Discussion:
Chart showing hard Brexit cost to UK business
Add Reply
MM
2017-10-02 08:25:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major decline for
British exporters:

http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-02 14:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major decline for
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as well.
James Harris
2017-10-02 14:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major decline for
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-02 16:28:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes

http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitoring-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit

The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.

With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but with one rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate for external ones. They will probably get rid of the automatic passporting of UK financial services, so many hoops to jump through.

As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner this could seriously damage the UK and the City in particular.

Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly mobile - if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if Brexit is blown...
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
well probably too late now anyway - Lloyds of Dublin!... : -


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/19/lloyds-of-london-dublin-brexit-xl-group-eu-single-market
http://www.allaboutfinancecareers.co.uk/finance-news/more-financial-services-to-move-to-dublin
http://uk.businessinsider.com/12-city-banks-relocating-to-dublin-after-brexit-2017-6
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-latest-news-banks-move-9000-jobs-britain-mainland-europe-eu-european-union-jpmorgan-hsbc-a7724231.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-10000-finance-jobs-will-leave-uk-survey-frankfurt-paris-a7953216.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/26/lloyds-move-1000-scottish-widows-staff-outsourcing-firm/

Maybe City bankers will see a Brexit bonus, but which city will they be in when they do?
James Harris
2017-10-02 18:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitoring-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but with one rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate for external ones. They will probably get rid of the automatic passporting of UK financial services, so many hoops to jump through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner this could seriously damage the UK and the City in particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly mobile - if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if Brexit is blown...
I haven't seen the finances involved but given the small operations the
London banks are setting up in European cities (in preparation for UK-EU
talks to not go well) it would appear that the exodus from London is not
going to be of Biblical proportions (sic).

Given that, my strong preference would be for the UK to become
completely detached from European banking rules. They (the EU) can have
their banking and tax it to their hearts' content.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
well probably too late now anyway - Lloyds of Dublin!... : -
Good! The more liberty London has the more successful it is likely to be
on the world stage.

...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Maybe City bankers will see a Brexit bonus, but which city will they be in when they do?
One of the good things about the offices the banks have been setting up
on the continent is that they are in different cities. No one city is
attracting London's business.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-02 19:23:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT
as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they
will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitor
ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but
with one rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate
for external ones. They will probably get rid of the automatic
passporting of UK financial services, so many hoops to jump
through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner this
could seriously damage the UK and the City in particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly mobile -
if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if Brexit is
blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's financial
work (such as raising capital, money transmission, clearing, stock
exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take place in an outside
country. At the very least I can see the EU will wish for its own
regulations.

Also let's not forget that somewhat dubious financial activity has
always gone lightly regulated and lightly punished in London.

I can't see the City getting bigger after Brexit but I can see it
getting smaller.
James Harris
2017-10-02 20:27:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT
as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they
will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitor
ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but
with one rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate
for external ones. They will probably get rid of the automatic
passporting of UK financial services, so many hoops to jump
through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner this
could seriously damage the UK and the City in particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly mobile -
if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if Brexit is
blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's financial
work (such as raising capital, money transmission, clearing, stock
exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take place in an outside
country. At the very least I can see the EU will wish for its own
regulations.
Also let's not forget that somewhat dubious financial activity has
always gone lightly regulated and lightly punished in London.
I can't see the City getting bigger after Brexit but I can see it
getting smaller.
The City will get smaller at the start and may even fall behind New
York. But over time if the EU and the UK follow the courses they've been
on for many years, I'm pretty sure that firms will want to use London
(or New York) where they can.

You might find this helpful from Barclays' boss:

“The users of capital find the providers of capital, not the other way
around, and the providers of capital, by and large, are resident in
London and New York,” Mr Staley told the Financial Times’s Banking
Summit. “I don’t think London will lose its gravitational pull in terms
of management of capital in any reasonable timeframe.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/

That mirrors what others have said. Post Brexit, it won't so much be a
case of London needing access to Europe but of Europe needing access to
London. Something to think about!
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-04 15:42:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT
as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they
will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitor
ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but
with one rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate
for external ones. They will probably get rid of the automatic
passporting of UK financial services, so many hoops to jump
through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner this
could seriously damage the UK and the City in particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly mobile -
if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if Brexit is
blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's financial
work (such as raising capital, money transmission, clearing, stock
exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take place in an outside
country.
how are they going to stop it?

If the money that you wish to borrow resides outside of the EU (as most of
it does) any attempt to insist that the broking house organising the
transaction was domiciled in the EU would likely see you fail to obtain the
funds that you need.

tim
James Harris
2017-10-04 16:52:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT
as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they
will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitor
ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but
with one rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate
for external ones. They will probably get rid of the automatic
passporting of UK financial services, so many hoops to jump
through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner this
could seriously damage the UK and the City in particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly mobile -
if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if Brexit is
blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's financial
work (such as raising capital, money transmission, clearing, stock
exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take place in an outside
country.
how are they going to stop it?
If the money that you wish to borrow resides outside of the EU (as most of
it does) any attempt to insist that the broking house organising the
transaction was domiciled in the EU would likely see you fail to obtain the
funds that you need.
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief executive of
Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply London needing access to
the EU the EU will want access to London as a source of finance. "The
users of capital find the providers of capital, not the other way
around". Of course, it's a two-way street but his comments nonetheless
give an idea of priorities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-04 17:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:23:31 UTC+1, James Harris
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector
most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit
by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-
moni
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
tor ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in,
but with one rate for internal transfers and another [higher]
rate for external ones. They will probably get rid of the
automatic passporting of UK financial services, so many hoops
to jump through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner this
could seriously damage the UK and the City in particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly mobile
- if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if Brexit is
blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's
financial work (such as raising capital, money transmission,
clearing, stock exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take
place in an outside country.
how are they going to stop it?
If the money that you wish to borrow resides outside of the EU
(as most of it does) any attempt to insist that the broking
house organising the transaction was domiciled in the EU would
likely see you fail to obtain the funds that you need.
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course, it's
a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an idea of
priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other city
activities but it is the EU who can set rules, restrictions and
tax laws for its members to abide by.

It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.

Even if the City somehow manages to remain the financial centre of
all Europe, the EU can still arrange to take its share of the
profits. The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use the
flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
James Harris
2017-10-04 18:07:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:23:31 UTC+1, James Harris
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector
most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit
by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-
moni
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
tor ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in,
but with one rate for internal transfers and another [higher]
rate for external ones. They will probably get rid of the
automatic passporting of UK financial services, so many hoops
to jump through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner this
could seriously damage the UK and the City in particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly mobile
- if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if Brexit is
blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's
financial work (such as raising capital, money transmission,
clearing, stock exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take
place in an outside country.
how are they going to stop it?
If the money that you wish to borrow resides outside of the EU
(as most of it does) any attempt to insist that the broking
house organising the transaction was domiciled in the EU would
likely see you fail to obtain the funds that you need.
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course, it's
a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an idea of
priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other city
activities but it is the EU who can set rules, restrictions and
tax laws for its members to abide by.
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
I don't see that. How could the EU's regulatory framework limit what
London (post Brexit) or New York does?
Post by pamela
Even if the City somehow manages to remain the financial centre of
all Europe, the EU can still arrange to take its share of the
profits. The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use the
flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-04 18:20:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:23:31 UTC+1, James Harris
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector
most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be
hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think
they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-
moni
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
tor ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in,
but with one rate for internal transfers and another
[higher] rate for external ones. They will probably get
rid of the automatic passporting of UK financial services,
so many hoops to jump through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner
this could seriously damage the UK and the City in
particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly
mobile - if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if
Brexit is blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's
financial work (such as raising capital, money transmission,
clearing, stock exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take
place in an outside country.
how are they going to stop it?
If the money that you wish to borrow resides outside of the
EU (as most of it does) any attempt to insist that the
broking house organising the transaction was domiciled in the
EU would likely see you fail to obtain the funds that you
need.
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course,
it's a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an
idea of priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other
city activities but it is the EU who can set rules,
restrictions and tax laws for its members to abide by.
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
I don't see that. How could the EU's regulatory framework limit
what London (post Brexit) or New York does?
For example, in post-Brexit days the EU could say to its
members....

"Thou shalt pay an additional 40% tax on transactions conducted or
capital raised (or whatever) with a institution in a European
country that is not a member of the EU".
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Even if the City somehow manages to remain the financial centre
of all Europe, the EU can still arrange to take its share of
the profits. The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU
even while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use
the flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
James Harris
2017-10-04 18:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:23:31 UTC+1, James Harris
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector
most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be
hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think
they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-
moni
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
tor ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in,
but with one rate for internal transfers and another
[higher] rate for external ones. They will probably get
rid of the automatic passporting of UK financial services,
so many hoops to jump through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner
this could seriously damage the UK and the City in
particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly
mobile - if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if
Brexit is blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's
financial work (such as raising capital, money transmission,
clearing, stock exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take
place in an outside country.
how are they going to stop it?
If the money that you wish to borrow resides outside of the
EU (as most of it does) any attempt to insist that the
broking house organising the transaction was domiciled in the
EU would likely see you fail to obtain the funds that you
need.
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course,
it's a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an
idea of priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other
city activities but it is the EU who can set rules,
restrictions and tax laws for its members to abide by.
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
I don't see that. How could the EU's regulatory framework limit
what London (post Brexit) or New York does?
For example, in post-Brexit days the EU could say to its
members....
"Thou shalt pay an additional 40% tax on transactions conducted or
capital raised (or whatever) with a institution in a European
country that is not a member of the EU".
Are you sure that would be allowed? WTO rules are quite restrictive on
anti-competitive practices, e.g. under most-favoured nation status.
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-05 09:59:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
On Monday, 2 October 2017 15:23:31 UTC+1, James Harris
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector
most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be
hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think
they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-
moni
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
tor ing-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in,
but with one rate for internal transfers and another
[higher] rate for external ones. They will probably get
rid of the automatic passporting of UK financial services,
so many hoops to jump through.
As financial services is the UK's biggest export earner
this could seriously damage the UK and the City in
particular.
Financial firms are pretty savvy, ruthless and fairly
mobile - if this is botched, watch UK firms up sticks if
Brexit is blown...
It's hard to believe the EU will allow the bulk of it's
financial work (such as raising capital, money transmission,
clearing, stock exchange, commodities trading, etc) to take
place in an outside country.
how are they going to stop it?
If the money that you wish to borrow resides outside of the
EU (as most of it does) any attempt to insist that the
broking house organising the transaction was domiciled in the
EU would likely see you fail to obtain the funds that you
need.
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course,
it's a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an
idea of priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other
city activities but it is the EU who can set rules,
restrictions and tax laws for its members to abide by.
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
I don't see that. How could the EU's regulatory framework limit
what London (post Brexit) or New York does?
For example, in post-Brexit days the EU could say to its
members....
"Thou shalt pay an additional 40% tax on transactions conducted or
capital raised (or whatever) with a institution in a European
country that is not a member of the EU".
Are you sure that would be allowed? WTO rules are quite restrictive on
anti-competitive practices, e.g. under most-favoured nation status.
AIUI tariffs (which is what this is) on services are banned

tim
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-05 09:57:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course, it's
a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an idea of
priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other city
activities but it is the EU who can set rules, restrictions and
tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its own companies
about their investment strategies that effectively tie one (or even both)
hand(s) behind their back thus crippling their own industries

all in order to "punish" the financiers in London

Great - what a brilliant strategy that will be for the success of UK
industry - bring it on!
Post by pamela
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
Even if the City somehow manages to remain the financial centre of
all Europe,
which it will, because 80% of the business that it currently does is already
with ROW. Why would any of that move?
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the
profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries taking 5% of its
total business that can reasonably move, but that isn't what you previously
claimed, You said that the EU would impose restrictions on what EU
companies could do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale provided by the
"other 80%".

You are living in a dream land (though I confess that the city is helping
you by making its own the big presence of Armageddon should we leave)
Post by pamela
The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use the
flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
which will, in the end, be minimal

tim
pamela
2017-10-05 13:24:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course,
it's a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an
idea of priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other
city activities but it is the EU who can set rules,
restrictions and tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its own
companies about their investment strategies that effectively tie
one (or even both) hand(s) behind their back thus crippling
their own industries
The intention would not be to cripple both sides because the EU
party could use alternative means of finance from within the EU.

The intention would be to have more control over (the EU likes
that) finance for European industry and to raise tax revenue for
trades done with London.

Here is an extract from a analaysis by the ISRG about financial
clearing....

"If no transitional arrangements are put in place, the
regulatory status of some CCPs for some banks will change
overnight from QCCP to non-QCCP, with the result that such
banks would have to apply punitive capital treatment to their
exposures to such CCPs, thereby rendering clearing through such
non-QCCPs uneconomic. Clearing through those CCPs would no
longer satisfy clearing mandates for certain banks."

https://www.irsg.co.uk/assets/IRSG-Paper-on-CCPs-Post-Brexit.pdf
Post by tim...
all in order to "punish" the financiers in London
Great - what a brilliant strategy that will be for the success
of UK industry - bring it on!
The French have ben devising ways to weaken the City for years but
there was never the political will to go head to head with London.
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
Even if the City somehow manages to remain the financial centre
of all Europe,
which it will, because 80% of the business that it currently
does is already with ROW. Why would any of that move?
That 80% seems high. Does it cover all forms of finance or only a
certain sector of the City? The only thing I could find that has
an 80% figure with ROW was "global non-ferrous business". Maybe
that's a Farage figure because he was a metals trader.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=city+of+london+80%25+trade+rest+of+world

Do you have a link?
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries taking
5% of its total business that can reasonably move, but that
isn't what you previously claimed, You said that the EU would
impose restrictions on what EU companies could do to access the
things which are, necessarily still going to be provided from
London due to the economies of scale provided by the "other
80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will minimise
its dependence on the City and this will lead to less financial
trade in the City.

It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade finance
beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial centre based
in London.
Post by tim...
You are living in a dream land (though I confess that the city
is helping you by making its own the big presence of Armageddon
should we leave)
Post by pamela
The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use the
flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
which will, in the end, be minimal
tim
A newspaper report said this as a summary the City Brexit blueprint publshed last week....

London and Frankfurt will lose out to New York and Singapore
unless a free trade deal on financial services after Brexit is
agreed, according to leading City businesses. The report from
key banks, law firms and fund managers in the UK proposes a
"bespoke" free trade agreement once Britain leaves the EU.

Such a deal would allow British and EU-based financial
companies to sell their products and services without tariffs,
taxes or quotas in each other's markets after Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/26/city-free-trade-agreement-financial-services-brexit-london-uk-eu
tim...
2017-10-05 16:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course,
it's a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an
idea of priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other
city activities but it is the EU who can set rules,
restrictions and tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its own
companies about their investment strategies that effectively tie
one (or even both) hand(s) behind their back thus crippling
their own industries
The intention would not be to cripple both sides because the EU
party could use alternative means of finance from within the EU.
but they can't

that's the point

the location of the broker doesn't change the location of the money
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
Even if the City somehow manages to remain the financial centre
of all Europe,
which it will, because 80% of the business that it currently
does is already with ROW. Why would any of that move?
That 80% seems high. Does it cover all forms of finance or only a
certain sector of the City?
it's the percentage of the 176 billion pounds (apparently) that the city
contributes to the UK economy

but you have to understand that all of these types of business that the city
does are interlinked

one type of city business will share much of its admin/legal costs with all
the other type of city business

Try and take just one type of trading away to somewhere else and it will
have to support, on its own, all of the admin costs of running a financial
centre, and it will likely be significantly more expensive to operate.

Now, if the EU mandates that a few things that are within it regulatory
domain move to the EU, then the uses of these services will have no choice
but to pay the extra costs.

But the idea that because a tiny part of the whole moves, that the rest will
follow, is just nonsense. The costs of doing so for ROW trading would be
too great.
Post by pamela
The only thing I could find that has
an 80% figure with ROW was "global non-ferrous business". Maybe
that's a Farage figure because he was a metals trader.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=city+of+london+80%25+trade+rest+of+world
Do you have a link?
try this one:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks-idUKKBN12G101

"Continental business only accounts for 11 percent of Lloyd's gross written
premium, with possibly as little as 800 million pounds directly reliant on a
passport, Open Europe said"
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries taking
5% of its total business that can reasonably move, but that
isn't what you previously claimed, You said that the EU would
impose restrictions on what EU companies could do to access the
things which are, necessarily still going to be provided from
London due to the economies of scale provided by the "other
80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will minimise
its dependence on the City and this will lead to less financial
trade in the City.
yes

if it isn't significant

who cares?

(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of work, - poor
dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade finance
beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial centre based
in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing money by a whole
percentage point (and that a percentage point from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to
3.03% - not an unreasonable estimate of the costs) they will cripple their
own industry in pursuit of the dream.

And they know this - they are bluffing!
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
You are living in a dream land (though I confess that the city
is helping you by making its own the big presence of Armageddon
should we leave)
Post by pamela
The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use the
flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
which will, in the end, be minimal
tim
A newspaper report said this as a summary the City Brexit blueprint publshed last week....
London and Frankfurt will lose out to New York and Singapore
unless a free trade deal on financial services after Brexit is
agreed, according to leading City businesses.
as I have said umpteen times before

this is the city crying wolf in order to persuade HMG to give some
concessions an make like easy for them.
Post by pamela
The report from
key banks, law firms and fund managers in the UK proposes
this looks to me like they have been marking their own homework

find me the homework marked by someone without a vested interest in the
result
Post by pamela
a
"bespoke" free trade agreement once Britain leaves the EU.
Such a deal would allow British and EU-based financial
companies to sell their products and services without tariffs,
taxes or quotas in each other's markets after Brexit.
it will be Europe's loss if we can't

without a deal we will still be selling much the same, they will be paying
more for it

tim
Ophelia
2017-10-05 19:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course,
it's a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an
idea of priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other
city activities but it is the EU who can set rules,
restrictions and tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its own
companies about their investment strategies that effectively tie
one (or even both) hand(s) behind their back thus crippling
their own industries
The intention would not be to cripple both sides because the EU
party could use alternative means of finance from within the EU.
but they can't

that's the point

the location of the broker doesn't change the location of the money
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
Even if the City somehow manages to remain the financial centre
of all Europe,
which it will, because 80% of the business that it currently
does is already with ROW. Why would any of that move?
That 80% seems high. Does it cover all forms of finance or only a
certain sector of the City?
it's the percentage of the 176 billion pounds (apparently) that the city
contributes to the UK economy

but you have to understand that all of these types of business that the city
does are interlinked

one type of city business will share much of its admin/legal costs with all
the other type of city business

Try and take just one type of trading away to somewhere else and it will
have to support, on its own, all of the admin costs of running a financial
centre, and it will likely be significantly more expensive to operate.

Now, if the EU mandates that a few things that are within it regulatory
domain move to the EU, then the uses of these services will have no choice
but to pay the extra costs.

But the idea that because a tiny part of the whole moves, that the rest will
follow, is just nonsense. The costs of doing so for ROW trading would be
too great.
Post by pamela
The only thing I could find that has
an 80% figure with ROW was "global non-ferrous business". Maybe
that's a Farage figure because he was a metals trader.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=city+of+london+80%25+trade+rest+of+world
Do you have a link?
try this one:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks-idUKKBN12G101

"Continental business only accounts for 11 percent of Lloyd's gross written
premium, with possibly as little as 800 million pounds directly reliant on a
passport, Open Europe said"
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries taking
5% of its total business that can reasonably move, but that
isn't what you previously claimed, You said that the EU would
impose restrictions on what EU companies could do to access the
things which are, necessarily still going to be provided from
London due to the economies of scale provided by the "other
80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will minimise
its dependence on the City and this will lead to less financial
trade in the City.
yes

if it isn't significant

who cares?

(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of work, - poor
dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade finance
beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial centre based
in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing money by a whole
percentage point (and that a percentage point from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to
3.03% - not an unreasonable estimate of the costs) they will cripple their
own industry in pursuit of the dream.

And they know this - they are bluffing!
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
You are living in a dream land (though I confess that the city
is helping you by making its own the big presence of Armageddon
should we leave)
Post by pamela
The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use the
flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
which will, in the end, be minimal
tim
A newspaper report said this as a summary the City Brexit blueprint publshed last week....
London and Frankfurt will lose out to New York and Singapore
unless a free trade deal on financial services after Brexit is
agreed, according to leading City businesses.
as I have said umpteen times before

this is the city crying wolf in order to persuade HMG to give some
concessions an make like easy for them.
Post by pamela
The report from
key banks, law firms and fund managers in the UK proposes
this looks to me like they have been marking their own homework

find me the homework marked by someone without a vested interest in the
result
Post by pamela
a
"bespoke" free trade agreement once Britain leaves the EU.
Such a deal would allow British and EU-based financial
companies to sell their products and services without tariffs,
taxes or quotas in each other's markets after Brexit.
it will be Europe's loss if we can't

without a deal we will still be selling much the same, they will be paying
more for it

tim
==

Very informative and interesting post. Thanks, tim.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
pamela
2017-10-06 16:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find
the providers of capital, not the other way around". Of
course, it's a two-way street but his comments nonetheless
give an idea of priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going
to intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in
other city activities but it is the EU who can set rules,
restrictions and tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its
own companies about their investment strategies that
effectively tie one (or even both) hand(s) behind their back
thus crippling their own industries
The intention would not be to cripple both sides because the EU
party could use alternative means of finance from within the
EU.
but they can't
that's the point
the location of the broker doesn't change the location of the
money
The City doesn't actually hold "money" (excluding promissory
notes). Even less so after Gordon Brown flogged off the gold.
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
It is mainly such a changed regulatory framework which could
easily make the City less attractive to the EU.
Even if the City somehow manages to remain the financial
centre of all Europe,
which it will, because 80% of the business that it currently
does is already with ROW. Why would any of that move?
That 80% seems high. Does it cover all forms of finance or
only a certain sector of the City?
it's the percentage of the 176 billion pounds (apparently) that
the city contributes to the UK economy
but you have to understand that all of these types of business
that the city does are interlinked
one type of city business will share much of its admin/legal
costs with all the other type of city business
Not sure I agree with that. They may share some but it would not
be all that much.
Post by tim...
Try and take just one type of trading away to somewhere else and
it will have to support, on its own, all of the admin costs of
running a financial centre, and it will likely be significantly
more expensive to operate.
Now, if the EU mandates that a few things that are within it
regulatory domain move to the EU, then the uses of these
services will have no choice but to pay the extra costs.
So there's some extra admin cost. This are unlikely to be a deal
breaker.
Post by tim...
But the idea that because a tiny part of the whole moves, that
the rest will follow, is just nonsense. The costs of doing so
for ROW trading would be too great.
Post by pamela
The only thing I could find that has
an 80% figure with ROW was "global non-ferrous business".
Maybe that's a Farage figure because he was a metals trader.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=city+of+london+80%25
+trade+rest+of+world
Do you have a link?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks-idUKKBN12G101
"Continental business only accounts for 11 percent of Lloyd's
gross written premium, with possibly as little as 800 million
pounds directly reliant on a passport, Open Europe said"
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move, but
that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that the EU
would impose restrictions on what EU companies could do to
access the things which are, necessarily still going to be
provided from London due to the economies of scale provided by
the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to less
financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing money
by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point from 3%
to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable estimate of
the costs) they will cripple their own industry in pursuit of
the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU companies.
The EU could then steer busines in that direction by imposing
additional taxes on business EU companies do with London.
Post by tim...
And they know this - they are bluffing!
They're not bluffing. Brexiteers have their head in the clouds.
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
You are living in a dream land (though I confess that the city
is helping you by making its own the big presence of
Armageddon should we leave)
Post by pamela
The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use
the flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
which will, in the end, be minimal
tim
A newspaper report said this as a summary the City Brexit
blueprint publshed last week....
London and Frankfurt will lose out to New York and Singapore
unless a free trade deal on financial services after Brexit
is agreed, according to leading City businesses.
as I have said umpteen times before
this is the city crying wolf in order to persuade HMG to give
some concessions an make like easy for them.
The City wants HMG to make good the losses from Brexit rather than
absorb the losses themselves.
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
The report from
key banks, law firms and fund managers in the UK proposes
this looks to me like they have been marking their own homework
find me the homework marked by someone without a vested interest
in the result
Post by pamela
a
"bespoke" free trade agreement once Britain leaves the EU.
Such a deal would allow British and EU-based financial
companies to sell their products and services without
tariffs, taxes or quotas in each other's markets after
Brexit.
it will be Europe's loss if we can't
without a deal we will still be selling much the same, they will
be paying more for it
tim
The links you mention isn't anything like as great as you suggest.
Some financial sectors and their products are very disctinct from
others.

So that 80% figure is only for Lloyds? Lloyds is the most British
institution in the whole City!! I imagine Deutsche Bank or HKSB
would recognise such an extreme percentage in their own
businesses.

However, if you're content that the City has absolutely nothing to
worry about then that's fine. Sit back and don't worry.
Meanwhile City organisations are in fact very worried about what
might happen - as the rest of your Reuters article shows.
James Harris
2017-10-06 21:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move, but
that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that the EU
would impose restrictions on what EU companies could do to
access the things which are, necessarily still going to be
provided from London due to the economies of scale provided by
the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to less
financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing money
by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point from 3%
to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable estimate of
the costs) they will cripple their own industry in pursuit of
the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU companies.
The EU could then steer busines in that direction by imposing
additional taxes on business EU companies do with London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set up such
markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places where the
conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London has many years of
interconnected systems in place and unpicking those links would be
infeasible. Third, which country would the EU "set up" such a market in?
Most of them have high tax rates or other disincentives - and they have
governments which are very unlikely to be willing to push through the
dramatic tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English as their
primary language.

There's basically no chance of the EU replicating London. And notably
when London financial firms have set up branch offices within the EU27
in order to prepare for a no-deal scenario they have picked a bunch of
different cities. There is simply no clear rival to London in Europe.
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
And they know this - they are bluffing!
They're not bluffing. Brexiteers have their head in the clouds.
Such airy analogies are meaningless. The long-term case for Brexit is
much better founded than many who listened to Project Fear believe, even
though the process of exiting may be difficult.
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
You are living in a dream land (though I confess that the city
is helping you by making its own the big presence of
Armageddon should we leave)
Post by pamela
The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use
the flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
which will, in the end, be minimal
tim
A newspaper report said this as a summary the City Brexit
blueprint publshed last week....
London and Frankfurt will lose out to New York and Singapore
unless a free trade deal on financial services after Brexit
is agreed, according to leading City businesses.
as I have said umpteen times before
this is the city crying wolf in order to persuade HMG to give
some concessions an make like easy for them.
The City wants HMG to make good the losses from Brexit rather than
absorb the losses themselves.
Not losses. Short-term differences such as lower gains. The long term is
bright according to the firms now choosing to invest in London.
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
The report from
key banks, law firms and fund managers in the UK proposes
this looks to me like they have been marking their own homework
find me the homework marked by someone without a vested interest
in the result
Post by pamela
a
"bespoke" free trade agreement once Britain leaves the EU.
Such a deal would allow British and EU-based financial
companies to sell their products and services without
tariffs, taxes or quotas in each other's markets after
Brexit.
it will be Europe's loss if we can't
without a deal we will still be selling much the same, they will
be paying more for it
tim
The links you mention isn't anything like as great as you suggest.
Some financial sectors and their products are very disctinct from
others.
So that 80% figure is only for Lloyds? Lloyds is the most British
institution in the whole City!! I imagine Deutsche Bank or HKSB
would recognise such an extreme percentage in their own
businesses.
However, if you're content that the City has absolutely nothing to
worry about then that's fine. Sit back and don't worry.
Meanwhile City organisations are in fact very worried about what
might happen - as the rest of your Reuters article shows.
The City UK group initially opposed Brexit but now it's happening they
changed their view and now see opportunities: "TheCityUK has today
published new calls for the UK to make the most of the
once-in-a-generation opportunity to recalibrate and repurpose its trade
and investment policy to benefit the wider economy once Britain leaves
the EU."

https://www.thecityuk.com/news/thecityuk-hails-opportunity-for-trade-and-investment-policy-reset/
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-07 10:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move,
but that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that
the EU would impose restrictions on what EU companies could
do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale
provided by the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to
less financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing
money by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point
from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable
estimate of the costs) they will cripple their own industry in
pursuit of the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU
companies. The EU could then steer busines in that direction by
imposing additional taxes on business EU companies do with
London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set
up such markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places
where the conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London
has many years of interconnected systems in place and unpicking
those links would be infeasible.
Electronic trading makes physical proximity much less important
than it was in pre-war times. When I worked in the City I could
watch the open-outcry traders frantically at work on their trading
floors as an entertainment and watch them go into action as the
maerican markets opened. All that's gone. A trader's screen can
be located anywhere and you wouldn't know the difference.

The City grew organically because it had to in pre-electronic
times but now a new market or financial institution can be
encouraged to set up here or there by financial and regulatory
initiatives.
Post by James Harris
Third, which country would the
EU "set up" such a market in? Most of them have high tax rates
or other disincentives - and they have governments which are
very unlikely to be willing to push through the dramatic
tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English
as their primary language.
A typically EU solution would be to split up the institutions
between countries. The US has several markets in different
locations.
Post by James Harris
There's basically no chance of the EU replicating London.
The EU wouldn't replicate the ways things are done already or the
structure of London but the EU could replicate a lot of the
function. It's pure City bravado to keep saying it is unique and
can't be touched or it will all fall apart.
Post by James Harris
And
notably when London financial firms have set up branch offices
within the EU27 in order to prepare for a no-deal scenario they
have picked a bunch of different cities.
I hop eyou hav ebeen following the debate about this.
Post by James Harris
There is simply no
clear rival to London in Europe.
True. However importnat elements of the City's work, especially
for European clients, might get moved elsewhere.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
And they know this - they are bluffing!
They're not bluffing. Brexiteers have their head in the
clouds.
Such airy analogies are meaningless. The long-term case for
Brexit is much better founded than many who listened to Project
Fear believe, even though the process of exiting may be
difficult.
Such airy predictions are meaningless. It assumes others parties
will behave in the way we predict and already we have seen that
is quite untrue.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
You are living in a dream land (though I confess that the
city is helping you by making its own the big presence of
Armageddon should we leave)
Post by pamela
The City has been a thorn in the flesh of the EU even
while the UK is a member and I imagine the EU will now use
the flux Brexit causes to make some changes.
which will, in the end, be minimal
tim
A newspaper report said this as a summary the City Brexit
blueprint publshed last week....
London and Frankfurt will lose out to New York and
Singapore unless a free trade deal on financial services
after Brexit is agreed, according to leading City
businesses.
as I have said umpteen times before
this is the city crying wolf in order to persuade HMG to give
some concessions an make like easy for them.
The City wants HMG to make good the losses from Brexit rather
than absorb the losses themselves.
Not losses. Short-term differences such as lower gains.
I mean lost business in the future.
Post by James Harris
The long
term is bright according to the firms now choosing to invest in
London.
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
The report from
key banks, law firms and fund managers in the UK proposes
this looks to me like they have been marking their own
homework
find me the homework marked by someone without a vested
interest in the result
Post by pamela
a
"bespoke" free trade agreement once Britain leaves the EU.
Such a deal would allow British and EU-based financial
companies to sell their products and services without
tariffs, taxes or quotas in each other's markets after
Brexit.
it will be Europe's loss if we can't
without a deal we will still be selling much the same, they
will be paying more for it
tim
The links you mention isn't anything like as great as you
suggest. Some financial sectors and their products are very
disctinct from others.
So that 80% figure is only for Lloyds? Lloyds is the most
British institution in the whole City!! I imagine Deutsche
Bank or HKSB would recognise such an extreme percentage in
their own businesses.
However, if you're content that the City has absolutely nothing
to worry about then that's fine. Sit back and don't worry.
Meanwhile City organisations are in fact very worried about
what might happen - as the rest of your Reuters article shows.
The City UK group initially opposed Brexit but now it's
"TheCityUK has today published new calls for the UK to make the
most of the once-in-a-generation opportunity to recalibrate and
repurpose its trade and investment policy to benefit the wider
economy once Britain leaves the EU."
https://www.thecityuk.com/news/thecityuk-hails-opportunity-
for-trade-and-investment-policy-reset/
Ot opposed Brexit for good reason and now it is trying to make the
best of a bad job. It has to issue 100% totally and uttrly
meaningless press releases like that. Have you actually read what
you quoted? Did you find a single fact in it?
James Harris
2017-10-07 15:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move,
but that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that
the EU would impose restrictions on what EU companies could
do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale
provided by the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to
less financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing
money by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point
from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable
estimate of the costs) they will cripple their own industry in
pursuit of the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU
companies. The EU could then steer busines in that direction by
imposing additional taxes on business EU companies do with
London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set
up such markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places
where the conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London
has many years of interconnected systems in place and unpicking
those links would be infeasible.
Electronic trading makes physical proximity much less important
than it was in pre-war times. When I worked in the City I could
watch the open-outcry traders frantically at work on their trading
floors as an entertainment and watch them go into action as the
maerican markets opened. All that's gone. A trader's screen can
be located anywhere and you wouldn't know the difference.
If that were the case why don't such operations set up in lower-taxed
Dublin now?
Post by pamela
The City grew organically because it had to in pre-electronic
times but now a new market or financial institution can be
encouraged to set up here or there by financial and regulatory
initiatives.
Post by James Harris
Third, which country would the
EU "set up" such a market in? Most of them have high tax rates
or other disincentives - and they have governments which are
very unlikely to be willing to push through the dramatic
tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English
as their primary language.
A typically EU solution would be to split up the institutions
between countries. The US has several markets in different
locations.
Post by James Harris
There's basically no chance of the EU replicating London.
The EU wouldn't replicate the ways things are done already or the
structure of London but the EU could replicate a lot of the
function. It's pure City bravado to keep saying it is unique and
can't be touched or it will all fall apart.
Post by James Harris
And
notably when London financial firms have set up branch offices
within the EU27 in order to prepare for a no-deal scenario they
have picked a bunch of different cities.
I hop eyou hav ebeen following the debate about this.
Post by James Harris
There is simply no
clear rival to London in Europe.
True. However importnat elements of the City's work, especially
for European clients, might get moved elsewhere.
Some of them will be moved! But the EU faces a problem of restricting
access to London while not restricting access to New York, Hong Kong and
Singapore. It could face legal challenge if it tried to penalise just
London. And if the EU tried to penalise EU firms for accessing /any/
non-EU sources of financial service then it will make it slightly harder
for those firms to operate within its boundaries. That will make the EU
a less attractive place to do business.

It is similar protectionist attitudes which have contributed to the EU
losing global market share. Their approach doesn't work.
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-07 15:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move,
but that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that
the EU would impose restrictions on what EU companies could
do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale
provided by the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to
less financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing
money by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point
from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable
estimate of the costs) they will cripple their own industry in
pursuit of the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU
companies. The EU could then steer busines in that direction by
imposing additional taxes on business EU companies do with
London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set
up such markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places
where the conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London
has many years of interconnected systems in place and unpicking
those links would be infeasible.
Electronic trading makes physical proximity much less important
than it was in pre-war times. When I worked in the City I could
watch the open-outcry traders frantically at work on their trading
floors as an entertainment and watch them go into action as the
maerican markets opened. All that's gone. A trader's screen can
be located anywhere and you wouldn't know the difference.
If that were the case why don't such operations set up in lower-taxed
Dublin now?
Post by pamela
The City grew organically because it had to in pre-electronic
times but now a new market or financial institution can be
encouraged to set up here or there by financial and regulatory
initiatives.
Post by James Harris
Third, which country would the
EU "set up" such a market in? Most of them have high tax rates
or other disincentives - and they have governments which are
very unlikely to be willing to push through the dramatic
tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English
as their primary language.
A typically EU solution would be to split up the institutions
between countries. The US has several markets in different
locations.
Post by James Harris
There's basically no chance of the EU replicating London.
The EU wouldn't replicate the ways things are done already or the
structure of London but the EU could replicate a lot of the
function. It's pure City bravado to keep saying it is unique and
can't be touched or it will all fall apart.
Post by James Harris
And
notably when London financial firms have set up branch offices
within the EU27 in order to prepare for a no-deal scenario they
have picked a bunch of different cities.
I hop eyou hav ebeen following the debate about this.
Post by James Harris
There is simply no
clear rival to London in Europe.
True. However importnat elements of the City's work, especially
for European clients, might get moved elsewhere.
Some of them will be moved! But the EU faces a problem of restricting
access to London while not restricting access to New York, Hong Kong and
Singapore. It could face legal challenge if it tried to penalise just
London. And if the EU tried to penalise EU firms for accessing /any/
non-EU sources of financial service then it will make it slightly harder
for those firms to operate within its boundaries.
you seem to have mis-spelt "Very much harder"

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-07 16:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move,
but that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that
the EU would impose restrictions on what EU companies could
do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale
provided by the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to
less financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing
money by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point
from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable
estimate of the costs) they will cripple their own industry in
pursuit of the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU
companies. The EU could then steer busines in that direction by
imposing additional taxes on business EU companies do with
London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set
up such markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places
where the conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London
has many years of interconnected systems in place and unpicking
those links would be infeasible.
Electronic trading makes physical proximity much less important
than it was in pre-war times. When I worked in the City I could
watch the open-outcry traders frantically at work on their trading
floors as an entertainment and watch them go into action as the
maerican markets opened. All that's gone. A trader's screen can
be located anywhere and you wouldn't know the difference.
If that were the case why don't such operations set up in lower-taxed
Dublin now?
They will Oscar - they will.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
The City grew organically because it had to in pre-electronic
times but now a new market or financial institution can be
encouraged to set up here or there by financial and regulatory
initiatives.
Decades ago there were satellite markets in major cities in the UK, I even knew a stockbroker who worked on the floor of the exchange in Manchester. There were also excahnges for cotton and coal in Manchester and wool in Leeds.

These all closed and consolidated in London in the 70's and 80's as the best price is normally obtained in the biggest market, and it was easy to phone up a broker there once STD was working.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Third, which country would the
EU "set up" such a market in? Most of them have high tax rates
or other disincentives - and they have governments which are
very unlikely to be willing to push through the dramatic
tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English
as their primary language.
A typically EU solution would be to split up the institutions
between countries. The US has several markets in different
locations.
Indeed. Similarly in the EU - diamonds are traded in Amsterdam and Antwerp, flowers in Rotterdam and so on.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
There's basically no chance of the EU replicating London.
The EU wouldn't replicate the ways things are done already or the
structure of London but the EU could replicate a lot of the
function. It's pure City bravado to keep saying it is unique and
can't be touched or it will all fall apart.
Post by James Harris
And
notably when London financial firms have set up branch offices
within the EU27 in order to prepare for a no-deal scenario they
have picked a bunch of different cities.
I hop eyou hav ebeen following the debate about this.
Post by James Harris
There is simply no
clear rival to London in Europe.
True. However importnat elements of the City's work, especially
for European clients, might get moved elsewhere.
Some of them will be moved! But the EU faces a problem of restricting
access to London while not restricting access to New York, Hong Kong and
Singapore. It could face legal challenge if it tried to penalise just
London. And if the EU tried to penalise EU firms for accessing /any/
non-EU sources of financial service then it will make it slightly harder
for those firms to operate within its boundaries. That will make the EU
a less attractive place to do business.
Of course they are not going to penalise London, but it won't be automatically passported, probably have to pay FTT and so on.
Post by James Harris
It is similar protectionist attitudes which have contributed to the EU
losing global market share. Their approach doesn't work.
Doesn't seem to have hurt the USA that much.
Post by James Harris
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-08 11:12:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move,
but that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that
the EU would impose restrictions on what EU companies could
do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale
provided by the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to
less financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing
money by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point
from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable
estimate of the costs) they will cripple their own industry in
pursuit of the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU
companies. The EU could then steer busines in that direction by
imposing additional taxes on business EU companies do with
London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set
up such markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places
where the conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London
has many years of interconnected systems in place and unpicking
those links would be infeasible.
Electronic trading makes physical proximity much less important
than it was in pre-war times. When I worked in the City I could
watch the open-outcry traders frantically at work on their trading
floors as an entertainment and watch them go into action as the
maerican markets opened. All that's gone. A trader's screen can
be located anywhere and you wouldn't know the difference.
If that were the case why don't such operations set up in lower-taxed
Dublin now?
They will Oscar - they will.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
The City grew organically because it had to in pre-electronic
times but now a new market or financial institution can be
encouraged to set up here or there by financial and regulatory
initiatives.
Decades ago there were satellite markets in major cities in the UK, I even
knew a stockbroker who worked on the floor of the exchange in Manchester.
There were also excahnges for cotton and coal in Manchester and wool in
Leeds.
These all closed and consolidated in London in the 70's and 80's as the
best price is normally obtained in the biggest market, and it was easy to
phone up a broker there once STD was working.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Third, which country would the
EU "set up" such a market in? Most of them have high tax rates
or other disincentives - and they have governments which are
very unlikely to be willing to push through the dramatic
tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English
as their primary language.
A typically EU solution would be to split up the institutions
between countries. The US has several markets in different
locations.
Indeed. Similarly in the EU - diamonds are traded in Amsterdam and
Antwerp, flowers in Rotterdam and so on.
but those are trades in *real* goods, not trades in goods masquerading as
financial instruments

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-08 11:25:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move,
but that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that
the EU would impose restrictions on what EU companies could
do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale
provided by the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to
less financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing
money by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point
from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable
estimate of the costs) they will cripple their own industry in
pursuit of the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU
companies. The EU could then steer busines in that direction by
imposing additional taxes on business EU companies do with
London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set
up such markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places
where the conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London
has many years of interconnected systems in place and unpicking
those links would be infeasible.
Electronic trading makes physical proximity much less important
than it was in pre-war times. When I worked in the City I could
watch the open-outcry traders frantically at work on their trading
floors as an entertainment and watch them go into action as the
maerican markets opened. All that's gone. A trader's screen can
be located anywhere and you wouldn't know the difference.
If that were the case why don't such operations set up in lower-taxed
Dublin now?
They will Oscar - they will.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
The City grew organically because it had to in pre-electronic
times but now a new market or financial institution can be
encouraged to set up here or there by financial and regulatory
initiatives.
Decades ago there were satellite markets in major cities in the UK, I even
knew a stockbroker who worked on the floor of the exchange in Manchester.
There were also excahnges for cotton and coal in Manchester and wool in
Leeds.
These all closed and consolidated in London in the 70's and 80's as the
best price is normally obtained in the biggest market, and it was easy to
phone up a broker there once STD was working.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Third, which country would the
EU "set up" such a market in? Most of them have high tax rates
or other disincentives - and they have governments which are
very unlikely to be willing to push through the dramatic
tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English
as their primary language.
A typically EU solution would be to split up the institutions
between countries. The US has several markets in different
locations.
Indeed. Similarly in the EU - diamonds are traded in Amsterdam and
Antwerp, flowers in Rotterdam and so on.
but those are trades in *real* goods, not trades in goods masquerading as
financial instruments
tim
A futures contract is such an instrument - it allows suppliers some certainty in the price they will receive for their production and users some certainty of the price they will pay for goods required for production or consumption. E.g. wheat to make bread.

The financier takes the risk on price fluctuations, but balances the risk of a fall against a rise - a bit like a bookmaker.

Another such instrument is an insurance contract - almost everyone has some of these for their car, house, possessions and even life.

Lloyds of London used to be the principle market for large risks, although its importance has declined over the years as large insurers increasingly market policies directly.
tim...
2017-10-08 11:45:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move,
but that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that
the EU would impose restrictions on what EU companies could
do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale
provided by the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to
less financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing
money by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point
from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable
estimate of the costs) they will cripple their own industry in
pursuit of the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU
companies. The EU could then steer busines in that direction by
imposing additional taxes on business EU companies do with
London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set
up such markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places
where the conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London
has many years of interconnected systems in place and unpicking
those links would be infeasible.
Electronic trading makes physical proximity much less important
than it was in pre-war times. When I worked in the City I could
watch the open-outcry traders frantically at work on their trading
floors as an entertainment and watch them go into action as the
maerican markets opened. All that's gone. A trader's screen can
be located anywhere and you wouldn't know the difference.
If that were the case why don't such operations set up in lower-taxed
Dublin now?
They will Oscar - they will.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
The City grew organically because it had to in pre-electronic
times but now a new market or financial institution can be
encouraged to set up here or there by financial and regulatory
initiatives.
Decades ago there were satellite markets in major cities in the UK, I even
knew a stockbroker who worked on the floor of the exchange in Manchester.
There were also excahnges for cotton and coal in Manchester and wool in
Leeds.
These all closed and consolidated in London in the 70's and 80's as the
best price is normally obtained in the biggest market, and it was easy to
phone up a broker there once STD was working.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Third, which country would the
EU "set up" such a market in? Most of them have high tax rates
or other disincentives - and they have governments which are
very unlikely to be willing to push through the dramatic
tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English
as their primary language.
A typically EU solution would be to split up the institutions
between countries. The US has several markets in different
locations.
Indeed. Similarly in the EU - diamonds are traded in Amsterdam and
Antwerp, flowers in Rotterdam and so on.
but those are trades in *real* goods, not trades in goods masquerading as
financial instruments
tim
A futures contract is such an instrument - it allows suppliers some
certainty in the price they will receive for their production and users
some certainty of the price they will pay for goods required for
production or consumption. E.g. wheat to make bread.
The financier takes the risk on price fluctuations, but balances the risk
of a fall against a rise - a bit like a bookmaker.
Another such instrument is an insurance contract - almost everyone has
some of these for their car, house, possessions and even life.
Lloyds of London used to be the principle market for large risks, although
its importance has declined over the years as large insurers increasingly
market policies directly.
I know all that

it seems that you are making my point for me

selling real goods to someone who wants to use those goods immediately

is not the same skill set as selling financial instruments (even if the
purchaser is a person who wants to use the goods later)

tim
MM
2017-10-09 09:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
the EU can still arrange to take its share of the profits.
That's fine. The City will recover from the EU countries
taking 5% of its total business that can reasonably move,
but that isn't what you previously claimed, You said that
the EU would impose restrictions on what EU companies could
do to access the things which are, necessarily still going
to be provided from London due to the economies of scale
provided by the "other 80%".
The City is not going to die from Brexit but the EU will
minimise its dependence on the City and this will lead to
less financial trade in the City.
yes
if it isn't significant
who cares?
(apart from a small number of high paid people suddenly out of
work, - poor dears)
Post by pamela
It is unthinkable that the EU will cheerfully leave trade
finance beholden to, what to them, is an off-shore financial
centre based in London.
But if they push up the costs of their industry borrowing
money by a whole percentage point (and that a percentage point
from 3% to 4%, not from 3% to 3.03% - not an unreasonable
estimate of the costs) they will cripple their own industry in
pursuit of the dream.
The EU might set up a rival capital market in the EU on terms
identical to London. The costs would not go up for EU
companies. The EU could then steer busines in that direction by
imposing additional taxes on business EU companies do with
London.
I don't believe it works that way. First, governments don't set
up such markets. Instead, /businesses/ set up shop in places
where the conditions are right for them to do so. Second, London
has many years of interconnected systems in place and unpicking
those links would be infeasible.
Electronic trading makes physical proximity much less important
than it was in pre-war times. When I worked in the City I could
watch the open-outcry traders frantically at work on their trading
floors as an entertainment and watch them go into action as the
maerican markets opened. All that's gone. A trader's screen can
be located anywhere and you wouldn't know the difference.
If that were the case why don't such operations set up in lower-taxed
Dublin now?
They will Oscar - they will.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
The City grew organically because it had to in pre-electronic
times but now a new market or financial institution can be
encouraged to set up here or there by financial and regulatory
initiatives.
Decades ago there were satellite markets in major cities in the UK, I even
knew a stockbroker who worked on the floor of the exchange in Manchester.
There were also excahnges for cotton and coal in Manchester and wool in
Leeds.
These all closed and consolidated in London in the 70's and 80's as the
best price is normally obtained in the biggest market, and it was easy to
phone up a broker there once STD was working.
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Third, which country would the
EU "set up" such a market in? Most of them have high tax rates
or other disincentives - and they have governments which are
very unlikely to be willing to push through the dramatic
tax-and-spend reforms needed. Such changes would impact their
entire economies. And, of course, few EU countries have English
as their primary language.
A typically EU solution would be to split up the institutions
between countries. The US has several markets in different
locations.
Indeed. Similarly in the EU - diamonds are traded in Amsterdam and
Antwerp, flowers in Rotterdam and so on.
but those are trades in *real* goods, not trades in goods masquerading as
financial instruments
tim
A futures contract is such an instrument - it allows suppliers some
certainty in the price they will receive for their production and users
some certainty of the price they will pay for goods required for
production or consumption. E.g. wheat to make bread.
The financier takes the risk on price fluctuations, but balances the risk
of a fall against a rise - a bit like a bookmaker.
Another such instrument is an insurance contract - almost everyone has
some of these for their car, house, possessions and even life.
Lloyds of London used to be the principle market for large risks, although
its importance has declined over the years as large insurers increasingly
market policies directly.
I know all that
it seems that you are making my point for me
selling real goods to someone who wants to use those goods immediately
is not the same skill set as selling financial instruments (even if the
purchaser is a person who wants to use the goods later)
tim
Irrespective of all that, will Brexit damage our trading position,
whether in goods or services?

Of course it will.

MM
Ophelia
2017-10-07 14:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
However, if you're content that the City has absolutely nothing to
worry about then that's fine. Sit back and don't worry.
Meanwhile City organisations are in fact very worried about what
might happen - as the rest of your Reuters article shows.
The City UK group initially opposed Brexit but now it's happening they
changed their view and now see opportunities: "TheCityUK has today
published new calls for the UK to make the most of the
once-in-a-generation opportunity to recalibrate and repurpose its trade
and investment policy to benefit the wider economy once Britain leaves
the EU."

https://www.thecityuk.com/news/thecityuk-hails-opportunity-for-trade-and-investment-policy-reset/


James Harris

===

:))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Harris
2017-10-05 14:17:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course, it's
a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an idea of
priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other city
activities but it is the EU who can set rules, restrictions and
tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its own companies
about their investment strategies that effectively tie one (or even both)
hand(s) behind their back thus crippling their own industries
Reminds me of Harriet Harman thinking the EU would add export tariffs to
its own products if we left. No clue!

I can't find a link to the original but this will do:



No clue at all. And she was going round using such false reasoning to
say we should vote Remain!
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-10-05 16:16:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course, it's
a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an idea of
priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other city
activities but it is the EU who can set rules, restrictions and
tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its own companies
about their investment strategies that effectively tie one (or even both)
hand(s) behind their back thus crippling their own industries
Reminds me of Harriet Harman thinking the EU would add export tariffs to
its own products if we left. No clue!

I can't find a link to the original but this will do:

http://youtu.be/SmdjH-BF7Fg

No clue at all. And she was going round using such false reasoning to
say we should vote Remain!

James Harris

==


No wonder we don't see her any more. What an embarrassment for the remain
side!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Harris
2017-10-05 20:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course, it's
a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an idea of
priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other city
activities but it is the EU who can set rules, restrictions and
tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its own companies
about their investment strategies that effectively tie one (or even both)
hand(s) behind their back thus crippling their own industries
Reminds me of Harriet Harman thinking the EU would add export tariffs to
its own products if we left. No clue!
http://youtu.be/SmdjH-BF7Fg
No clue at all. And she was going round using such false reasoning to
say we should vote Remain!
No wonder we don't see her any more. What an embarrassment for the remain
side!
I expect she'll be back. It seems a requirement to be an MP is not to
feel embarrassed over anything!

Here's an example you may have seen but it's funny if not. Harman was
very keen to tell the rest of is to stay in the EU but knew so little
about it she had no idea ran it (and wielded power over us)!


--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-10-06 07:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
As I posted earlier in reply to someone, Jes Staley, chief
executive of Barclays, pointed out that rather than simply
London needing access to the EU the EU will want access to
London as a source of finance. "The users of capital find the
providers of capital, not the other way around". Of course, it's
a two-way street but his comments nonetheless give an idea of
priorities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-
boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
With a few exceptions (such as EU financial institutions like
EBRD, EIB, CEB, etc), I would agree that the EU is not going to
intervene on its own account in capital markets nor in other city
activities but it is the EU who can set rules, restrictions and
tax laws for its members to abide by.
Oh so you think that the EU is going to impose rules on its own companies
about their investment strategies that effectively tie one (or even both)
hand(s) behind their back thus crippling their own industries
Reminds me of Harriet Harman thinking the EU would add export tariffs to
its own products if we left. No clue!
http://youtu.be/SmdjH-BF7Fg
No clue at all. And she was going round using such false reasoning to
say we should vote Remain!
No wonder we don't see her any more. What an embarrassment for the remain
side!
I expect she'll be back. It seems a requirement to be an MP is not to
feel embarrassed over anything!

Here's an example you may have seen but it's funny if not. Harman was
very keen to tell the rest of is to stay in the EU but knew so little
about it she had no idea ran it (and wielded power over us)!

http://youtu.be/SDsgfhXBJ74

James Harris

==

Yes, I have seen that one! It beggars belief! She is supposed to be a
politician for goodness sake.

Surely she can't come back from that ... but then look at Dianne Abbott ...
<sigh>
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
tim...
2017-10-06 09:45:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
Yes, I have seen that one! It beggars belief! She is supposed to be a
politician for goodness sake.
Surely she can't come back from that
She's seems to have already accepted her time in high office is over

expect to see her stand down as an MP next election
Ophelia
2017-10-06 15:04:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
Yes, I have seen that one! It beggars belief! She is supposed to be a
politician for goodness sake.
Surely she can't come back from that
She's seems to have already accepted her time in high office is over

expect to see her stand down as an MP next election

==

It will be interesting to see.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
tim...
2017-10-04 15:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitoring-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but with one
rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate for external ones.
ITYF that's called protectionism and would be illegal under WTO rules

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-05 16:02:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitoring-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but with one
rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate for external ones.
ITYF that's called protectionism and would be illegal under WTO rules
tim
A German car sold in Germany or the UK has no duty. A Japanese car sold in Germany or the UK pays ~10% duty - are you telling me that under WTO rules this is illegal? (it is protectionism of course).

They can do the same for services as well.
tim...
2017-10-05 17:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitoring-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but with one
rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate for external ones.
ITYF that's called protectionism and would be illegal under WTO rules
tim
A German car sold in Germany or the UK has no duty. A Japanese car sold
in Germany or the UK pays ~10% duty - are you telling me that under WTO
rules this is illegal? (it is protectionism of course).
They can do the same for services as well.
I believe that they cannot

tim
James Harris
2017-10-05 20:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by James Harris
Post by R. Mark Clayton
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as well.
The FTT is something the EU wants, isn't it? You think they will try to
control London after we leave?
Yes
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/19/eu-to-propose-stronger-monitoring-of-uk-financial-firms-after-brexit
The UK managed to stave FTT off so far from inside the EU.
With the UK outside the EU it will probably be brought in, but with one
rate for internal transfers and another [higher] rate for external ones.
ITYF that's called protectionism and would be illegal under WTO rules
tim
A German car sold in Germany or the UK has no duty. A Japanese car sold in Germany or the UK pays ~10% duty - are you telling me that under WTO rules this is illegal? (it is protectionism of course).
Under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade deal an importer cannot offer
better terms to one nation than another. Terms offered to a
"most-favoured nation" must apply to all nations, AIUI.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-10-06 10:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:24:09 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade deal an importer cannot offer
better terms to one nation than another. Terms offered to a
"most-favoured nation" must apply to all nations, AIUI.
Why don't we just walk away from WTO rules? After all, Brexiters
believe we should just walk away from the EU.

MM
James Harris
2017-10-06 12:33:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:24:09 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade deal an importer cannot offer
better terms to one nation than another. Terms offered to a
"most-favoured nation" must apply to all nations, AIUI.
Why don't we just walk away from WTO rules? After all, Brexiters
believe we should just walk away from the EU.
Because walking away from the political supranational construct which is
called the EU allows us again to take our seat at the table of the WTO
which is a trade organisation.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-10-07 08:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:33:47 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:24:09 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade deal an importer cannot offer
better terms to one nation than another. Terms offered to a
"most-favoured nation" must apply to all nations, AIUI.
Why don't we just walk away from WTO rules? After all, Brexiters
believe we should just walk away from the EU.
Because walking away from the political supranational construct which is
called the EU allows us again to take our seat at the table of the WTO
which is a trade organisation.
To what effect?

MM
James Harris
2017-10-07 11:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:33:47 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:24:09 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade deal an importer cannot offer
better terms to one nation than another. Terms offered to a
"most-favoured nation" must apply to all nations, AIUI.
Why don't we just walk away from WTO rules? After all, Brexiters
believe we should just walk away from the EU.
Because walking away from the political supranational construct which is
called the EU allows us again to take our seat at the table of the WTO
which is a trade organisation.
To what effect?
This kind of thing:

https://soundcloud.com/legatum-institute/crawford-falconer
--
James Harris
MM
2017-10-08 07:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 12:02:26 +0100, James Harris
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:33:47 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:24:09 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade deal an importer cannot offer
better terms to one nation than another. Terms offered to a
"most-favoured nation" must apply to all nations, AIUI.
Why don't we just walk away from WTO rules? After all, Brexiters
believe we should just walk away from the EU.
Because walking away from the political supranational construct which is
called the EU allows us again to take our seat at the table of the WTO
which is a trade organisation.
To what effect?
Couldn't you just tell me in a few words?

MM
James Harris
2017-10-08 23:02:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 12:02:26 +0100, James Harris
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:33:47 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:24:09 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Under WTO rules, in the absence of a trade deal an importer cannot offer
better terms to one nation than another. Terms offered to a
"most-favoured nation" must apply to all nations, AIUI.
Why don't we just walk away from WTO rules? After all, Brexiters
believe we should just walk away from the EU.
Because walking away from the political supranational construct which is
called the EU allows us again to take our seat at the table of the WTO
which is a trade organisation.
To what effect?
Couldn't you just tell me in a few words?
Not as well. Falconer's comments on topic are only a minute or so long.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-03 09:39:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as
well.
Including financial services makes that chart even grimmer.

These days I don't suppose such charts trouble hardcore Brexiteers
because they have stopped claiming Brexit will bring the UK
economic benefits. Also, immigration doesn't look as if it will be
vastly changed. And Euro legislation we have already adopted may not
get vastly altered.

So instead the Brexit delusion now focuses on intangible
nationalistic sentiment..... sovereign Parliament, free people,
Magna Carter, escape from Euro-laws, her Majesty, what we always
wanted, escape from Euro-regulation, feet and inches, for which
someone here recently pointed out they would pay "any cost".
James Harris
2017-10-03 20:03:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT as
well.
Including financial services makes that chart even grimmer.
I may be wrong but at this stage, Pamela, you appear to have queried the
PwC chart but accepted the one above. Do you know why you treated them
differently? Could it be because the one above said what you wanted to
believe?

The one above was not even sourced. It had no provenance shown. It was
not dated. The assumptions on which is it based were not mentioned. Yet,
people - many people - are willing to believe what it says.

It's hard to have a discussion of reality when people let preconceptions
guide them.

Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not claimed either
graph to be a true forecast.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-03 21:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT
as well.
Including financial services makes that chart even grimmer.
I may be wrong but at this stage, Pamela, you appear to have
queried the PwC chart but accepted the one above. Do you know
why you treated them differently? Could it be because the one
above said what you wanted to believe?
I queried the PWC chart because it was something Leavers chose to
disparage at the time of the referendum and it is hypocritical of
them, imcluding you, to attempt to make use of its veracity now.

Secondly, the chart is very ourof date andth assumption sused at
the tme have been significantly refined since then. It would be
wiser to use more up to data.

I sem to recall there was caution about that graph which said not
to use it to determine trend. You have also pointed out several
times lately that the time period is important.
Post by James Harris
The one above was not even sourced. It had no provenance shown.
It was not dated. The assumptions on which is it based were not
mentioned. Yet, people - many people - are willing to believe
what it says.
I have not checked for the sources of the graphic so I can't
comment on them. However if it is of typical reliability then it
paints a worrying picture. A very worrying picture.
Post by James Harris
It's hard to have a discussion of reality when people let
preconceptions guide them.
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not claimed
either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to be to
expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point of
expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before the
referendum.
James Harris
2017-10-04 09:32:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
They missed out financial services - probably the sector most
vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit by FTT
as well.
Including financial services makes that chart even grimmer.
I may be wrong but at this stage, Pamela, you appear to have
queried the PwC chart but accepted the one above. Do you know
why you treated them differently? Could it be because the one
above said what you wanted to believe?
I queried the PWC chart because it was something Leavers chose to
disparage at the time of the referendum and it is hypocritical of
them, imcluding you, to attempt to make use of its veracity now.
My personal view of it has not changed. I am not responsible for what
Remainers or Leavers made of it.
Post by pamela
Secondly, the chart is very ourof date andth assumption sused at
the tme have been significantly refined since then. It would be
wiser to use more up to data.
Except when refuting a claim such as yours about what those in power
"know". It was an ideal graph from an ideal time to illustrate what they
"knew" in contrast to what they told _us_.

Claims of what Remainers "know" will happen - especially to the economy
- continue apace.
Post by pamela
I sem to recall there was caution about that graph which said not
to use it to determine trend. You have also pointed out several
times lately that the time period is important.
Post by James Harris
The one above was not even sourced. It had no provenance shown.
It was not dated. The assumptions on which is it based were not
mentioned. Yet, people - many people - are willing to believe
what it says.
I have not checked for the sources of the graphic so I can't
comment on them. However if it is of typical reliability then it
paints a worrying picture. A very worrying picture.
People knew the earth was flat. People knew the emperor was wearing
clothes. And people knew we needed to be in the euro.

In other words, popularity of opinion is no proof. Just because someone
produces a graph which fits what we expect does not mean that that graph
is true or helpful.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
It's hard to have a discussion of reality when people let
preconceptions guide them.
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not claimed
either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to be to
expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point of
expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before the
referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-04 10:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
They missed out financial services - probably the sector
most vulnerable to non tariff barriers and likely to be hit
by FTT as well.
Including financial services makes that chart even grimmer.
I may be wrong but at this stage, Pamela, you appear to have
queried the PwC chart but accepted the one above. Do you know
why you treated them differently? Could it be because the one
above said what you wanted to believe?
I queried the PWC chart because it was something Leavers chose
to disparage at the time of the referendum and it is
hypocritical of them, imcluding you, to attempt to make use of
its veracity now.
My personal view of it has not changed. I am not responsible for
what Remainers or Leavers made of it.
Post by pamela
Secondly, the chart is very ourof date andth assumption sused
at the tme have been significantly refined since then. It
would be wiser to use more up to data.
Except when refuting a claim such as yours about what those in
power "know". It was an ideal graph from an ideal time to
illustrate what they "knew" in contrast to what they told _us_.
Claims of what Remainers "know" will happen - especially to the
economy - continue apace.
Post by pamela
I sem to recall there was caution about that graph which said
not to use it to determine trend. You have also pointed out
several times lately that the time period is important.
Post by James Harris
The one above was not even sourced. It had no provenance
shown. It was not dated. The assumptions on which is it based
were not mentioned. Yet, people - many people - are willing to
believe what it says.
I have not checked for the sources of the graphic so I can't
comment on them. However if it is of typical reliability then
it paints a worrying picture. A very worrying picture.
People knew the earth was flat. People knew the emperor was
wearing clothes. And people knew we needed to be in the euro.
In other words, popularity of opinion is no proof. Just because
someone produces a graph which fits what we expect does not mean
that that graph is true or helpful.
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
It's hard to have a discussion of reality when people let
preconceptions guide them.
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not claimed
either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to be
to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point of
expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before the
referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in March
2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I made about the
present....

It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU done
under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know this would be
economic suicide.

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
James Harris
2017-10-04 14:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not claimed
either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to be
to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point of
expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before the
referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in March
2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I made about the
present....
It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU done
under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know this would be
economic suicide.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
Just because something is "the current trend" does not make it true. I
don't know how else to put it!
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-04 17:43:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not
claimed either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to
be to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point
of expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before
the referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in
March 2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I made
about the present....
It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU
done under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know this
would be economic suicide.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
Just because something is "the current trend" does not make it
true. I don't know how else to put it!
We have a constantly shifting baseline from which, with new facts
and ew assumptions, we can make different scenarios. There is
never an absolutely right prediction (except by chance). However
we can use the best projections and factor in the costs of
success/failure to give an idea of what option we should be
choosing.

Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument that "we
can always trade with WTO rules because this arrangement is quite
good" and this bravado hasn't gone away even though the sunny
outlook argument was conjoured up without much thought as a form
of face saving by the Brexiteers who were uncertain that they
could cut other good trade deals.
James Harris
2017-10-04 18:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not
claimed either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to
be to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point
of expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before
the referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in
March 2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I made
about the present....
It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU
done under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know this
would be economic suicide.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
Just because something is "the current trend" does not make it
true. I don't know how else to put it!
We have a constantly shifting baseline from which, with new facts
and ew assumptions, we can make different scenarios. There is
never an absolutely right prediction (except by chance). However
we can use the best projections and factor in the costs of
success/failure to give an idea of what option we should be
choosing.
Aphoristic words but meaningless without data. This whole "current
trend" approach is deeply misleading.
Post by pamela
Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument that "we
can always trade with WTO rules because this arrangement is quite
good" and this bravado hasn't gone away even though the sunny
outlook argument was conjoured up without much thought as a form
of face saving by the Brexiteers who were uncertain that they
could cut other good trade deals.
I don't recognise your description of Brexiteers. How do you know what
their thoughts and motivations were?
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-04 18:17:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not
claimed either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems
to be to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the
point of expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this
before the referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in
March 2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I
made about the present....
It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the
EU done under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know
this would be economic suicide.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
Just because something is "the current trend" does not make it
true. I don't know how else to put it!
We have a constantly shifting baseline from which, with new
facts and ew assumptions, we can make different scenarios.
There is never an absolutely right prediction (except by
chance). However we can use the best projections and factor in
the costs of success/failure to give an idea of what option we
should be choosing.
Aphoristic words but meaningless without data. This whole
"current trend" approach is deeply misleading.
Post by pamela
Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument that
"we can always trade with WTO rules because this arrangement is
quite good" and this bravado hasn't gone away even though the
sunny outlook argument was conjoured up without much thought as
a form of face saving by the Brexiteers who were uncertain that
they could cut other good trade deals.
I don't recognise your description of Brexiteers. How do you
know what their thoughts and motivations were?
I didn't suggest I knew "their thoughts and motivations". I am
repeating the outward explanations which Brexiteers gave.

For all I know, maybe Brexiteers were thinking about watering the
castor oil plant in the kitchen while saying how everything would
be okay using only WTO rules.
James Harris
2017-10-04 18:37:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument that
"we can always trade with WTO rules because this arrangement is
quite good" and this bravado hasn't gone away even though the
sunny outlook argument was conjoured up without much thought as
a form of face saving by the Brexiteers who were uncertain that
they could cut other good trade deals.
I don't recognise your description of Brexiteers. How do you
know what their thoughts and motivations were?
I didn't suggest I knew "their thoughts and motivations". I am
repeating the outward explanations which Brexiteers gave.
For all I know, maybe Brexiteers were thinking about watering the
castor oil plant in the kitchen while saying how everything would
be okay using only WTO rules.
OK. Sorry, I was taking you literally - whether you meant certain or
uncertain. To explain, my guess is that very few politicians always
speak the truth and it annoys me when reporters say what a certain
politician believes or does not believe. Reporters can legitimately tell
us what a politician /says/ but not what he or she /believes/. The same
applies to what they are certain about. We only know what they claim to
be certain about.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-04 19:04:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument
that "we can always trade with WTO rules because this
arrangement is quite good" and this bravado hasn't gone away
even though the sunny outlook argument was conjoured up
without much thought as a form of face saving by the
Brexiteers who were uncertain that they could cut other good
trade deals.
I don't recognise your description of Brexiteers. How do you
know what their thoughts and motivations were?
I didn't suggest I knew "their thoughts and motivations". I am
repeating the outward explanations which Brexiteers gave.
For all I know, maybe Brexiteers were thinking about watering
the castor oil plant in the kitchen while saying how everything
would be okay using only WTO rules.
OK. Sorry, I was taking you literally - whether you meant
certain or uncertain. To explain, my guess is that very few
politicians always speak the truth and it annoys me when
reporters say what a certain politician believes or does not
believe. Reporters can legitimately tell us what a politician
/says/ but not what he or she /believes/. The same applies to
what they are certain about. We only know what they claim to be
certain about.
I agree entirely with your point about what might be called "mind
reading" and I try not to fall into that trap. I see "Yellow"
likes to call out mind reading too but in her enthusiasm she
called me out on it when she misunderstoof my point and mind
reading most certainly wasn't true. Of course this led to a long
and pointless exchange.

On the other hand, there are turns of phrase which, taken
literally, suggest mind reading but which isn't the case at all.
Nit picking those instances leads to rancour.
tim...
2017-10-05 10:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument that
"we can always trade with WTO rules because this arrangement is
quite good" and this bravado hasn't gone away even though the
sunny outlook argument was conjoured up without much thought as
a form of face saving by the Brexiteers who were uncertain that
they could cut other good trade deals.
I don't recognise your description of Brexiteers. How do you
know what their thoughts and motivations were?
I didn't suggest I knew "their thoughts and motivations". I am
repeating the outward explanations which Brexiteers gave.
For all I know, maybe Brexiteers were thinking about watering the
castor oil plant in the kitchen while saying how everything would
be okay using only WTO rules.
OK. Sorry, I was taking you literally - whether you meant certain or
uncertain. To explain, my guess is that very few politicians always speak
the truth
Just look at at the ministers who have, for the past two days, been lining
up to say "Therese will be our leader at the next election" when every other
Tory is saying "no chance".

tim
tim...
2017-10-05 10:06:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not
claimed either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to
be to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point
of expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before
the referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in
March 2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I made
about the present....
It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU
done under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know this
would be economic suicide.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
Just because something is "the current trend" does not make it
true. I don't know how else to put it!
We have a constantly shifting baseline from which, with new facts
and ew assumptions, we can make different scenarios. There is
never an absolutely right prediction (except by chance). However
we can use the best projections and factor in the costs of
success/failure to give an idea of what option we should be
choosing.
Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument that "we
can always trade with WTO rules because this arrangement is quite
good" and this bravado hasn't gone away even though the sunny
outlook argument was conjoured up without much thought as a form
of face saving by the Brexiteers who were uncertain that they
could cut other good trade deals.
There really is little problem with us trading with Europe on WTO terms.
For 90% of our trade with the EU the tariffs and quotas are little more the
noise of currency fluctuations.

The problems all come from the cliff edge of leaving without a deal for the
transition of customs procedures and product compliance validation.

If we haven't got a deal on that, on leaving day, all of our goods in
production will become "non compliant" and have to go through months of
verification checks

God knows what happens to goods in transit on that day.

and, as I have said repeatedly - this problem works both ways. It harms the
EU as well not to have a deal on this.

tim
pamela
2017-10-05 13:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not
claimed either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems
to be to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the
point of expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this
before the referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in
March 2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I
made about the present....
It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the
EU done under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know
this would be economic suicide.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
Just because something is "the current trend" does not make it
true. I don't know how else to put it!
We have a constantly shifting baseline from which, with new
facts and ew assumptions, we can make different scenarios.
There is never an absolutely right prediction (except by
chance). However we can use the best projections and factor in
the costs of success/failure to give an idea of what option we
should be choosing.
Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument that
"we can always trade with WTO rules because this arrangement is
quite good" and this bravado hasn't gone away even though the
sunny outlook argument was conjoured up without much thought as
a form of face saving by the Brexiteers who were uncertain that
they could cut other good trade deals.
There really is little problem with us trading with Europe on
WTO terms. For 90% of our trade with the EU the tariffs and
quotas are little more the noise of currency fluctuations.
The problems all come from the cliff edge of leaving without a
deal for the transition of customs procedures and product
compliance validation.
If we haven't got a deal on that, on leaving day, all of our
goods in production will become "non compliant" and have to go
through months of verification checks
God knows what happens to goods in transit on that day.
and, as I have said repeatedly - this problem works both ways.
It harms the EU as well not to have a deal on this.
tim
It's no use the UK negotiating on the basis of gain or loss for
various parties because there is an ideological aspect to this.

I suspect the EU sees the cost to itself of not having a trade
agreement with the UK is far outweighed by the cost of losing
further member states who see how forgiving the EU is to those who
wish to leave.

In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
tim...
2017-10-05 16:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
It's no use the UK negotiating on the basis of gain or loss for
various parties because there is an ideological aspect to this.
I suspect the EU sees the cost to itself of not having a trade
agreement with the UK is far outweighed by the cost of losing
further member states who see how forgiving the EU is to those who
wish to leave.
The idea of them not wanting to have a trade agreement with us is just
ridiculous

we are the 5th largest trading country in the world and (will have) the
largest trade with the EU from outside than any other country

they have spent the last 10 years trying (and failing) to get deals with all
of the other half dozen largest trading counties (because apparently having
such things adds billions to your economy), why would they not want a deal
with us if they could have one?

And the idea that they need to avoid giving us a deal in order to send a
message to other countries is nonsense

None of the other candidates for leaving are close to providing the size of
the UK's trading potential and DON'T have the same "too big to lose"
cachet - if the Netherlands (as just one example) tried the same trick the
EU could afford to say "bye then" and they know it.
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools

(FTAOD I don't have a problem believing the premise that Barnier and Junket
and Verhofstadt are fools. But I suspect that the CoM are more realistic)

tim
James Harris
2017-10-05 19:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
It's no use the UK negotiating on the basis of gain or loss for
various parties because there is an ideological aspect to this.
I suspect the EU sees the cost to itself of not having a trade
agreement with the UK is far outweighed by the cost of losing
further member states who see how forgiving the EU is to those who
wish to leave.
The idea of them not wanting to have a trade agreement with us is just
ridiculous
we are the 5th largest trading country in the world and (will have) the
largest trade with the EU from outside than any other country
they have spent the last 10 years trying (and failing) to get deals with all
of the other half dozen largest trading counties (because apparently having
such things adds billions to your economy), why would they not want a deal
with us if they could have one?
And the idea that they need to avoid giving us a deal in order to send a
message to other countries is nonsense
In their minds they /need/ the deal to be worse than what exists now.

I recently heard some of the European Parliament debate Brexit. It was
informative to hear the variety of opinions. Some are blase, some want
to ensure that the UK is subject to EU regulation and so on. But there
are some who are frustrated with the lack of progress and beginning to
fear for their own trade. Maybe the best example is Ireland. Their
economy is not that strong and they fear a reduction in sales to the UK.
As time goes on, their voices will get louder. Of course, so will the
voices of some politicians in the UK. It is going to be an intriguing
period of competing demands and brinkmanship.
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-06 09:42:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
It's no use the UK negotiating on the basis of gain or loss for
various parties because there is an ideological aspect to this.
I suspect the EU sees the cost to itself of not having a trade
agreement with the UK is far outweighed by the cost of losing
further member states who see how forgiving the EU is to those who
wish to leave.
The idea of them not wanting to have a trade agreement with us is just
ridiculous
we are the 5th largest trading country in the world and (will have) the
largest trade with the EU from outside than any other country
they have spent the last 10 years trying (and failing) to get deals with all
of the other half dozen largest trading counties (because apparently having
such things adds billions to your economy), why would they not want a deal
with us if they could have one?
And the idea that they need to avoid giving us a deal in order to send a
message to other countries is nonsense
In their minds they /need/ the deal to be worse than what exists now.
but that doesn't mean no deal

At the end of the negotiations us paying them 60 billion pounds looks bad
enough to me

tim
James Harris
2017-10-06 12:37:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
It's no use the UK negotiating on the basis of gain or loss for
various parties because there is an ideological aspect to this.
I suspect the EU sees the cost to itself of not having a trade
agreement with the UK is far outweighed by the cost of losing
further member states who see how forgiving the EU is to those who
wish to leave.
The idea of them not wanting to have a trade agreement with us is just
ridiculous
we are the 5th largest trading country in the world and (will have) the
largest trade with the EU from outside than any other country
they have spent the last 10 years trying (and failing) to get deals with all
of the other half dozen largest trading counties (because apparently having
such things adds billions to your economy), why would they not want a deal
with us if they could have one?
And the idea that they need to avoid giving us a deal in order to send a
message to other countries is nonsense
In their minds they /need/ the deal to be worse than what exists now.
but that doesn't mean no deal
Quite. There's a difference between no deal and no FTA.
Post by tim...
At the end of the negotiations us paying them 60 billion pounds looks bad
enough to me
I am concerned that the UK government is planning to pay them too much.
To offer to complete the current budget cycle in return for an
implementation period in which we retain existing trade seems like an
equitable arrangement and would cost around £20bn but for which we would
get something in return. But offering to pay much beyond that for things
we won't benefit from doesn't seem to be a good negotiation strategy.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-06 13:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
It's no use the UK negotiating on the basis of gain or loss
for various parties because there is an ideological aspect to
this.
I suspect the EU sees the cost to itself of not having a trade
agreement with the UK is far outweighed by the cost of losing
further member states who see how forgiving the EU is to those
who wish to leave.
The idea of them not wanting to have a trade agreement with us
is just ridiculous
we are the 5th largest trading country in the world and (will
have) the largest trade with the EU from outside than any other
country
they have spent the last 10 years trying (and failing) to get
deals with all of the other half dozen largest trading counties
(because apparently having such things adds billions to your
economy), why would they not want a deal with us if they could
have one?
And the idea that they need to avoid giving us a deal in order
to send a message to other countries is nonsense
In their minds they /need/ the deal to be worse than what exists now.
I recently heard some of the European Parliament debate Brexit.
It was informative to hear the variety of opinions. Some are
blase, some want to ensure that the UK is subject to EU
regulation and so on. But there are some who are frustrated with
the lack of progress and beginning to fear for their own trade.
Maybe the best example is Ireland. Their economy is not that
strong and they fear a reduction in sales to the UK. As time
goes on, their voices will get louder. Of course, so will the
voices of some politicians in the UK. It is going to be an
intriguing period of competing demands and brinkmanship.
If the Irish economy struggles I wonder if we will throw them
another £7 billion without any strings as George Osbourne did so
generously.

If the UK moans about its Brexit troubles for long enough perhaps
the EU will similarly chuck us some money. They always seem to
have a few bob spare and might need it badly. lol Just kidding.
James Harris
2017-10-06 15:04:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I recently heard some of the European Parliament debate Brexit.
It was informative to hear the variety of opinions. Some are
blase, some want to ensure that the UK is subject to EU
regulation and so on. But there are some who are frustrated with
the lack of progress and beginning to fear for their own trade.
Maybe the best example is Ireland. Their economy is not that
strong and they fear a reduction in sales to the UK. As time
goes on, their voices will get louder. Of course, so will the
voices of some politicians in the UK. It is going to be an
intriguing period of competing demands and brinkmanship.
If the Irish economy struggles I wonder if we will throw them
another £7 billion without any strings as George Osbourne did so
generously.
Did you think that was generous? I remember the media portraying it as
such at the time but IIRC Britain was borrowing at low rates and lending
some of that to Ireland at higher rates. Apart from a certain degree of
risk it seemed to me like a win-win for the UK.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-06 15:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
I recently heard some of the European Parliament debate
Brexit. It was informative to hear the variety of opinions.
Some are blase, some want to ensure that the UK is subject to
EU regulation and so on. But there are some who are frustrated
with the lack of progress and beginning to fear for their own
trade. Maybe the best example is Ireland. Their economy is not
that strong and they fear a reduction in sales to the UK. As
time goes on, their voices will get louder. Of course, so will
the voices of some politicians in the UK. It is going to be an
intriguing period of competing demands and brinkmanship.
If the Irish economy struggles I wonder if we will throw them
another £7 billion without any strings as George Osbourne did
so generously.
Did you think that was generous? I remember the media portraying
it as such at the time but IIRC Britain was borrowing at low
rates and lending some of that to Ireland at higher rates. Apart
from a certain degree of risk it seemed to me like a win-win for
the UK.
It seems generous if the £7 billion was given free with no strings
attached and there had been no obligation to provide it - to a
country which, like Greece, had partied for years on cheap EU funds.

Ireland was like an insolvent conutry which happened to be lucky
enough that its creditors were prepared to take a haircut. Overall,
the creditors were UN-lucky because they didn't get all the money
they were owed.
MM
2017-10-06 10:05:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has got
itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end to it.

MM
tim...
2017-10-06 10:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has got
itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end to it.
we are tying to make the best of this, supposed, bad deal

they are trying to make the worst of a bad deal

which might be fine if it were only worse for the other side, but is bloody
stupid if it is also worse for you

tim
James Harris
2017-10-06 12:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has got
itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end to it.
Let's be honest. You've been saying such things about this great country
for many years, long before the EU vote was even scheduled.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-10-07 08:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:38:20 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has got
itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end to it.
Let's be honest. You've been saying such things about this great country
for many years, long before the EU vote was even scheduled.
I am the small boy who causes consternation by revealing the truth
behind the emperor's new clothes.

But you keep on believing if you want to.

MM
pamela
2017-10-07 22:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has
got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end
to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a hard
Brexit is just hard.
James Harris
2017-10-07 23:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has
got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end
to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a hard
Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard Brexit
until after the referendum when Remainers began to push for the UK to
remain partially in the EU.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-07 23:23:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an
end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign. The
term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the uncompromising
and extremist form of leaving which some of the influential Brexit
campaigners had advocated.
James Harris
2017-10-08 00:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an
end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign.
I know. That's why I asked you what terms you were referring to! In
other words, what do you remember being said to tell us that a "hard
Brexit" would be easy?
Post by pamela
The
term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the uncompromising
and extremist form of leaving which some of the influential Brexit
campaigners had advocated.
Or, rather, "soft Brexit" was rather skilfully introduced afterwards by
Remainers to describe a partial exit.
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-10-08 08:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an
end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign.
I know. That's why I asked you what terms you were referring to! In
other words, what do you remember being said to tell us that a "hard
Brexit" would be easy?
Post by pamela
The
term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the uncompromising
and extremist form of leaving which some of the influential Brexit
campaigners had advocated.
Or, rather, "soft Brexit" was rather skilfully introduced afterwards by
Remainers to describe a partial exit.

James Harris

==

Quite! The notions of hard and soft Brexit were never mentioned until the
remoaners started to try and skirt around the vote.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
pamela
2017-10-08 14:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important
to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of
an end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign.
I know. That's why I asked you what terms you were referring to!
In other words, what do you remember being said to tell us that
a "hard Brexit" would be easy?
Post by pamela
The term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the
uncompromising and extremist form of leaving which some of the
influential Brexit campaigners had advocated.
Or, rather, "soft Brexit" was rather skilfully introduced
afterwards by Remainers to describe a partial exit.
Whether or not the term "hard Brexit" was coined before or after
the referendum makes no difference. The term is used to refer to
a Brexit in which Britain severs most of its ties with the EU.

I wrote the following without quotation marks to specify the
actual phrase used in campaign addresses to voters:

Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.

The point is that those supporting extreme severance from the EU
(hard Brexit) suggested in the campaign that it would be easy. As
we are starting to discover, it is turning out to be difficult.
Yellow
2017-10-08 15:46:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
The term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the
uncompromising and extremist form of leaving which some of the
influential Brexit campaigners had advocated.
Or, rather, "soft Brexit" was rather skilfully introduced
afterwards by Remainers to describe a partial exit.
Whether or not the term "hard Brexit" was coined before or after
the referendum makes no difference.
Actually it does because if we understand how and when these terms came
about, it further leads us to understand why they came about.

"Soft Brexit" was magiced out of the air by people who politically
needed to say "we respect the referendum result" when they had every
intention of doing exactly the opposite.


.
pamela
2017-10-08 16:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
The term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the
uncompromising and extremist form of leaving which some of
the influential Brexit campaigners had advocated.
Or, rather, "soft Brexit" was rather skilfully introduced
afterwards by Remainers to describe a partial exit.
Whether or not the term "hard Brexit" was coined before or
after the referendum makes no difference.
Actually it does because if we understand how and when these
terms came about, it further leads us to understand why they
came about.
It makes no difference whatsoever to what I wrote....

Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
Yellow
2017-10-08 20:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
The term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the
uncompromising and extremist form of leaving which some of
the influential Brexit campaigners had advocated.
Or, rather, "soft Brexit" was rather skilfully introduced
afterwards by Remainers to describe a partial exit.
Whether or not the term "hard Brexit" was coined before or
after the referendum makes no difference.
Actually it does because if we understand how and when these
terms came about, it further leads us to understand why they
came about.
It makes no difference whatsoever to what I wrote....
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
But I was not replying to that sentence, was I. :-)
James Harris
2017-10-08 23:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important
to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of
an end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign.
I know. That's why I asked you what terms you were referring to!
In other words, what do you remember being said to tell us that
a "hard Brexit" would be easy?
Post by pamela
The term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the
uncompromising and extremist form of leaving which some of the
influential Brexit campaigners had advocated.
Or, rather, "soft Brexit" was rather skilfully introduced
afterwards by Remainers to describe a partial exit.
Whether or not the term "hard Brexit" was coined before or after
the referendum makes no difference. The term is used to refer to
a Brexit in which Britain severs most of its ties with the EU.
Britain is not going to sever its ties with the EU. I wish people
wouldn't keep claiming that. The _EU_ might sever its ties with Britain
but it does NOT have to; it would be making a political choice.
Post by pamela
I wrote the following without quotation marks to specify the
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
The point is that those supporting extreme severance from the EU
(hard Brexit) suggested in the campaign that it would be easy. As
we are starting to discover, it is turning out to be difficult.
Sounds like a criticism of the campaign team(s) rather than of Brexit.
As you may remember, I had objections of both Remain and Leave campaigners.
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-10-09 07:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important
to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of
an end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign.
I know. That's why I asked you what terms you were referring to!
In other words, what do you remember being said to tell us that
a "hard Brexit" would be easy?
Post by pamela
The term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the
uncompromising and extremist form of leaving which some of the
influential Brexit campaigners had advocated.
Or, rather, "soft Brexit" was rather skilfully introduced
afterwards by Remainers to describe a partial exit.
Whether or not the term "hard Brexit" was coined before or after
the referendum makes no difference. The term is used to refer to
a Brexit in which Britain severs most of its ties with the EU.
Britain is not going to sever its ties with the EU. I wish people
wouldn't keep claiming that. The _EU_ might sever its ties with Britain
but it does NOT have to; it would be making a political choice.
Post by pamela
I wrote the following without quotation marks to specify the
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
The point is that those supporting extreme severance from the EU
(hard Brexit) suggested in the campaign that it would be easy. As
we are starting to discover, it is turning out to be difficult.
Sounds like a criticism of the campaign team(s) rather than of Brexit.
As you may remember, I had objections of both Remain and Leave campaigners.


James Harris
==

Good news this am:) May is growing a backbone:))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Harris
2017-10-09 07:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/10/2017 08:14, Ophelia wrote:

...
Post by Ophelia
Good news this am:) May is growing a backbone:))
What's the news? Are you sure it's not just speculation?
--
James Harris
kat
2017-10-09 08:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Good news this am:)  May is growing a backbone:))
What's the news? Are you sure it's not just speculation?
Sources, such as the BBC, suggest that today she is going to say that
partnership requires flexibility on both sides, and the ball is now in
the EU court.
--
kat
Post by James Harris
^..^<
MM
2017-10-09 09:45:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:06:34 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Britain is not going to sever its ties with the EU. I wish people
wouldn't keep claiming that. The _EU_ might sever its ties with Britain
but it does NOT have to; it would be making a political choice.
After Brexit the UK will have less influence on the EU than even
Norway and Switzerland. We will become a backwater.

MM
tim...
2017-10-09 10:00:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:06:34 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Britain is not going to sever its ties with the EU. I wish people
wouldn't keep claiming that. The _EU_ might sever its ties with Britain
but it does NOT have to; it would be making a political choice.
After Brexit the UK will have less influence on the EU than even
Norway and Switzerland. We will become a backwater.
why do we need influence on the EU?

tim
James Harris
2017-10-09 10:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:06:34 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Britain is not going to sever its ties with the EU. I wish people
wouldn't keep claiming that. The _EU_ might sever its ties with Britain
but it does NOT have to; it would be making a political choice.
After Brexit the UK will have less influence on the EU than even
Norway and Switzerland. We will become a backwater.
We will lose a lot of influence over the EU (but that's been happening
over the years anyway). It, however, will lose /control/ over us.
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-10-08 01:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an
end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign. The
term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the uncompromising
and extremist form of leaving which some of the influential Brexit
campaigners had advocated.
In actual fact what happened was "Soft Brexit" was brought into being by
shocked remainers when they realised they had lost the referendum as a
friendly, cuddly and reasonable term to mean staying in Single Market
and Customs Union. I believe the Lib Dems were the first to use it.

"Hard Brexit" was then used to describe the opposite - actually leaving
all the EU's institution. Except for the SNP, who use "Hard Brexit" to
mean leaving the EU without a deal.
Ophelia
2017-10-08 08:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an
end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign. The
term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the uncompromising
and extremist form of leaving which some of the influential Brexit
campaigners had advocated.
In actual fact what happened was "Soft Brexit" was brought into being by
shocked remainers when they realised they had lost the referendum as a
friendly, cuddly and reasonable term to mean staying in Single Market
and Customs Union. I believe the Lib Dems were the first to use it.

"Hard Brexit" was then used to describe the opposite - actually leaving
all the EU's institution. Except for the SNP, who use "Hard Brexit" to
mean leaving the EU without a deal.

==

Ahh I should have read on ... :)))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Yellow
2017-10-08 12:05:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an
end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign. The
term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the uncompromising
and extremist form of leaving which some of the influential Brexit
campaigners had advocated.
In actual fact what happened was "Soft Brexit" was brought into being by
shocked remainers when they realised they had lost the referendum as a
friendly, cuddly and reasonable term to mean staying in Single Market
and Customs Union. I believe the Lib Dems were the first to use it.
"Hard Brexit" was then used to describe the opposite - actually leaving
all the EU's institution. Except for the SNP, who use "Hard Brexit" to
mean leaving the EU without a deal.
==
Ahh I should have read on ... :)))
In actual fact it is interesting the three independent people see what
happened in exactly the same way.
Ophelia
2017-10-08 15:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an
end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign. The
term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the uncompromising
and extremist form of leaving which some of the influential Brexit
campaigners had advocated.
In actual fact what happened was "Soft Brexit" was brought into being by
shocked remainers when they realised they had lost the referendum as a
friendly, cuddly and reasonable term to mean staying in Single Market
and Customs Union. I believe the Lib Dems were the first to use it.
"Hard Brexit" was then used to describe the opposite - actually leaving
all the EU's institution. Except for the SNP, who use "Hard Brexit" to
mean leaving the EU without a deal.
==
Ahh I should have read on ... :)))
In actual fact it is interesting the three independent people see what
happened in exactly the same way.

==

It is indeed:) You know, there are none so blind ....
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
tim...
2017-10-08 11:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an
end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
I didn't say "hard Brexit" was the term used in the campaign. The
term hard Brexit emerged afterwards to describe the uncompromising
and extremist form of leaving which some of the influential Brexit
campaigners had advocated.
and then got hijacked by the Remoaners to mean "any exit except the one
which is staying in in everything but name"

tim
MM
2017-10-08 07:55:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 00:17:21 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has
got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end
to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a hard
Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard Brexit
until after the referendum when Remainers began to push for the UK to
remain partially in the EU.
Just like you never heard of the transition period until fairly
recently, once Theresa May's lot realised the awful truth.

MM
pamela
2017-10-08 14:06:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 00:17:21 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a
poor trade deal in order to get something more important to
itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain
has got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of
an end to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a
hard Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard
Brexit until after the referendum when Remainers began to push
for the UK to remain partially in the EU.
Just like you never heard of the transition period until fairly
recently, once Theresa May's lot realised the awful truth.
MM
Brexiteers have certainly been getting an education about leaving
the EU and what lies beyond. It's a pity many Leavers didn't
inform themselves more about this before casting what for many of
them was merely an act of protest against the government's
policies.
MM
2017-10-09 09:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Brexiteers have certainly been getting an education about leaving
the EU and what lies beyond. It's a pity many Leavers didn't
inform themselves more about this before casting what for many of
them was merely an act of protest against the government's
policies.
Ah, but people who make emotive decisions without thinking would not
even realise they needed to inform themselves more.

MM
James Harris
2017-10-08 23:17:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 00:17:21 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has
got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end
to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a hard
Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard Brexit
until after the referendum when Remainers began to push for the UK to
remain partially in the EU.
Just like you never heard of the transition period until fairly
recently, once Theresa May's lot realised the awful truth.
You've bought into Labour's recent lie that they persuaded the
government to accept the idea of a transition period. Note this:

"I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by
the time the 2-year Article 50 process has concluded. From that point
onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation"

May said that back in January. And David Davis was saying it long
beforehand. Yet Labour claim it's their recent idea. Don't trust
politicians without checking up!
--
James Harris
MM
2017-10-09 09:55:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 00:17:31 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 00:17:21 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:41:31 +0100, "tim..."
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
In other words, the EU will probably aborb the cost of a poor
trade deal in order to get something more important to itself.
then they are fools
Hardly! Having now witnessed the utter shambles that Britain has
got itself into over the past 16 months, and no sign of an end
to it.
MM
Voters were told a hard Brexit would be easy but actually a hard
Brexit is just hard.
In what terms? I don't remember hearing about a so-called hard Brexit
until after the referendum when Remainers began to push for the UK to
remain partially in the EU.
Just like you never heard of the transition period until fairly
recently, once Theresa May's lot realised the awful truth.
You've bought into Labour's recent lie that they persuaded the
"I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by
the time the 2-year Article 50 process has concluded. From that point
onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation"
And did she mean a transition period of two years during which we will
continue our membership of the single market and customs union and
continue to pay into the EU budget?
Post by James Harris
May said that back in January. And David Davis was saying it long
beforehand. Yet Labour claim it's their recent idea. Don't trust
politicians without checking up!
Backs up my claim that you never heard of the transition period until
fairly recently, once Theresa May's lot realised the awful truth. (The
"lot" being May and Davis, both being Tories realising the awful truth
as I mentioned.)

MM
James Harris
2017-10-05 19:13:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not
claimed either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to
be to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point
of expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before
the referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in
March 2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I made
about the present....
It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU
done under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know this
would be economic suicide.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
Just because something is "the current trend" does not make it
true. I don't know how else to put it!
We have a constantly shifting baseline from which, with new facts
and ew assumptions, we can make different scenarios. There is
never an absolutely right prediction (except by chance). However
we can use the best projections and factor in the costs of
success/failure to give an idea of what option we should be
choosing.
Unfortunately there was an early reliance on the argument that "we
can always trade with WTO rules because this arrangement is quite
good" and this bravado hasn't gone away even though the sunny
outlook argument was conjoured up without much thought as a form
of face saving by the Brexiteers who were uncertain that they
could cut other good trade deals.
There really is little problem with us trading with Europe on WTO terms.
For 90% of our trade with the EU the tariffs and quotas are little more the
noise of currency fluctuations.
That's true overall but there would be problems in certain sectors, such
as where the EU has raised high barriers to protect French farmers.

Under WTO some things would be better, some would be worse. And those
which would be disadvantaged will sing like crows!
Post by tim...
The problems all come from the cliff edge of leaving without a deal for the
transition of customs procedures and product compliance validation.
If we haven't got a deal on that, on leaving day, all of our goods in
production will become "non compliant" and have to go through months of
verification checks
God knows what happens to goods in transit on that day.
and, as I have said repeatedly - this problem works both ways. It harms the
EU as well not to have a deal on this.
I think they want a deal as long as it disadvantages the UK to a degree
which they consider sufficient. But they do want a deal.
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-10-04 17:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Post by pamela
Post by James Harris
Please note, as mentioned in my other post, I have not claimed
either graph to be a true forecast.
Nor should you and nor should I. The current trend seems to be
to expect far less economically from Brexit - to the point of
expecting a financial loss. Some were saying this before the
referendum.
Argh, "the current trend"!
You were not referring to the prevailing information back in March
2016 but actually you were referring to a comment I made about the
present....
It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU done
under WTO rules. Luckily, those in power know this would be
economic suicide.
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=150711130000
Just because something is "the current trend" does not make it true. I
don't know how else to put it!

James Harris

==

Oh, I think what you are saying is clear enough:))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
James Hammerton
2017-10-03 16:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major decline for
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Who produced this chart?

How were those figures computed?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
MM
2017-10-04 09:47:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:51:06 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
This chart shows how a hard Brexit could result in a major decline for
http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexitcosttobusiness
MM
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Who produced this chart?
How were those figures computed?
As I posted on 2/Oct/17, Baker McKenzie.

The article in full plus chart is here (scroll down):
"Hard Brexit would cost UK manufacturing £17bn/year"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/oct/02/uk-manufacturing-growth-hard-brexit-eurozone-monarch-airline-fails-business-live?page=with:block-59d1e182e4b00d657809cd27#block-59d1e182e4b00d657809cd27

Or: http://tinyurl.com/hardbrexit17bn

MM
Loading...