...e-world-following-Brexit/answer/Barney-Lane-1) Right now I'm in the weird camp of being afraid of a major long-term weakening but also thinking we could tough it out / selfishly wanting the short-term shocks. Imo just remaining in the singles market and customs union looks like it would be the easiest solution to everything, but then you're no longer able to regulate immigration so you hit another stumbling block.
Click to expand...
I think fewer banks equals more concentrated risk, surely. Appreciate sub-prime morphed into a global issue, but that's an aside.

London will clearly survive as a trading centre and few want to move to Frankfurt, which is unappealing to many.

If we lose euro clearing it will inevitably be a big hit. JPM's boss has been fiercely anti-Brexit on this.
Prestige of the City will also depend on whether we deregulate to be competitive- running twin regimes within companies so certain departments have EU parity will be a nightmare though.

Let's see if we drop our knickers for Aramco.

I understand your property views. Despite us being an investment-focused mag, our features editor is dying for a crash, so he can afford to buy. If said crash doesn't reach W14, then fine by me!
 
Mozza said:
If having a trade surplus is the only way of him showing the US is winning why would he let the UK have one?

Besides which he's unreliable, how long before he has another hissy fit because he has a domestic audience to placate? The EU with its rules and regulations is the opposite
Click to expand...

When was the last time the USA had a trade surplus, certainly not in the last 25 years?
If the Uk get a transitional deal, they could well be leaving the EU at the same time Trump leaves office.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You were not just moaning about the banking argument, you were moaning because four people gave you exactly the same answer, not an opinion answer, a factual answer.
There's a difference between an opinion and an unquestionable fact, I could say author x is a great writer and you could say someone else is better, that's an opinion.
If you say the UK will save £350m a week by leaving the EU, government figures will say the amount is about £154m - not an opinion , a fact. This is the type of nonsense I'm referring to.

The post I'm referring to is from yesterday not 6 months ago but as I said "nonsense" today your reasoning doesn't make sense.

I also do not understand why you think us and other remainers are anti-UK, this makes no sense either. The whole point is that we don't want the UK to be damaged by Leavers.
Click to expand...

Well 'moaning' is really not true at all nor is the lack of anti-UK sentiment.

4 of you replied to my post being adamant that the rules wouldn't be changed on financial services, which would usually be obvious, but the sole point I made when entering this thread was perhaps try and use the goods trade balance as leverage. Anyhow, agreeing with you guys that maybe nothing could be done, I replied saying personally I wouldn't mind remaining in the SM/CU - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22263778

You then made the point that we'd be worse off leaving the single market, and that this was wrongly dismissed as scare mongering, I replied simply saying that it wasn't that simple because clearly voters had other issues on their minds aside from the economic positives/negatives. You then replied going into a tangent about immigration & sovereignity with various different arguments, but I didn't reply because the examples of sovereignty and immigration were simply to illustrate other issues voters could've cared about, not because I wanted to go in-depth and discuss those two issues. I mean I could, but it's been done before and it's not relevant to the current discussion (again simply used to illustrate that voters cared about various issues, rightly or wrongly). https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22264376

Fcb then came into this thread saying that the City is toxic and how he hope the UK fades, I replied explaining how Investment Banking is useful (which he then laughed off). Yes, I got a bit annoyed in my second paragraph, but it's just a bit annoying when you're the sole opinion on one side in a thread and you're receiving multiple replies from everyone else in this thread. And yes the anti-UK sentiment did annoy me
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22265102

You then decided to reply to my reply to him saying I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and living in La La Land. https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22265156

So yeah, to recap, simply came in this thread to make a point about using trade balance as leverage, received replies from you guys, partially agreed with you, then fcb came into this thread and made remarks about wanting the UK to fail and the City to wither etc, which is the impression you get extends to most EU-based posters in this thread (though they're more subtle about it). So I simply called you guys out on it, and we're here now. I guess my fault for taking issue with anti-UK sentiment, I should've expected it when entering this thread. I'll refrain next time as the back and forth really isn't worth anyone's time (as illustrated by how long this post is lol).
 
marktan said:
That's very much up for debate I feel. Whilst the logic usually should stand, in this case the reverse I think holds weight. A big reason Trump's suddenly thrown a hissy fit and enacted tariffs on steel/aluminium is to do with trade balances (more aptly trade deficits in this case). He's repeatedly called out China, Mexico and Canada (maybe the EU too, but can't recall) on the trade deficits the US has with them (like the whole of this week on twitter).



Unless my numbers are mistaken, the US net exports around $40b of services to the EU, but net imports $120b of good from the EU, leaving it with a trade deficit of $80b per year. We on the other hand I believe have a trade balance that's almost neutral with the US, with over the last 10 years it fluctuating between us having a trade surplus and a trade deficit with them. The EU's this week threatened to enact tariffs on goods like Levi Jeans and a couple of things from the US, but the resulting action from the US could see them lose out as they net export $120b of goods to the US. Something like 25% to 40% of BMW's sales are in the USA as an exmaple, so tit for tat action could very well end up being detrimental to the EU, as likewise a trade deal could end up being to reduce that trade deficit. The UK on the other hand has the more neutral trade balance in its favour, and I guess whatever good-will exists from Trump from his earlier posturing that we'd be at the front of the queue for a trade deal (which I'd take with a pinch of salt, I don't think Trump really cares much about the UK at all).
Click to expand...


One thing that surprises me about the Trump steel tariff debate in the media is that no one has made the point that Bush did the same thing. Probably for the same reason a midterm election bump. I haven't heard anyone in the media or here even mention this fact. It's like a collective memory loss.
 
marktan said:
Well 'moaning' is really not true at all nor is the lack of anti-UK sentiment.

4 of you replied to my post being adamant that the rules wouldn't be changed on financial services, which would usually be obvious, but the sole point I made when entering this thread was perhaps try and use the goods trade balance as leverage. Anyhow, agreeing with you guys that maybe nothing could be done, I replied saying personally I wouldn't mind remaining in the SM/CU - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22263778

You then made the point that we'd be worse off leaving the single market, and that this was wrongly dismissed as scare mongering, I replied simply saying that it wasn't that simple because clearly voters had other issues on their minds aside from the economic positives/negatives. You then replied going into a tangent about immigration & sovereignity with various different arguments, but I didn't reply because the examples of sovereignty and immigration were simply to illustrate other issues voters could've cared about, not because I wanted to go in-depth and discuss those two issues. I mean I could, but it's been done before and it's not relevant to the current discussion (again simply used to illustrate that voters cared about various issues, rightly or wrongly). https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22264376

Fcb then came into this thread saying that the City is toxic and how he hope the UK fades, I replied explaining how Investment Banking is useful (which he then laughed off). Yes, I got a bit annoyed in my second paragraph, but it's just a bit annoying when you're the sole opinion on one side in a thread and you're receiving multiple replies from everyone else in this thread. And yes the anti-UK sentiment did annoy me
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22265102

You then decided to reply to my reply to him saying I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and living in La La Land. https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22265156

So yeah, to recap, simply came in this thread to make a point about using trade balance as leverage, received replies from you guys, partially agreed with you, then fcb came into this thread and made remarks about wanting the UK to fail and the City to wither etc, which is the impression you get extends to most EU-based posters in this thread (though they're more subtle about it). So I simply called you guys out on it, and we're here now. I guess my fault for taking issue with anti-UK sentiment, I should've expected it when entering this thread. I'll refrain next time as the back and forth really isn't worth anyone's time (as illustrated by how long this post is lol).
Click to expand...

I agreed with you that the CU/SM was the solution for a financial services deal (and the Irish border) but it's the UK government who has ruled this out. The EU have stated nth times that they are not changing the rules which would obviously be suicidal anyway.

At the moment the UK are one of the EU team, however, what FCB was getting at was that once the UK has left the EU they become a rival competitor so naturally if you're living in the UK you want the UK to do better and if you're living in the EU you want the countries in the EU to prosper and thus when the UK does leave, France gaining out of the UK's loss will be more beneficial to myself even if in a very modest way.

The threat of damage to the UK is 7 times that of the EU, it's not an opinion , been through this numerous times before with facts.

What all of us would prefer is that the UK remain in the EU for the benefit of all of us.
 
devilish said:
That's fair enough. What many on the continent can't understand is why the UK would leave this horrible institution and yet still expect if not demand to be as close to it as possible. That does stinks of opportunism and cherry picking
Click to expand...

Money. The end
Abizzz said:
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?
Click to expand...

So anti EU sentiment only came about 3 years ago? People have been raising these issues for 20+ years and they were only thrust into the spotlight of our pathetic media recently. Unless you think reading the BBC app on your phone means you’re getting an unbiased view
 
JPRouve said:
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.
Click to expand...

It’s always the same though. The same people speaking about how they will carry on with the project no matter the result of the Italian election. Where is the introspection? The arrogance is astounding
 
Steven Seagull said:
So anti EU sentiment only came about 3 years ago?
Click to expand...
That is not what I said. Do you doubt that the coverage about the EU became more intense/frequent in said time period?
Steven Seagull said:
People have been raising these issues for 20+ years and they were only thrust into the spotlight of our pathetic media recently. Unless you think reading the BBC app on your phone means you’re getting an unbiased view
Click to expand...
Again, do you honestly believe the UK is more transparent than the EU? There are obviously legitimate problems with the EU (which should be addressed, the sooner the better). It wasn't those that have been raised for 20 years and thrust in the spotlight though, those were and are largely fabrications.
 
Steven Seagull said:
It’s always the same though. The same people speaking about how they will carry on with the project no matter the result of the Italian election. Where is the introspection? The arrogance is astounding
Click to expand...

The only thing the eu can be blamed about that is their reluctance in helping Italy regarding the immigration problem. Basically the EU just throw some money at the problem and expect italy to do the rest

Thats not completely its fault though. When germany suggested a solid burden sharing mechanism were every country got his share all hell went loose. Even the UK was not too happy about it.

So unless you suggest pushback to a war torn country or the removal of the dublin treaty which many northern European countries cling to for protection than there is very little the EU can do to help italy.

May i remind you that m5s and la lega had both changed their stance against the EU for obvious reason
 
Steven Seagull said:
Money. The end
Click to expand...

Well if money talks then you can't really blame the eu for putting its own interest ahead of that of the UK especially considering the multiple red lines the UK had imposed in such discussions
 
marktan said:
Well 'moaning' is really not true at all nor is the lack of anti-UK sentiment.

4 of you replied to my post being adamant that the rules wouldn't be changed on financial services, which would usually be obvious, but the sole point I made when entering this thread was perhaps try and use the goods trade balance as leverage. Anyhow, agreeing with you guys that maybe nothing could be done, I replied saying personally I wouldn't mind remaining in the SM/CU - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22263778

You then made the point that we'd be worse off leaving the single market, and that this was wrongly dismissed as scare mongering, I replied simply saying that it wasn't that simple because clearly voters had other issues on their minds aside from the economic positives/negatives. You then replied going into a tangent about immigration & sovereignity with various different arguments, but I didn't reply because the examples of sovereignty and immigration were simply to illustrate other issues voters could've cared about, not because I wanted to go in-depth and discuss those two issues. I mean I could, but it's been done before and it's not relevant to the current discussion (again simply used to illustrate that voters cared about various issues, rightly or wrongly). https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22264376

Fcb then came into this thread saying that the City is toxic and how he hope the UK fades, I replied explaining how Investment Banking is useful (which he then laughed off). Yes, I got a bit annoyed in my second paragraph, but it's just a bit annoying when you're the sole opinion on one side in a thread and you're receiving multiple replies from everyone else in this thread. And yes the anti-UK sentiment did annoy me
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22265102

You then decided to reply to my reply to him saying I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and living in La La Land. https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22265156

So yeah, to recap, simply came in this thread to make a point about using trade balance as leverage, received replies from you guys, partially agreed with you, then fcb came into this thread and made remarks about wanting the UK to fail and the City to wither etc, which is the impression you get extends to most EU-based posters in this thread (though they're more subtle about it). So I simply called you guys out on it, and we're here now. I guess my fault for taking issue with anti-UK sentiment, I should've expected it when entering this thread. I'll refrain next time as the back and forth really isn't worth anyone's time (as illustrated by how long this post is lol).
Click to expand...

I don't want the city to wither away. However it does seem unavoidable considering the UK's multiple red lines. (Leaving the EU, no customs union, no access to the single market, no FOM)

Basically if you shoot at your leg multiple times and then you refuse to go to hospital until it turned black can you really blame the doctor for losing it?
 
Ffs, every time I start warming to Corbyn he lets me down over Brexit again. I get that he isn’t an EU fan, but his party predominantly is.
 
marktan said:
Well 'moaning' is really not true at all nor is the lack of anti-UK sentiment.

4 of you replied to my post being adamant that the rules wouldn't be changed on financial services, which would usually be obvious, but the sole point I made when entering this thread was perhaps try and use the goods trade balance as leverage. Anyhow, agreeing with you guys that maybe nothing could be done, I replied saying personally I wouldn't mind remaining in the SM/CU - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22263778

You then made the point that we'd be worse off leaving the single market, and that this was wrongly dismissed as scare mongering, I replied simply saying that it wasn't that simple because clearly voters had other issues on their minds aside from the economic positives/negatives. You then replied going into a tangent about immigration & sovereignity with various different arguments, but I didn't reply because the examples of sovereignty and immigration were simply to illustrate other issues voters could've cared about, not because I wanted to go in-depth and discuss those two issues. I mean I could, but it's been done before and it's not relevant to the current discussion (again simply used to illustrate that voters cared about various issues, rightly or wrongly). https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22264376

Fcb then came into this thread saying that the City is toxic and how he hope the UK fades, I replied explaining how Investment Banking is useful (which he then laughed off). Yes, I got a bit annoyed in my second paragraph, but it's just a bit annoying when you're the sole opinion on one side in a thread and you're receiving multiple replies from everyone else in this thread. And yes the anti-UK sentiment did annoy me
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22265102

You then decided to reply to my reply to him saying I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and living in La La Land. https://www.redcafe.net/threads/har...-winning-thread.418898/page-563#post-22265156

So yeah, to recap, simply came in this thread to make a point about using trade balance as leverage, received replies from you guys, partially agreed with you, then fcb came into this thread and made remarks about wanting the UK to fail and the City to wither etc, which is the impression you get extends to most EU-based posters in this thread (though they're more subtle about it). So I simply called you guys out on it, and we're here now. I guess my fault for taking issue with anti-UK sentiment, I should've expected it when entering this thread. I'll refrain next time as the back and forth really isn't worth anyone's time (as illustrated by how long this post is lol).
Click to expand...

I never said I wanted the UK to fail. I ... quite simply don’t care all that much and I do think that Brexit was a stupid decision for everyone. If Britiain does well, hurray as well. Although I don’t see any way this is ending well, but that doesn‘t matter. I then just simply continued by saying that banking regulation, in return killing parts of the City, would be at least something beneficial the EU might get out of it as everyone apart from the UK wanted more regulation for years. Seeing as what seem to be the red lines for the UK gouvernment, there’s no, absolutely no reason to give you access to our financial markets. Your, and not only your gouverments position but yours personally, point of view is that you should get a trade deal and access for your financial services without giving anything in return. Quite frankly, that’s just an expectation I have to wonder about. Seeing what you think investment banking is, that might explain it a bit at least.
 
Kentonio said:
Ffs, every time I start warming to Corbyn he lets me down over Brexit again. I get that he isn’t an EU fan, but his party predominantly is.
Click to expand...

In terms of the UK relationship with the EU, he's no different to the likes of May, Bojo and co. He thinks that the EU will allow him to cherry pick if he smiles and ask nicely
 
Kentonio said:
Ffs, every time I start warming to Corbyn he lets me down over Brexit again. I get that he isn’t an EU fan, but his party predominantly is.
Click to expand...

It's been obvious since well before the referendum that he's quite happy to leave the EU.
He has his fair share of blame why Leave won the referendum.
Apart from anything else he wants to nationalise everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.