Discussion:
Chart showing hard Brexit cost to UK business
(too old to reply)
MM
2017-10-02 08:25:04 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
James Harris
2017-10-05 14:17:45 UTC
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
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
tim...
2017-10-04 15:38:33 UTC
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
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
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

pamela
2017-10-03 09:39:27 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ophelia
2017-10-04 17:05:26 UTC
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
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
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...