BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

mrfpb

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Banking jobs will leave - I assumed you had already accepted that as a cost.

I could be completely wrong (as I was about the referendum result), but I find it hard to imagine that many banking jobs will be moved to Frankfurt. There may be job losses due to the uncertainty and economic downturn, but companies can't just move people like they are inventory. I met a partner at a City law firm who was not willing to relocate to Canary Wharf.

In the end, finance is just like all other exports, if the EU seeks to protect its markets it will simply find that the asset subject to protectionism becomes quite scarce i.e. it will be harder to borrow money.

I'm not a banker or working in the finance sector, but I think most big institutions will be making contingency plans. They are probably doing this while watching the way the wind blows in other EU states, as there will be no point moving to "be in the EU" if other larger economies start holding In/Out votes and the whole enterprise looks less stable.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

I apologise that I upset you and others here. I think my flippancy was a response to the inappropriate panic in the media since the result was announced and the vitriol and false assumptions regarding the motives of Leave voters by many Remain voters on social media.

I think Lord Hall's resignation was intended (by him) as the first step in Brexit, but Downing St have said it's up to the next PM to replace him, which undermines his statement and adds yet more uncertainty to the process.

Not me I am fine thanks but there are a number of people on here reporting immediate changes in circumstance.

It is Lord Hill (hall runs the BBC). It is either part of the Out master plan or we are being fucked either by Hill or the EU. The President allocates jobs to commissioners so we have just lost a powerful role... In Brussels it is suggested the replacement will be Commisioner for Ballet.

Ben6899

Bo Duke wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

The only silver lining to this massive ******* mess is that, in a years time, I'll be able to hold my head high regardless of the situation we find ourselves in.

For me, the real crime is driving divides through Europe and the UK. My girlfriend - an EU migrant - is gutted and no longer feels welcome anywhere but London. She won't be the only EU migrant who feels this way.

But I doubt you give a f*** about that, if you voted to Leave. And if you do give a f*** about it - and it doesn't sit all that we'll - then maybe you should've voted in a more considered way.

People who voted to Leave - some friends - are changed forever in my eyes. I don't think I can reconcile at all in some cases.

I guess you're talking to me. I voted to Remain.

If you voted to Remain, then I wasn't talking to you.

Blimey... this referendum really is bringing out all the worst aspects of our society isn't it?

We now judge each other basis our vote, regardless of our experience in life, where we live or how many times we've lost jobs because of EU directives?

Grand lads, grand... you're made for each other. Bonk away.

Blimey. I think you get it.

finchy

verylonglegs wrote:

finchy wrote:

Just had a £2.5k project postponed indefinitely as a result of the EU referendum. The agency I go through says that Friday and Saturday have seen the lowest volume of work in its 18 years of existence and they've received advanced warnings from several large clients about probable cancellations.

Hmmmmm....

Well Finchy according to Cooper you just need to think positively and it all be OK. Or he has no idea what he is talking about. Possibly.

I was actually feeling pretty positive until I got that e-mail. Been exchanging e-mails with a few other translators and they're all properly p1ssed off with the situation.

Pross

Two of the bigger schemes on my forthcoming projects are related to the construction of a new car manufacturing plant and a potential site for one of the largest defence / aerospace companies in the world. I really hope they continue, not just for mine and my colleagues future but also as they should bring thousands of skilled jobs to an area that desperately needs them. However, I'm fearful that a location in the EU will prove tempting especially to the aerospace company. I also can't work out if this result is good or bad for Port Talbot - I suspect bad if just because of the uncertainty.

Pross

On a lighter note, it's a cruel irony the Northern Ireland voted to stay in Europe but have been forced to exit while the Welsh want to get out but have to stay at least a week longer.

surrey_commuter

mrfpb wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Banking jobs will leave - I assumed you had already accepted that as a cost.

I could be completely wrong (as I was about the referendum result), but I find it hard to imagine that many banking jobs will be moved to Frankfurt. There may be job losses due to the uncertainty and economic downturn, but companies can't just move people like they are inventory. I met a partner at a City law firm who was not willing to relocate to Canary Wharf.

In the end, finance is just like all other exports, if the EU seeks to protect its markets it will simply find that the asset subject to protectionism becomes quite scarce i.e. it will be harder to borrow money.

I'm not a banker or working in the finance sector, but I think most big institutions will be making contingency plans. They are probably doing this while watching the way the wind blows in other EU states, as there will be no point moving to "be in the EU" if other larger economies start holding In/Out votes and the whole enterprise looks less stable.

Passporting rights mean that you need a base for certain operations inside the EEA. They will have to move certain people. It won't just be Frankfurt as they have ops in all European financial centres. They have advanced plans. It will be a gradual process - nothing you will notice like a steelworks closing.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Banking jobs will leave - I assumed you had already accepted that as a cost.

I could be completely wrong (as I was about the referendum result), but I find it hard to imagine that many banking jobs will be moved to Frankfurt. There may be job losses due to the uncertainty and economic downturn, but companies can't just move people like they are inventory. I met a partner at a City law firm who was not willing to relocate to Canary Wharf.

In the end, finance is just like all other exports, if the EU seeks to protect its markets it will simply find that the asset subject to protectionism becomes quite scarce i.e. it will be harder to borrow money.

I'm not a banker or working in the finance sector, but I think most big institutions will be making contingency plans. They are probably doing this while watching the way the wind blows in other EU states, as there will be no point moving to "be in the EU" if other larger economies start holding In/Out votes and the whole enterprise looks less stable.

Passporting rights mean that you need a base for certain operations inside the EEA. They will have to move certain people. It won't just be Frankfurt as they have ops in all European financial centres. They have advanced plans. It will be a gradual process - nothing you will notice like a steelworks closing.

This is in line with what I have heard from banks, that they will have to put certain functions in side the EEA to get passpoeting, rather than wholesale shifts. However it isn't yet clear whether the Uk will be in the EEA or not at the end of the negotiations.

The relatively benign tax and legal framework plus more flexible employment laws and the location of the talent pool mean that the banks will think hard before moving more than is necessary to places like Paris or Frankfurt.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Banking jobs will leave - I assumed you had already accepted that as a cost.

I could be completely wrong (as I was about the referendum result), but I find it hard to imagine that many banking jobs will be moved to Frankfurt. There may be job losses due to the uncertainty and economic downturn, but companies can't just move people like they are inventory. I met a partner at a City law firm who was not willing to relocate to Canary Wharf.

In the end, finance is just like all other exports, if the EU seeks to protect its markets it will simply find that the asset subject to protectionism becomes quite scarce i.e. it will be harder to borrow money.

I'm not a banker or working in the finance sector, but I think most big institutions will be making contingency plans. They are probably doing this while watching the way the wind blows in other EU states, as there will be no point moving to "be in the EU" if other larger economies start holding In/Out votes and the whole enterprise looks less stable.

Passporting rights mean that you need a base for certain operations inside the EEA. They will have to move certain people. It won't just be Frankfurt as they have ops in all European financial centres. They have advanced plans. It will be a gradual process - nothing you will notice like a steelworks closing.

This is in line with what I have heard from banks, that they will have to put certain functions in side the EEA to get passpoeting, rather than wholesale shifts. However it isn't yet clear whether the Uk will be in the EEA or not at the end of the negotiations.

The relatively benign tax and legal framework plus more flexible employment laws and the location of the talent pool mean that the banks will think hard before moving more than is necessary to places like Paris or Frankfurt.

My understanding is that to be in the Eea you have to pay subs and accept free movement of Labour and they were pretty adamant about controlling immigration and spending that £350m a week on the NHS. All the Out voter would have achieved is to no longer be ruled by a privileged out of touch elite.

Stevo_666

Correct re: conditions of EEA membership. This conflict with the immigration point means that it may need to be some sort of bespoke bilateral agreement with the EU, i.e. more like the Swiss model than the Norwegian model.

TheBigBean

I think under MiFID II passporting becomes much easier for professional clients, but it's not my area of expertise. That doesn't mean that there aren't lots of ways in which the EU could cut off its nose to spite its face, but then the UK might fancy creating a wine industry or something equally difficult...

At the moment, Luxembourg's low tax / tax dodging nature means that a huge number of loans notionally flow through companies in the country. Despite seeing this numerous times I've never met anyone who has worked anywhere other than the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. My point being that highly complicated structures are routinely set up to meet tax / regulatory requirements, and when such a structure is required where do you go to set it up? London.

Personally, I'd rather that the UK specialised in something other than finance, defence and weapons, but it does and it is not that easy to replicate elsewhere.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Correct re: conditions of EEA membership. This conflict with the immigration point means that it may need to be some sort of bespoke bilateral agreement with the EU, i.e. more like the Swiss model than the Norwegian model.

Quick bit of research and the Swiss not only have free movement of labour but this is dependent on the other 9 treaties staying in force. They also pay in and agreements don't cover fin services. And the EU aren't happy and have said no more bilateral treaties until greater integration of laws is agreed.

So do we assume that the power behind the throne is a true believer? If so we are going to be on basic WTO terms.

Or does the power lie with charlatan politicians who will go for a Norway style agreement and go back on everything they promised? This is not inconceivable as whichever toff becomes PM is never going to get a vote from that lot in a GE so can fark them good and hard

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

I think under MiFID II passporting becomes much easier for professional clients, but it's not my area of expertise. That doesn't mean that there aren't lots of ways in which the EU could cut off its nose to spite its face, but then the UK might fancy creating a wine industry or something equally difficult...

At the moment, Luxembourg's low tax / tax dodging nature means that a huge number of loans notionally flow through companies in the country. Despite seeing this numerous times I've never met anyone who has worked anywhere other than the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. My point being that highly complicated structures are routinely set up to meet tax / regulatory requirements, and when such a structure is required where do you go to set it up? London.

Personally, I'd rather that the UK specialised in something other than finance, defence and weapons, but it does and it is not that easy to replicate elsewhere.

I don't cover IBs anymore but I used to.

General consensus was if it happened (it was theoretical then), it would kick off a slow decline rather than a mass exodus; that London would end up more like HK in Asia, with an equivalent to Singapore in Europe (if that makes sense).

On the AM side, non-UK clients will be more hesitant to put their money with UK firms given the uncertainty around relocation; it would be easier to stick it in another country with fewer unknowns.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Correct re: conditions of EEA membership. This conflict with the immigration point means that it may need to be some sort of bespoke bilateral agreement with the EU, i.e. more like the Swiss model than the Norwegian model.

Quick bit of research and the Swiss not only have free movement of labour but this is dependent on the other 9 treaties staying in force. They also pay in and agreements don't cover fin services. And the EU aren't happy and have said no more bilateral treaties until greater integration of laws is agreed.

So do we assume that the power behind the throne is a true believer? If so we are going to be on basic WTO terms.

Or does the power lie with charlatan politicians who will go for a Norway style agreement and go back on everything they promised? This is not inconceivable as whichever toff becomes PM is never going to get a vote from that lot in a GE so can fark them good and hard

I know what the Swiss agreement entails re movement of Labour and lack of financial services passprting. I said something more like the Swiss model because it is bespoke and bilateral. Depends what we can negotiate - which may be better as we are bigger. We'll have to see whather they will stick to the statement re bilats. Although have not heard that before.

florerider

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Banking jobs will leave - I assumed you had already accepted that as a cost.

I could be completely wrong (as I was about the referendum result), but I find it hard to imagine that many banking jobs will be moved to Frankfurt. There may be job losses due to the uncertainty and economic downturn, but companies can't just move people like they are inventory. I met a partner at a City law firm who was not willing to relocate to Canary Wharf.

In the end, finance is just like all other exports, if the EU seeks to protect its markets it will simply find that the asset subject to protectionism becomes quite scarce i.e. it will be harder to borrow money.

I'm not a banker or working in the finance sector, but I think most big institutions will be making contingency plans. They are probably doing this while watching the way the wind blows in other EU states, as there will be no point moving to "be in the EU" if other larger economies start holding In/Out votes and the whole enterprise looks less stable.

Passporting rights mean that you need a base for certain operations inside the EEA. They will have to move certain people. It won't just be Frankfurt as they have ops in all European financial centres. They have advanced plans. It will be a gradual process - nothing you will notice like a steelworks closing.

This is in line with what I have heard from banks, that they will have to put certain functions in side the EEA to get passpoeting, rather than wholesale shifts. However it isn't yet clear whether the Uk will be in the EEA or not at the end of the negotiations.

The relatively benign tax and legal framework plus more flexible employment laws and the location of the talent pool mean that the banks will think hard before moving more than is necessary to places like Paris or Frankfurt.

Agree largely, but Luxemburg has better taxation than the UK, and is within the EU. Must be a good option for the banks.

Wonder how it affects our tax structure, Lux works for the EU companies, but not sure if it will work for the UK assets in the future. Good work for guys like you, added costs for us mere investors.

rick_chasey

Luxembourg does not have the infrastructure nor the available labour to host a European HQ of a very large FS firm.

webboo

According to the official advice given to the House of Lords about withdrawing from the EU Scotland and Nothern Ireland may have a veto.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Correct re: conditions of EEA membership. This conflict with the immigration point means that it may need to be some sort of bespoke bilateral agreement with the EU, i.e. more like the Swiss model than the Norwegian model.

Quick bit of research and the Swiss not only have free movement of labour but this is dependent on the other 9 treaties staying in force. They also pay in and agreements don't cover fin services. And the EU aren't happy and have said no more bilateral treaties until greater integration of laws is agreed.

So do we assume that the power behind the throne is a true believer? If so we are going to be on basic WTO terms.

Or does the power lie with charlatan politicians who will go for a Norway style agreement and go back on everything they promised? This is not inconceivable as whichever toff becomes PM is never going to get a vote from that lot in a GE so can fark them good and hard

I know what the Swiss agreement entails re movement of Labour and lack of financial services passprting. I said something more like the Swiss model because it is bespoke and bilateral. Depends what we can negotiate - which may be better as we are bigger. We'll have to see whather they will stick to the statement re bilats. Although have not heard that before.

Did Boris really say yesterday that he could not control immigration?

If so not a lot stopping us from a Norwegian model. There will be a lot of poor people hating Boris but frankly they should and he won't care.

This could turn out alright

rick_chasey

Sure but SC, they're not gonna be voting for Corbyn instead are they?

They'll be voting for UKIP.

Stevo_666

florerider wrote:

Agree largely, but Luxemburg has better taxation than the UK, and is within the EU. Must be a good option for the banks.

Wonder how it affects our tax structure, Lux works for the EU companies, but not sure if it will work for the UK assets in the future. Good work for guys like you, added costs for us mere investors.

It's not really true that the Lux tax system is more benign - rates are higher in some cases, although the rules are probably less complex. The benign impression probably came from the 'sweetheart' deals with certain big MNCs which have now been banned by the EU for being illegal state aid, and the general branch rulings which have largely been closed down by anti tax haven regs and treaty shopping rules.

Where Lux falls down is that its a small place with a much smaller talent pool and not a lot of draw from a lifestyle pov unless you like a very quiet life.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Correct re: conditions of EEA membership. This conflict with the immigration point means that it may need to be some sort of bespoke bilateral agreement with the EU, i.e. more like the Swiss model than the Norwegian model.

Quick bit of research and the Swiss not only have free movement of labour but this is dependent on the other 9 treaties staying in force. They also pay in and agreements don't cover fin services. And the EU aren't happy and have said no more bilateral treaties until greater integration of laws is agreed.

So do we assume that the power behind the throne is a true believer? If so we are going to be on basic WTO terms.

Or does the power lie with charlatan politicians who will go for a Norway style agreement and go back on everything they promised? This is not inconceivable as whichever toff becomes PM is never going to get a vote from that lot in a GE so can fark them good and hard

I know what the Swiss agreement entails re movement of Labour and lack of financial services passprting. I said something more like the Swiss model because it is bespoke and bilateral. Depends what we can negotiate - which may be better as we are bigger. We'll have to see whather they will stick to the statement re bilats. Although have not heard that before.

Did Boris really say yesterday that he could not control immigration?

If so not a lot stopping us from a Norwegian model. There will be a lot of poor people hating Boris but frankly they should and he won't care.

This could turn out alright

EEA is an option that will be discussed but it will be very similar to what we have now in many respects.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Where Lux falls down is that its a small place with a much smaller talent pool and not a lot of draw from a lifestyle pov unless you like a very quiet life.

[/quote]

This. Luxembourg is not a threat to London.

Frankfurt is, longer term from an FS perspective.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Where Lux falls down is that its a small place with a much smaller talent pool and not a lot of draw from a lifestyle pov unless you like a very quiet life.

This. Luxembourg is not a threat to London.

Frankfurt is, longer term from an FS perspective.[/quote]
Yep, we wrote the same thing above but you posted while I was writing mine. Frankfurt is probably the closest competition, although it is still a relatively small and dull place compared to London with higher taxes and less Labour force flexibility.

florerider

Stevo 666 wrote:

florerider wrote:

Agree largely, but Luxemburg has better taxation than the UK, and is within the EU. Must be a good option for the banks.

Wonder how it affects our tax structure, Lux works for the EU companies, but not sure if it will work for the UK assets in the future. Good work for guys like you, added costs for us mere investors.

I

Where Lux falls down is that its a small place with a much smaller talent pool and not a lot of draw from a lifestyle pov unless you like a very quiet life.

Is that free advice to get Lux co out of our structure we thought was tax efficient

Same argument didn't stop the traders going to Geneva though.

rick_chasey

It did. Very few traders went to Geneva.

And the ones that did, UK would be better off not having anyway...

briantrumpet

Webboo wrote:

According to the official advice given to the House of Lords about withdrawing from the EU Scotland and Nothern Ireland may have a veto.

Now that would be interesting.

Linked to that, I genuinely wonder how the HoC will be able to pass the act making all this happen, given that the vast majority of MPs think it will harm the country they are supposed to be looking after, especially since we are in uncharted legal waters. My analogy would be doctors who are caring for a sick child, whose parents are insisting on a treatment that the doctors think will harm the child: they are under an ethical duty to protect that child (against the wishes of the parent), and will use the courts to impose their view.

briantrumpet

Incidentally, some interesting thoughts on why so many turkeys voted for Christmas (i.e., areas that received the most EU aid were the ones who had the largest Leave margins): http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/th ... -of-brexit

rick_chasey

The tory leadership election will be curious, given plenty of the rank-and-file Tory members did NOT vote out, and article 50 isn't legally binding, nor will it have been enacted...

Furthermore, if it becomes clear over the weeks and months that Brexit would genuinely cause the breakup of the UK, then which leader would be willing to take that on?

Stevo_666

florerider wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

florerider wrote:

Agree largely, but Luxemburg has better taxation than the UK, and is within the EU. Must be a good option for the banks.

Wonder how it affects our tax structure, Lux works for the EU companies, but not sure if it will work for the UK assets in the future. Good work for guys like you, added costs for us mere investors.

I

Where Lux falls down is that its a small place with a much smaller talent pool and not a lot of draw from a lifestyle pov unless you like a very quiet life.

Is that free advice to get Lux co out of our structure we thought was tax efficient

Same argument didn't stop the traders going to Geneva though.

Depends how it's structured. The devil will be in the detail, as always.

rick_chasey

Noted a few instances of 'bregret' being reported on twitter. People saying "I didn't know it was actually going to happen". Likely over exaggerated but christ, guys, come on. You're all adults. You vote for what you want to happen, not as a way to 'register protest'.

:roll:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... type=Email