BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
The budget used to be annually in mid-March. Who even knows when the last one was let alone when the 3rd one from now will be.pblakeney said:
You might well see that nationwide within 3 budgets.surrey_commuter said:
I agree with you about the ones who have fallen through the safety net but if all Govt spending was cut who do you think would suffer the most?morstar said:
I’m not making their argument. I’m explaining it.surrey_commuter said:
or you could mock up what Govt spending would look like with no taxes from FS and overall taxes down 7% Maybe shut some schools and redistribute the kids around those that are left, maybe slice 15% off pensions, welfare and housing benefit, maybe collect the bins less frequently?morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
if we did this experiment in mackemland everybody else could learn that we are all in the same boat and that those that those most dependent on the State have most to lose from "their" economy slowing down
Unless the economy totally collapses, those at the very bottom will lose very little as they are already at the bottom and there is little left to lose.
The gaps, losses and costs will be borne elsewhere.
Your argument is sound but intangible to somebody disenfranchised.
However, trickledown economics are not delivering equity. This applies irrespective of Brexit and is a significant issue society needs to tackle.
Homelessness and foodbanks are real.
The top 1% will have private education/healthcare and paying for additional security.
I am proposing an experiment in a small Brexit supporting area where you cut all Govt spending by 15% to let them and others see that “their” economy is “their” economy0 -
The thing with trickle down and the hunt for minimal tax that I don't get is for every bill gates their must be a hundred guys that wanted the same but did not make it. I don't get why people can't get on board with a flat X percent tax rate that balances the books with no exceptions. Essentially it is just the rules for entry into any countries market for both people and companies. This should really be checked in a functional democracy bit we don't seem to get anywhere.0
-
We have large corporations with real tax rates of 1-5% and an alarming accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. The bottom line is that we have a population that even if you removed the bulk of their earnings you would not cover the cost of the society they live in. It is pretty broken as a model if we are being honest.ddraver said:'cos it makes the problem you're trying to solve even worse...
0 -
The Telegraph seems to be getting very twitchy and aggressive, for the paper that backs Brexit and the Tory Party...
0 -
Okay go for the upcoming +1.surrey_commuter said:
The budget used to be annually in mid-March. Who even knows when the last one was let alone when the 3rd one from now will be.pblakeney said:
You might well see that nationwide within 3 budgets.surrey_commuter said:
I agree with you about the ones who have fallen through the safety net but if all Govt spending was cut who do you think would suffer the most?morstar said:
I’m not making their argument. I’m explaining it.surrey_commuter said:
or you could mock up what Govt spending would look like with no taxes from FS and overall taxes down 7% Maybe shut some schools and redistribute the kids around those that are left, maybe slice 15% off pensions, welfare and housing benefit, maybe collect the bins less frequently?morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
if we did this experiment in mackemland everybody else could learn that we are all in the same boat and that those that those most dependent on the State have most to lose from "their" economy slowing down
Unless the economy totally collapses, those at the very bottom will lose very little as they are already at the bottom and there is little left to lose.
The gaps, losses and costs will be borne elsewhere.
Your argument is sound but intangible to somebody disenfranchised.
However, trickledown economics are not delivering equity. This applies irrespective of Brexit and is a significant issue society needs to tackle.
Homelessness and foodbanks are real.
The top 1% will have private education/healthcare and paying for additional security.
I am proposing an experiment in a small Brexit supporting area where you cut all Govt spending by 15% to let them and others see that “their” economy is “their” economyThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
What makes you think I am saying that?surrey_commuter said:
Are you suggesting that rather than a freewheeling Singapore on Thames model we should go for tighter regulation?Stevo_666 said:
Equivalence is a two way thing and the EU needs access to the worlds largest financial market.surrey_commuter said:
That raises the intriguing possibility that Boris has not yet realised whathe has doneStevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Which is the bigger financial market?rick_chasey said:
Of course it is. Can you not see their incentive to do so?Stevo_666 said:
Nothing to with the EU dragging its heels on equivalence then?rick_chasey said:
In ONE MONTH Amsterdam became a bigger trading centre than London. Nuts.darkhairedlord said:
Fake news, they need us more than we need them, they'll cave, their just flexing, they'll be back.rick_chasey said:
ONE MONTH.
City of London is now a competitor, not a member of the union.
Give yourself one of your own lectures on proportionality.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think you are just suggesting things like that to be provocative. Are you Rick's new protege?surrey_commuter said:
I agree with you about the ones who have fallen through the safety net but if all Govt spending was cut who do you think would suffer the most?morstar said:
I’m not making their argument. I’m explaining it.surrey_commuter said:
or you could mock up what Govt spending would look like with no taxes from FS and overall taxes down 7% Maybe shut some schools and redistribute the kids around those that are left, maybe slice 15% off pensions, welfare and housing benefit, maybe collect the bins less frequently?morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
if we did this experiment in mackemland everybody else could learn that we are all in the same boat and that those that those most dependent on the State have most to lose from "their" economy slowing down
Unless the economy totally collapses, those at the very bottom will lose very little as they are already at the bottom and there is little left to lose.
The gaps, losses and costs will be borne elsewhere.
Your argument is sound but intangible to somebody disenfranchised.
However, trickledown economics are not delivering equity. This applies irrespective of Brexit and is a significant issue society needs to tackle.
Homelessness and foodbanks are real.
The top 1% will have private education/healthcare and paying for additional security.
I am proposing an experiment in a small Brexit supporting area where you cut all Govt spending by 15% to let them and others see that “their” economy is “their” economy"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You've not been paying attention Stevo. SC has always been like that.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Of course I am being provocative. How would you get those most dependent upon the State to realise that they stand to lose the most by weakening the economy?Stevo_666 said:
I think you are just suggesting things like that to be provocative. Are you Rick's new protege?surrey_commuter said:
I agree with you about the ones who have fallen through the safety net but if all Govt spending was cut who do you think would suffer the most?morstar said:
I’m not making their argument. I’m explaining it.surrey_commuter said:
or you could mock up what Govt spending would look like with no taxes from FS and overall taxes down 7% Maybe shut some schools and redistribute the kids around those that are left, maybe slice 15% off pensions, welfare and housing benefit, maybe collect the bins less frequently?morstar said:
It’s not a verbal argument that will persuade them.surrey_commuter said:
How would you persuade them it has trickled down?morstar said:
Difference between being embarrassed and struggling to identify any benefits. Not my view but...rick_chasey said:I still think it's really weird Brexiters are almost embarrassed by what the UK is actually good in - professional services with thick margins - and are happy to see that go.
It is frankly mad that the UK has voluntarily given up being *the* equity trading hub for Europe. It is small fry in the wider context (though materially bigger than anything to do with fishing, but what isn't). How is this a good development?
Where are the sunlit uplands? Trade deal rollovers?
If you are broke in Sunderland with very limited prospects, easy to not give two hoots about a stereotyped financial services organisation in London.
If the ‘economy’ does well and it doesn’t trickle down. What does it matter?
Should we weaken FS? No. Should we address social issues and have a balanced economy for people who can’t / won’t work in them but will work? Yes.
The disenfranchised need to see tangible change to believe they benefit from the economy.
People who voted for Brexit as an up yours to the establishment and ‘their’ economy want opportunities.
If you can earn a fair wage, you are less likely to resent those doing better than you. If you can only earn peanuts or nothing at all, resentment is an easy bedfellow.
if we did this experiment in mackemland everybody else could learn that we are all in the same boat and that those that those most dependent on the State have most to lose from "their" economy slowing down
Unless the economy totally collapses, those at the very bottom will lose very little as they are already at the bottom and there is little left to lose.
The gaps, losses and costs will be borne elsewhere.
Your argument is sound but intangible to somebody disenfranchised.
However, trickledown economics are not delivering equity. This applies irrespective of Brexit and is a significant issue society needs to tackle.
Homelessness and foodbanks are real.
The top 1% will have private education/healthcare and paying for additional security.
I am proposing an experiment in a small Brexit supporting area where you cut all Govt spending by 15% to let them and others see that “their” economy is “their” economy
As you know I believe the MMT will catch blight and all Govt spending will be forced into a massive recalibration.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Can you give an indication of what this is likely to mean in the real world of jobs and taxes?0 -
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-by-the-uk-chancellor-of-the-duchy-of-lancaster-gove-and-european-commission-vice-president-sefcovic
tl:dr - Matron gave Gove a jolly good spanking...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Lidington sounding very sensible on the matter on Newsnight just now. Such a waste that Johnson pushed him out for not being Brexy enough.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Beyond my capabilities.surrey_commuter said:rick_chasey said:
Can you give an indication of what this is likely to mean in the real world of jobs and taxes?
Does suggest that London won’t be the trading hub it was by a long way.
I did used to work with someone who used to run a trading floor at a big bank and he explained that a trading seat would cost half a mill each on average. Half on labour and the other half on the infrastructure required: the tech, the support functions behind it (risk, ops, trade support, IT. compliance etc) and other operational costs (settlement, clearing, exchange fees).0 -
The thing is, these shifts are happening all over the economy. Some get more coverage than others.
This is why it was so mad to avoid the SM.0 -
Here some perspective on the current capital markets situation to give a bit of balance: I've highlighted a few bits for ease of reading.
"In the words of former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, the UK has been “Europe’s investment banker” for years. But experts say that Brussels has “never been 100pc comfortable” with London's dominance in financial services.
PwC’s global head of Brexit policy Andrew Gray points to the “political ambition from Europe to have a degree of self-sufficiency in its own financial services industry and capital markets”.
That aspiration - super-charged by Brexit - has been underlined by the European Union’s hardline refusal to grant equivalence to the Square Mile, which drew the wrath of Carney’s successor, Andrew Bailey, this week. “All regulation is political,” says William Wright, founder of the New Financial thinktank.
But experts also warn that punishing London for leaving the EU also risks leaving Europe markets with deeper scars as the bloc takes the policy equivalent of cutting off its nose to spite its face.
The problems range from the minor and technical to the wider macroeconomic implications of voluntarily shutting off access to one of the world’s deepest capital markets, potentially leaving Europe’s banks more vulnerable should the debt crises of the last decade flare up again.
At the smaller end of the scale, take the frustrations of one City broker in its dealings with Europe as a third country and the risks of falling foul of laws on “solicitation”, which can bring heavy fines and even criminal charges.
He says: “Say you’re Russell Lynch Capital Management in Paris, and a 10pc shareholder of a UK company that wants to do a capital raise. Because equivalence doesn’t work, you can't be called, so you have to find out about it after the event, and you read it in the papers the next day.”
The broking boss says pressure might eventually come from European institutions themselves for change, “because they are unable to participate in transactions or deals they want to, because they're not being allowed to be called or solicited”.
Europe is also about to get that “shrinking feeling” due to the loss of the UK, according to Wright. According to New Financial's data, the UK accounts for nearly a third of all capital markets activity in the EU, nearly double that of France and more than France and Germany combined.
The EU is the world's second-largest capital market behind the US with 22pc of global activity, but the departure of the UK reduces that at a stroke to 13pc. Wright argues that Amsterdam share trading overtaking London due to Brussels refusing to recognise its exchanges is largely symbolic in terms of the relatively small profits involved, with the City well ahead in most of the other metrics that matter.
To take just two examples, the UK accounted for 40pc of the EU’s pension assets - more than double the the next nearest rival in the Netherlands - and accounts for 80pc of derivative trading.
But Wright says: “In the longer term I think there is a potential risk to the EU if it is not careful in its understandable desire to develop what it calls strategic autonomy in financial services, not to be reliant on a country outside of the EU for a large part of its capital markets and finance activities.
“If the EU handles this in the wrong way, it may just send a message to companies and investors around the world that it is not fully open for business. That would probably have a longer-term impact on the EU on discretionary investment, if a Chinese company or a Chinese bank is thinking about where it's going to invest in Europe. If the EU doesn't handle this more sensitively, in time it may see some of those discretionary investments bypassing the EU and going elsewhere.”
Meanwhile Europe’s fragile banking system could also feel the strain of being shut out of London. The continent’s attempts to build a capital markets union since 2014 and get savings and investment flowing across the continent - initially spearheaded by the UK through former Commissioner Lord Hill - have virtually stalled following Brexit.
PwC's Gray adds: “There is obviously a need in Europe for investment to be more linked to capital markets than it is to bank lending … I'm not sure that is necessarily supported by effectively ringfencing Europe as a whole, limiting the amount of capital flows and effectively placing further burden on the banking sector to provide funding for investments.”
The politics of Brexit means Europe’s banks, with profits squeezed by negative interest rates and many with balance sheets stuffed with sovereign bonds, have cut themselves off from a potentially valuable source of liquidity should more troubles emerge.
“You have chosen for strategic reasons to reduce your number of options should you face a refinancing problem,” says Panmure Gordon’s chief economist Simon French.
But throwing grit in the financial wheels to its own detriment is Europe’s decision, he adds. “Ultimately the blunt truth for Bailey and the government is that it is their sovereign choice, it is their bed. They lie on it. If it yields a bad economic outcome down the track that is the price they may pay - but the strategic calculation appears to be that they're prepared to do that to avoid having this behemoth on their doorstep that can attract capital markets business.” ""I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
would a good precis be - "all is fine because the EU will suffer more than us"Stevo_666 said:Here some perspective on the current capital markets situation to give a bit of balance: I've highlighted a few bits for ease of reading.
"In the words of former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, the UK has been “Europe’s investment banker” for years. But experts say that Brussels has “never been 100pc comfortable” with London's dominance in financial services.
PwC’s global head of Brexit policy Andrew Gray points to the “political ambition from Europe to have a degree of self-sufficiency in its own financial services industry and capital markets”.
That aspiration - super-charged by Brexit - has been underlined by the European Union’s hardline refusal to grant equivalence to the Square Mile, which drew the wrath of Carney’s successor, Andrew Bailey, this week. “All regulation is political,” says William Wright, founder of the New Financial thinktank.
But experts also warn that punishing London for leaving the EU also risks leaving Europe markets with deeper scars as the bloc takes the policy equivalent of cutting off its nose to spite its face.
The problems range from the minor and technical to the wider macroeconomic implications of voluntarily shutting off access to one of the world’s deepest capital markets, potentially leaving Europe’s banks more vulnerable should the debt crises of the last decade flare up again.
At the smaller end of the scale, take the frustrations of one City broker in its dealings with Europe as a third country and the risks of falling foul of laws on “solicitation”, which can bring heavy fines and even criminal charges.
He says: “Say you’re Russell Lynch Capital Management in Paris, and a 10pc shareholder of a UK company that wants to do a capital raise. Because equivalence doesn’t work, you can't be called, so you have to find out about it after the event, and you read it in the papers the next day.”
The broking boss says pressure might eventually come from European institutions themselves for change, “because they are unable to participate in transactions or deals they want to, because they're not being allowed to be called or solicited”.
Europe is also about to get that “shrinking feeling” due to the loss of the UK, according to Wright. According to New Financial's data, the UK accounts for nearly a third of all capital markets activity in the EU, nearly double that of France and more than France and Germany combined.
The EU is the world's second-largest capital market behind the US with 22pc of global activity, but the departure of the UK reduces that at a stroke to 13pc. Wright argues that Amsterdam share trading overtaking London due to Brussels refusing to recognise its exchanges is largely symbolic in terms of the relatively small profits involved, with the City well ahead in most of the other metrics that matter.
To take just two examples, the UK accounted for 40pc of the EU’s pension assets - more than double the the next nearest rival in the Netherlands - and accounts for 80pc of derivative trading.
But Wright says: “In the longer term I think there is a potential risk to the EU if it is not careful in its understandable desire to develop what it calls strategic autonomy in financial services, not to be reliant on a country outside of the EU for a large part of its capital markets and finance activities.
“If the EU handles this in the wrong way, it may just send a message to companies and investors around the world that it is not fully open for business. That would probably have a longer-term impact on the EU on discretionary investment, if a Chinese company or a Chinese bank is thinking about where it's going to invest in Europe. If the EU doesn't handle this more sensitively, in time it may see some of those discretionary investments bypassing the EU and going elsewhere.”
Meanwhile Europe’s fragile banking system could also feel the strain of being shut out of London. The continent’s attempts to build a capital markets union since 2014 and get savings and investment flowing across the continent - initially spearheaded by the UK through former Commissioner Lord Hill - have virtually stalled following Brexit.
PwC's Gray adds: “There is obviously a need in Europe for investment to be more linked to capital markets than it is to bank lending … I'm not sure that is necessarily supported by effectively ringfencing Europe as a whole, limiting the amount of capital flows and effectively placing further burden on the banking sector to provide funding for investments.”
The politics of Brexit means Europe’s banks, with profits squeezed by negative interest rates and many with balance sheets stuffed with sovereign bonds, have cut themselves off from a potentially valuable source of liquidity should more troubles emerge.
“You have chosen for strategic reasons to reduce your number of options should you face a refinancing problem,” says Panmure Gordon’s chief economist Simon French.
But throwing grit in the financial wheels to its own detriment is Europe’s decision, he adds. “Ultimately the blunt truth for Bailey and the government is that it is their sovereign choice, it is their bed. They lie on it. If it yields a bad economic outcome down the track that is the price they may pay - but the strategic calculation appears to be that they're prepared to do that to avoid having this behemoth on their doorstep that can attract capital markets business.” "0 -
Probably too simplistic.
Here's a slightly more positive spin to lift the CS gloom.
"The City will lift its horizons and double down on global trade if the European Union cuts off access to its financial markets, grandees and experts have said.
Senior figures across the Square Mile said that London will thrive after Brexit by focusing on fast-growing economies in Asia and Africa and investing heavily in new products such as green bonds.
It came after Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, warned that Brussels is likely to block EU companies from doing business with UK financial institutions - a move which would spark higher costs for millions of consumers on the Continent.
Meanwhile data showed that Amsterdam overtook London as Europe's biggest share trading hub in January. New figures on Thursday also revealed that Britain's share of the market in euro-denominated interest rate swaps fell from 40pc in December to 10pc in January, according to the Financial Times.
Sir John Peace, former chairman of Standard Chartered bank, said: “There is a great opportunity over time for the City beyond EU membership, in growth markets in Asia and Africa.
“We should strive to protect what we already have, whilst reaching out to new, faster growing regions of the world.”
Mr Bailey was right to suggest that the EU’s actions will cause harm, Sir John said. Preventing market access could push up the cost of mortgages and insurance premiums on both sides of the Channel. Sir John added: “It seems to me that the EU needs the City and the City needs the EU."
Leading figures believe that the key to future success is embracing new growth areas such as financial technology, or fintech, where London is already easily Europe's most important investment hub. It attracted $4.1bn (£3bn) of cash last year, more than the two next biggest European destinations combined.
Britain is also moving into other new markets. Trading in China's renminbi currency overtook that of the pound-euro pair in the City two years ago in a major milestone.
Chris Cummings, chief executive of The Investment Association, said: "UK investment management is already one of the most international in the world both in terms of the customers and businesses it serves, and the assets it invests in, and now we have an opportunity to grow the international business beyond the EU even further.
"To do that we need to maintain our leading position on FinTech, create a globally competitive funds range, and become a centre of excellence for sustainable and responsible investing.
"The industry is working closely with the government and the regulator to ensure we can capitalise on this opportunity, to the benefit of the wider UK economy."
UK firms have taken steps such as establishing subsidiaries in the EU so they can continue serving clients amid growing fears the EU will refuse to grant access for London-based companies under its so-called equivalence regime.
On Thursday, former lead Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier accused businesses of using shell companies to gain access to the EU’s Single Market rather than setting up a real office.
He said: “As far as financial services are concerned, we know there are attempts to circumvent the new rules through what we call letterbox structures.
“Needless to say national authorities of the EU in each and every country and the EU authorities themselves will be very, very vigilant. In the next few weeks and months, I recommend everyone to be careful.”
Some European regulators have been probing whether such letterbox companies are fully operational and staffed. Supervisors in some countries expect banks to move staff if almost all their EU business is still conducted in London.
Talks are continuing around qualifying for equivalence access to EU markets - but the value of this status is diminishing over time as companies and markets adjust, so the City of London is already moving on to new growth opportunities.
A senior finance source said: “The industry is not begging the EU for access anymore. It would be great, it would make life a little easier, but now the focus is on making the UK as competitive as possible.
“It is not about deregulation, but looking for things to iron out or change or make life more efficient, to cut the cost of doing business. It might reduce the chance of a bank leaving, or make a boss thinking about hiring more trading staff or getting a new office think more about the UK.”
Britain is competing with Asia and New York in global markets, so the aim should be to make companies think about doing business here instead of overseas.
Emma Reynolds, of industry group TheCityUK, said: “When we talk to EU counterparts, we do stress there is a bigger world out there beyond the UK and EU. For London, our main competitor is New York, that is the league that we are in.
“The rising Asian markets are the other competitors. There has been no other European centre that is anywhere near as successful and wide-ranging as London.”
Brexit could also open access to other significant markets through trade deals, she added.""I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
so youre telling me that theyre all content with ever closer union then?rjsterry said:
Oh please. We left. So can others. Other nationalist flag wavers just know which side their bread is buttered, that's all.david37 said:
why would that suggest they are content with ever closer union? they may not be content at all but politically manoeuvred into having not much choice. Just because people live in a violent domestic relationship doesn't mean they're content or actively consenting to abuse or coercive control.rjsterry said:
Maybe they don't want to. That they are not trying to leave would suggest that they are at least content with the ever closer union bit. Other than the prize of saying I told you so, why are you so bothered about how closely integrated a Union of other countries is?Stevo_666 said:
You clearly haven't grasped my point. As mentioned I was talking about those countries still in the EU. So tell me what makes you think they can avoid signing up to certain things where there is QMV rather than a veto and where EU directives are the method of implementation?kingstongraham said:
All countries who are now members of the EU are signed up to closer integration. The country that was signed up to the slow lane has now left.Stevo_666 said:
We are now but I'm talking about countries that are still members. So do tell...kingstongraham said:
We were a sovereign nation - we didn't have to sign up to anything we didn't want to. Evidence of this is how we are not progressing towards closer integration. Ironic.Stevo_666 said:
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...
This must have been something you considered when you voted to remain, so I don't know why it's such a problem for you to grasp now.0 -
Well I'm glad the Bank of England is rightly playing to the domestic audience.
They are right to warn of the dangers of economic nationalism. They have spent the last 5 years warning the UK about it and it did not listen.
Now, without the UK, the EU is likely to accelerate a form of regionalism where it seeks to establish the EU as a singular geopolitical force alongside the US and China in a sort of Voltron scenario.
The rhetoric is moving in that direction anyway; driven as I see it by the threat of China and an unreliable quasi-fascist US.
This does not bode well for the city of London or the UK as a whole as it will likely mean the EU are willing to give up the benefits of internationalism (read co-operation with the UK) in return for more geopolitical leverage.
Stevo - i'll make it really plain. Carney is using the same argument for EU co-operation with the UK as he did for Remain. That you did not find his argument convincing suggests that your equivalents for the EU side won't either.
The focus on "sovereignty" during the Brexit negs cuts both ways. You are advocating cake-sim again.
The trade deal is thin as it is focused on sovereignty so that is the objective of it - why would the EU not want its own competitive FS system?0 -
"The City will lift its horizons and double down on global trade if the European Union cuts off access to its financial markets, grandees and experts have said."
I don't understand - won't the City try to increase global trade even if the EU doesn't cut off access? If not, why not?0 -
try and think of the EU as a sun visor that was permanently down so through your quinting eyes all you could see was 20 yeards past the end of the bonnet. Brexit allowed us to raise the visor enough to see sunlit uplands past the end of the bonnet. Boris shutting us out of the EU markets has not just thrown the visor out of the window but turbo charged our team of unicorns in their world beating drive to dominate the world's financial markets.kingstongraham said:"The City will lift its horizons and double down on global trade if the European Union cuts off access to its financial markets, grandees and experts have said."
I don't understand - won't the City try to increase global trade even if the EU doesn't cut off access? If not, why not?0 -
They've signed up to it, so one would presume so. Naturally there will be some citizens within any given country who disagree with their government's actions. They are free to lobby that government or stand for election themselves. If they change the government's view, it can always leave the Union.david37 said:
so youre telling me that theyre all content with ever closer union then?rjsterry said:
Oh please. We left. So can others. Other nationalist flag wavers just know which side their bread is buttered, that's all.david37 said:
why would that suggest they are content with ever closer union? they may not be content at all but politically manoeuvred into having not much choice. Just because people live in a violent domestic relationship doesn't mean they're content or actively consenting to abuse or coercive control.rjsterry said:
Maybe they don't want to. That they are not trying to leave would suggest that they are at least content with the ever closer union bit. Other than the prize of saying I told you so, why are you so bothered about how closely integrated a Union of other countries is?Stevo_666 said:
You clearly haven't grasped my point. As mentioned I was talking about those countries still in the EU. So tell me what makes you think they can avoid signing up to certain things where there is QMV rather than a veto and where EU directives are the method of implementation?kingstongraham said:
All countries who are now members of the EU are signed up to closer integration. The country that was signed up to the slow lane has now left.Stevo_666 said:
We are now but I'm talking about countries that are still members. So do tell...kingstongraham said:
We were a sovereign nation - we didn't have to sign up to anything we didn't want to. Evidence of this is how we are not progressing towards closer integration. Ironic.Stevo_666 said:
Do tell.kingstongraham said:
I have evidence that disproves this.Stevo_666 said:
It may have been a two speeder in some respects but there were quite a few things that those in the slow lane would have had to sign up to anyway.kingstongraham said:What I'm saying is that the EU does have a commitment to moving closer - but because the UK didn't like that, that was not part of our future, and the EU was already a two track organisation.
But we still left.
Two speeds but same direction...
This must have been something you considered when you voted to remain, so I don't know why it's such a problem for you to grasp now.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's odd how one set of brexiters are desperate to tell you how they dgaf about banker vankers, and how FS hurt wealth inequality ! But another set of brexiters are desperate to show that our finance industry will not be hurt by brexit at all.
0 -
it's a broad church, right?Jezyboy said:It's odd how one set of brexiters are desperate to tell you how they dgaf about banker vankers, and how FS hurt wealth inequality ! But another set of brexiters are desperate to show that our finance industry will not be hurt by brexit at all.
And for some it's about sticking it to well off middle class people who love a bit of internationalism, and for others it's about proving that brexit is this wonderful gateway to a brighter future, having previously been held-back by mucky Europeans with their two hour lunches, obsessions with cabbage and extensive welfare states.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
try and think of the EU as a sun visor that was permanently down so through your quinting eyes all you could see was 20 yeards past the end of the bonnet. Brexit allowed us to raise the visor enough to see sunlit uplands past the end of the bonnet. Boris shutting us out of the EU markets has not just thrown the visor out of the window but turbo charged our team of unicorns in their world beating drive to dominate the world's financial markets.kingstongraham said:"The City will lift its horizons and double down on global trade if the European Union cuts off access to its financial markets, grandees and experts have said."
I don't understand - won't the City try to increase global trade even if the EU doesn't cut off access? If not, why not?
I'm not sure you're going to usurp Stewart Lee with this analogy... your routine might need a bit of fine tuning before you go on tour...1
