Neverending Story 3: The Ongoing Brexit Thread

Almost the same isn't the same.

Switzerland is more "almost EU " than post Brexit London would be. It's not clear any post Brexit UK would be granted "EUROPASSPORT" financial rights required for many transactions ( this is financial passport, not a human passport). Swiss banks moved some operations to London To be in a EU country and thus directly under the control of EU. They are now looking at another EU country.
US company Chase already moved some operations to Dublin from London to avoid later hassles. Morgan Stanley, Citi, and BOA are doing likewise to other EU countries.

And Donald Tusk, President of the EU council, made it quite clear to Theresa May that the EBA (bank regulators) and EMA ( drug regulators) currently based in London must be in a EU country. He didn't say EEA.

 

It's funny, even when the UK "screws up" it's own election it's somehow the EUs fault. I wonder what the new scapegoat after brexit will be. Probably still the EU just from the outside. Never change a working system...

 

Good NY Review of Books article on the Tories debacle and Brexit.


Brexit is a back-of-the-envelope proposition. Strip away the post-imperial make-believe and the Little England nostalgia, and there’s almost nothing there, no clear sense of how a middling European country with little native industry can hope to thrive by cutting itself off from its biggest trading partner and most important political alliance.

"May demanded a mandate to negotiate—but negotiate what exactly? She literally could not say. All she could articulate were two slogans: “Brexit means Brexit” and “No deal is better than a bad deal.” The first collapses ideology into tautology. The second is a patent absurdity: with “no deal” there is no trade, the planes won’t fly and all the supply chains snap. To win an election, you need a convincing narrative but May herself doesn’t know what the Brexit story is."

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10/britain-the-end-of-a-fantasy/

 

Oh, trust me... I can go a lot lower than that

Nah, I'm just busting your chops mate, (as you fellas say).

It depends what they do.

If they're willing to use this opportunity of the tory parties weakness to benefit both their population and us then they'll be rising to the occasion and being statesmanlike. If they want to ensure that we're damaged, (as the French have suggested), regardless of how much it damages their own voters, then it's fair enough for me and others to criticise them.

If you don't like it, tough luck!

Juncker is the guy who's been aiding tax evaders/avoiders across the continent for years so for a socialist like me, he's not someone I warm to, shall we say.

Who said he was the 'one who pushed May to call a snap election'? I didn't say that at all... don't start making shit up dude because that's beneath you!

I quoted an article from the grauniad, (hardly a tory mouthpiece), that he'd advised her to strengthen her hand.

Who's arguing... I'm not

 

The same things were said when we didn't join the euro currency but London actually increased it's trade after that.

AFAIK the euro accounts for only 11% of London's trade by all accounts so my guess is the answer to your question is, no.

There's also the other question... does the EU really want to destabilise one of the world's largest banking centres, right on it's doorstep, just at a time when it needs to generate hundreds of billions in new finance.

But we'll see... obviously.

 

Hmm...I know someone else who relies on simplistic slogans and making "deals"

 

Have you been watching the TV this morning?

Both the DUP with 10 seats AND the Scottish conservatives with 12 are saying they want to remain inside the single market and customs union. So, of their 13 seat effective majority they can kiss goodbye to 22.

Add in Ken Clarke, Nicky Morgan, Anne Soubry, etc. etc. etc.

The hard brexit isn't just unlikely ... I'd say it's a complete non-starter.

 

Yes the tade increased cause you were part of the common market before and after. It's clear the trade wouldnt have increased as much as if you hadnt been. A currency is not a trade zone. London may still be growing after a hard brexit. Well, there is always something to celebrate when your benchmark for success is low.

 

"turns out that May was aided in her decision to hold the election aided by the keen political antenna of Jean-Claude Juncker."

So Juncker would encourage to hold elections to have a stronger mandate to negotiate with the EU. Doesnt make any sense whatsoever.

 

Well, we don't know yet because the negotiations haven't even started is the simple answer.

Interestingly, Switzerland has a somewhat complicated history regarding freedom of movement...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/16/switzerland-u-turn-quotas-on-eu-workers-immigration

Switzerland has rejected imposing quotas on EU workers in a bid to preserve its close economic ties with the bloc, opting instead to try to curb immigration by giving residents priority in new job vacancies.

Parliament voted to pass a compromise immigration law, marking a significant climbdown which the country hopes will allow it continued enhanced access to the EU’s single market following a 2014 referendum vote to cap EU immigration.

In a standoff with close parallels to Britain’s situation after the Brexit vote, Brussels had refused to budge from its stance that any attempt to restrict free movement by caps or quotas would automatically exclude Switzerland from the single market.

A quarter of Switzerland’s population – about 2 million people – are foreigners, including 1.4 million EU citizens, with 365,000 more commuting in daily from neighbouring EU countries France, Germany and Italy.

The new law, to which the EU is expected to respond formally next week, requires employers in sectors or regions with above-average unemployment to advertise vacancies at job centres and give locals priority before recruiting from abroad.

While there are exemptions, for example for family firms, companies that violate the law will face fines of up to 40,000 Swiss francs (£31,000).​

That was then agreed by the EU a week or so later. I'd suggest that's similar to the kind of deal we could come to with the EU.

Just FYI, atm some jobs are only advertised in Poland, Bulgaria and other eastern European countries.

Actually, as it happens that's meant to be illegal but it's never pursued.

As I've repeatedly made clear, there is NOTHING we couldn't have done if we'd wanted to to help our communities which is why people got fed up and lashed out in the EU referendum.

Thus, 'we are where we are', as they say.

IIRC those two add up to a total of a couple of thousand people. It's the banking activities that generate the employment and taxation and moving all of that is unlikely for the reasons I've given.

Like I say, we'll see.

 

Pardon? Is that a statement or a question? What precisely are you saying?

 

I'm talking about the bank and finance trade. I'd have thought that was obvious from the context.

Well, the trade increased apart from the euro, so...

Er... OK!

Well, yeah... I suppose. Not sure that's likely but, still...

I'm not even sure what you're on about now.

Maybe if you could make a point and state clearly what you're saying it would help the conversation along

 

The point is your eternal bringing up of the not joining of euro some sort of universal argument for not joining or leaving anything and everything goes on as normal is naive.

 

I only mention the euro because it means we're not in exactly the same position as the other eurozone countries and that the same arguments were used about all the banking operations leaving London... that's all.

Fact is, we've always been half in and half out of the EU so if we moved to more of an EEA style arrangement, it's not that much of a change.

Bluntly, bearing in mind other countries like Norway and Switzerland have survived and actually done quite well, it's naive NOT to think that's a possibility although, 'unrealistic' is probably a more appropriate word.

 

More pressure being piled on...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40239664

 

Sounds really familiar doesn't it.

 

A lot of it is an overstatement of the position. Even with a 'hard brexit' the idea that 'trade will stop, the planes won't fly and the supply chains will snap' is obvious nonsense. Things become more complex is what happens, so trade, travel and the rest will likely reduce over a period but the idea they stop is ridiculous.

Strangely enough we do trade with countries outside the EU. In fact, MOST of our trade is outside the EU. These ludicrous overstatements make selling the idea of keeping things largely as they are, (most sensible people's favoured option), harder, not easier because everybody knows they're not true.

 

Dude, obviously it is an overstatement. The point the author is making is that a "No deal" will severely hamper trades and businesses with the UK.
You keep repeating that "MOST of our trade is outside the EU" while conveniently forgetting that that most of this trade is still happening within the confines of the EU trades agreements. For a guy who call himself socialist, you have some rather jingoistic views.

 

Ludicrous overstatements get politicians elected in the States. Are things different in the U.K.?

 

It would take time, but England would get better (less protectionist) trade agreements outside the EU IMO.

Now if Corbyn becomes P.M. then England may go protectionist and Nationalist like France.

We will see.

 

It will take a lot of time and there is no guarantee they will get better terms. EU being the largest market can impose its terms to unequal partners. The UK on its own, less so.

Furthermore, trade agreements are complex and they can't even start then until they sort their situation with the EU. In the meantime, there is a price to pay with a sluggish economy and a pound losing its value. Those have serious consequences.

 

People on both sides are making statements that aren't true so it's important to correct them. For example, your statement that trade will be 'severely hampered' probably isn't true. It's more likely it will be reduced but over a period..

Also, the WTO tariff rates for the bulk of things we trade with the EU benefit us more than them, (i.e. they have to pay us more than we pay them), AND we'll be saving the 100Bn euros they want up front AND the 10Bn euros we're paying every year nett atm.

You've got to lose a shitload of trade to lose out in cash terms.

As I say, I think we've already moved past that point but, if people keep saying things that are factually incorrect, I'll keep correcting them. If people don't like it, stop saying things that are wrong.

 

Well, the EU is a trade protection organisation, (although some don't wish to accept that essential fact), so that's obviously correct.

 

Not at all. It's partly because I'm a socialist that I've never been happy being in a 'bosses union' designed to benefit corporations more than people. I was just wiling to accept it because it was easier than the alternative.