BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Wallace and Gromit wrote:mamba80 wrote:the EU banking crisis you predicted seems to be receding too ..... early days but it pays not to be too pessimistic
It's the Italian banks that are the main concern. They will be brought down by losses on their exiting loans about which nothing can be done bar prayer and kicking of can down the road.
Deutsche is OK so long as it doesn't need to raise capital to pay its fine and the fine can be negotiated. In theory at least - the EU can usually bully the other side in negotiations but the US has the trump card in being able to withdraw banking licences.
Steve singled out Deutsche as an example of the forth coming EU banking crisis...... i was merely pointing out that we must not be too pessimistic about these things.....
its not in the USA's interests to destroy a major EU bank, politics will be hi on the agenda here.
Italy also has an earth quake crisis and a migration crisis .... a crisis that feeds another Jungle and that very much effects us too.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:An interesting observation from one of the Guardian comment sections: The deal that the UK negotiates to leave the EU is only subject to QMV approval from member states and approval by the European Parliament. Thus if there is general appetite for a "reasonable" trade deal on the EU side then this could be included in the exit deal and not subject to veto. And for once, QMV might work in the UK's favour as the rules per the Lisbon Treaty were derived to make it quite hard for proposals with broad support to be blocked.
Stand alone trade treaties need unanimity.
Can you name the author and their credentials so that we can judge the merit of their opinion.0 -
mamba80 wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:mamba80 wrote:the EU banking crisis you predicted seems to be receding too ..... early days but it pays not to be too pessimistic
It's the Italian banks that are the main concern. They will be brought down by losses on their exiting loans about which nothing can be done bar prayer and kicking of can down the road.
Deutsche is OK so long as it doesn't need to raise capital to pay its fine and the fine can be negotiated. In theory at least - the EU can usually bully the other side in negotiations but the US has the trump card in being able to withdraw banking licences.
Steve singled out Deutsche as an example of the forth coming EU banking crisis...... i was merely pointing out that we must not be too pessimistic about these things.....
its not in the USA's interests to destroy a major EU bank, politics will be hi on the agenda here.
Italy also has an earth quake crisis and a migration crisis .... a crisis that feeds another Jungle and that very much effects us too.
I worry more about the potential crises that nobody has considered. The longer a potential crisis is known about the less likely it is to happen and the less severe the consequences.0 -
mamba80 wrote:yes your company.... thats all that matters eh?
if wto was so good, why has Canada spent 7 years trying for another deal or ttip ?
why is the UK so keen to broker deals with xyz countries?
The great contradiction at the heart of Brexit. If we care so much about trade why would we leave the world's largest trade bloc? It would make far more sense, especially with our trade deficit, if we pulled up the drawbridge and adopted full on protectionist policies.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:An interesting observation from one of the Guardian comment sections: The deal that the UK negotiates to leave the EU is only subject to QMV approval from member states and approval by the European Parliament. Thus if there is general appetite for a "reasonable" trade deal on the EU side then this could be included in the exit deal and not subject to veto. And for once, QMV might work in the UK's favour as the rules per the Lisbon Treaty were derived to make it quite hard for proposals with broad support to be blocked.
Stand alone trade treaties need unanimity.
Can you name the author and their credentials so that we can judge the merit of their opinion.
I forget the commenter's Guardian user name. But if you check the wording of Article 50 the second paragraph is as follows and supports the interpretation of the mystery contributor.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Obviously, there would need to be a qualified majority of member states wanting to agree some sort of trade deal as part of the exit deal which may not be the case. Or the EU may argue amongst itself as to whether trade terms can be included in the exit deal given that stand alone trade deals need to unanimity. Understandably, no-one ever intended Article 50 to be used, so this detail won't have been considered.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:An interesting observation from one of the Guardian comment sections: The deal that the UK negotiates to leave the EU is only subject to QMV approval from member states and approval by the European Parliament. Thus if there is general appetite for a "reasonable" trade deal on the EU side then this could be included in the exit deal and not subject to veto. And for once, QMV might work in the UK's favour as the rules per the Lisbon Treaty were derived to make it quite hard for proposals with broad support to be blocked.
Stand alone trade treaties need unanimity.
Can you name the author and their credentials so that we can judge the merit of their opinion.
I forget the commenter's Guardian user name. But if you check the wording of Article 50 the second paragraph is as follows and supports the interpretation of the mystery contributor.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Obviously, there would need to be a qualified majority of member states wanting to agree some sort of trade deal as part of the exit deal which may not be the case. Or the EU may argue amongst itself as to whether trade terms can be included in the exit deal given that stand alone trade deals need to unanimity. Understandably, no-one ever intended Article 50 to be used, so this detail won't have been considered.
It is very vague!! I read somewhere that it was drawn up (not by lawyers) on the assumption that nobody would ever be so mad as to trigger it. I think the UK should be very careful to avoid this going legal with people challenging interpretations of A50 or we really will get nowhere in two years.0 -
I see Peter Lilley is back to his idiotic best, telling the European Scrutiny committee yesterday that everything will be fine because Irish and Indian independence went smoothly.
Not sure which history books you've been reading Pete luv, but I'd put them down now.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:It is very vague!! I read somewhere that it was drawn up (not by lawyers) on the assumption that nobody would ever be so mad as to trigger it. I think the UK should be very careful to avoid this going legal with people challenging interpretations of A50 or we really will get nowhere in two years.
That's my understanding too. Irony of ironies, Article 50 was only added to the Lisbon Treaty at the insistence of the UK.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:It is very vague!! I read somewhere that it was drawn up (not by lawyers) on the assumption that nobody would ever be so mad as to trigger it. I think the UK should be very careful to avoid this going legal with people challenging interpretations of A50 or we really will get nowhere in two years.
That's my understanding too. Irony of ironies, Article 50 was only added to the Lisbon Treaty at the insistence of the UK.
When I delve into this stuff I start to realise why the vast majority prefer to stick with simplistic headlines. I found myself reading about Brazilian banana imports and how the quota system worked and how it would be very difficult if not impossible to agree the UK's share. This was being used as an example for why we can not adopt existing EU trade agreements. I have tried to read further but when Googling just find endless stories made up by Boris about EU banana laws. This serves as the perfect metaphor for the referendum.0 -
narbs wrote:I see Peter Lilley is back to his idiotic best, telling the European Scrutiny committee yesterday that everything will be fine because Irish and Indian independence went smoothly.
Not sure which history books you've been reading Pete luv, but I'd put them down now.
His presence on that Committee tells you all you need to know about the quality of our elected representatives.0 -
0
-
Wallace and Gromit wrote:
And the Belgians have reached agreement, so the Canada deal can be signed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-377888820 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:
And the Belgians have reached agreement, so the Canada deal can be signed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37788882
No great surprise there. I wonder how much extra Flemish taxpayers will be sending south as a result of the deal.0 -
Wallace and Gromit wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:
And the Belgians have reached agreement, so the Canada deal can be signed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37788882
No great surprise there. I wonder how much extra Flemish taxpayers will be sending south as a result of the deal.
And how much UK taxpayers will be sending east as a result of the Nissan deal.0 -
0
-
That's the question.
You'd think May won't have promised an industry carve out because that won't be an option so you'd hope she's offered decent free market options.
Fingers crossed.
You do worry that firms are using their presence in collective minds to leverage sweetheart deals in return for positive press stories.0 -
Double good newsKingstonGraham wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:
And the Belgians have reached agreement, so the Canada deal can be signed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37788882
. Some people had better look for other things to moan and wring their hands about.
No doubt the moaners will now start moaning about preferential treatment for those industries which they were previously moaning would be hardest hit..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is what I had said but Mamba has maybe misread. Deutsche is symptomatic of the issues but is solvable. Italy is also symptomatic but less solvable and very large.Wallace and Gromit wrote:mamba80 wrote:the EU banking crisis you predicted seems to be receding too ..... early days but it pays not to be too pessimistic
It's the Italian banks that are the main concern. They will be brought down by losses on their exiting loans about which nothing can be done bar prayer and kicking of can down the road.
Deutsche is OK so long as it doesn't need to raise capital to pay its fine and the fine can be negotiated. In theory at least - the EU can usually bully the other side in negotiations but the US has the trump card in being able to withdraw banking licences.
But hey, people said I was being too positive so I thought I'd start moaning and wringing my hands to fit in a bit better in here
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Very witty - although it symptomatic of this thread that some people want the UK to suffer so they can say 'look, I was right about Brexit'. I wonder whether they were so sure that they've had the t-shirts printed alreadyWallace and Gromit wrote: "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Hopefully you're right - it would shut up the 'no chance, we need EU unanimity and that'll never happen' brigade. Let's keep an eye on this as there are enough mature EU states who realise that it is in all of our interests to agree something sensible.Wallace and Gromit wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Wallace and Gromit wrote:An interesting observation from one of the Guardian comment sections: The deal that the UK negotiates to leave the EU is only subject to QMV approval from member states and approval by the European Parliament. Thus if there is general appetite for a "reasonable" trade deal on the EU side then this could be included in the exit deal and not subject to veto. And for once, QMV might work in the UK's favour as the rules per the Lisbon Treaty were derived to make it quite hard for proposals with broad support to be blocked.
Stand alone trade treaties need unanimity.
Can you name the author and their credentials so that we can judge the merit of their opinion.
I forget the commenter's Guardian user name. But if you check the wording of Article 50 the second paragraph is as follows and supports the interpretation of the mystery contributor.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
Obviously, there would need to be a qualified majority of member states wanting to agree some sort of trade deal as part of the exit deal which may not be the case. Or the EU may argue amongst itself as to whether trade terms can be included in the exit deal given that stand alone trade deals need to unanimity. Understandably, no-one ever intended Article 50 to be used, so this detail won't have been considered."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And good news number three today on UK growth in the 3 months since Brexit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37786467"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
It's almost like the economy does Ok when strangled by Brussels red tape & being overrun with immigrants.
:roll:0 -
I think you get my drift.Rick Chasey wrote:Since Brexit vote but yes."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm not disagreeing with the underlying message of that.Rick Chasey wrote:It's almost like the economy does Ok when strangled by Brussels red tape & being overrun with immigrants.
:roll:
Although it's hardly the land of uncertainty though is it, especially with other pieces of news like the one above. Certain people have been saying that we are getting badly hurt already and no doubt they will now push their apocalyptic forecasts back.
The terrible worry for some people is that we may actually not fare too badly in this process "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Just got this from one of our advisors that does quite a bit of mid-size corporate M&A:
"Brexit: a bump in the road, not a car crash
The first quarter since the Referendum saw the record number of 707 M&A deals completed in the second quarter of 2016, slow to 578 deals in quarter 3.
Despite the slowdown, the number of deals is not out of line with recent levels and in general the market has taken Brexit as a bump in the road rather than a car crash. Indeed we continue to see more buyers than sellers in the M&A market."
Good news number 4?
Where's Joel gone? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:And good news number three today on UK growth in the 3 months since Brexit:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37786467
So the economy grew by 0.5% compared to the pre-vote treasury forecast of -0.1%. I've taken the treasuries most optimistic forecast!
However that optimistic forecast included A50 being served the day after the vote and with no intervention from the BoE. How can that have been the optimistic forecast?
My biggest annoyance from this referendum is how politicised the government departments became, pushed into it by those leading the remain side. The same people were also leading this country :evil: but fortunately they have been shown the door! I hope, due to the outcome of this vote, future government departments will stay impartial for all future votes.
That way many people will not have had the wool pulled over their eyes and would have voted based on being given *honest assumptions/forecasts. It all feels a bit to close to the novel 1984 for my liking!
*Yes, there was dishonesty from both sides so no need to drag them up again!0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Where's Joel gone?
His head is stuck up his own backside as it is the only echo chamber he can find where Brexit is still doom and gloom...0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:
My understanding of CETA is that it does away with non-tariff barriers. It is us who is rejecting this.0
