Yeah. It's a "wash me but don't get me wet" kind of "solution".Originally Posted by Loki
Yeah. It's a "wash me but don't get me wet" kind of "solution".
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Remind me how much Canadian contributions are to the US Federal budget for free trade between them?
We all have to accept that we are living in a simulation and someone is fucking around with the settings.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Basically RB's idea is "The EU decides for some reason to give the UK a far sweeter deal than it gave EFTA in order to show EFTA as well as all EU nations that they can make the EU their bitch".
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No my idea is the UK exits the political project and has a free trade deal only. If you are interested in a political project then go ahead with it without those that aren't dragging their heals. Win win for everyone.
Unless you think the political project is a bad idea. The only reason the UKs deal would be better is if the status quo is bad but we have all been assured that isn't the case surely?
Contributing to the EU's budget is a cost. Getting the benefit of unrestricted access to the single market including passporting rights at no cost in economical terms is a sweeter deal regardless of your nonsense about the "political project".
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
How much will Canada pay to the EU if they get a free trade deal? How much do they pay to the US for NAFTA?
The budget contributions are to fund the political side of the EU not for Free Trade. As has been made abundantly clear the EU is not a Free Trade agreement.
If we leave the political side to those who want it and simply sign a straight free trade deal so you can sell us BMWs and Ferraris and we can sell Jaguars and McClarens then what would contributions be funding?
I believe you imagine the CETA to be something it really is not. CETA would give Canada a far more limited access to the EU than the EEA grants the EFTA member states. It excludes a number of industries and services. Wrt financial services, afaict CETA doesn't grant any passporting rights to Canada so Canadian banks would need to establish subsidiaries in the EU. CETA has also taken a very long time to negotiate and it is unlikely that a UK version of that deal would be successfully negotiated in the near future.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not suggesting we sign the CETA or the EFTA I'm suggesting we sign a reciprocal free trade deal that is in the best interests of all parties to cause minimal disruption. We already have the same standards etc so it shouldn't be too complicated to negotiate if the willpower is there.
There are a lot of potential agreements that benefit both parties, and many of them benefit one party far more than the other. Do you really fail to see why the EU would want to opt for the latter?
Hope is the denial of reality
Since the EU (and their predecessor trade unions) always were intended as political projects in addition to the trade deals, it will be a cold day in hell before you get your "free trade deal only". The most you'll get is something very limited in its reach. But you will not get a completely free trade deal unless you sign the same stuff as Norway did.
And even that is unlikely, given that Norway is not fond of that idea.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I don't see the EU making such a deal with private parties. For starters it would give the impression financials can buy their way out of EU jurisdiction.
A trade treaty still is possible.
Congratulations America
And some of them benefit that party more than others. It isn't a case of whether the EU or UK benefits more since this is not a zero sum game. That is what some fail to understand.
Yes the EU is a political project which is why it makes sense to not have the UK in it since the UK is not interested in the politics and is a thorn in the side of getting on with the politics.
I fail to see how that makes the idea of a trade only deal for those outside of the politics "a cold day in hell". Unless you think the politics will fail if people have an alternative option?
I didn't think it was likely for that very reason, though it is the UK that is exiting the EU's jurisdiction and isn't unheard of for governments to get private parties to buy their way into a jurisdiction. Typically called buying a licence or something like that. Not suggesting its likely, just an amusing solution.
Tragic Brexit news as Anglo finance firm ING is relocating jobs from London to Brussels and Amsterdam.
Oh wait ... Dutch finance firm ING is relocating jobs from Brussels and Amsterdam to London. Nevermind.
Who could have predicted London would survive Brexit?http://www.standard.co.uk/business/b...-a3369236.html
City veteran David Buik, of Panmure Gordon, said: “The sooner the prophets of doom realise that financial markets are global and not parochial the better. ING is one with the foresight to recognise the fact that London is the quintessential financial centre.”
60 jobs! Your economy is saved.
Hope is the denial of reality
Wow. ING is expected to axe approximately 6000 employees and maybe relocate 60 traders to London. Everything has changed#trump2016
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
60 traders (plus unspecified and undetermined amounts of support staff). The key is direction as well as volume, listening to some here you'd think London was on life support and Brussels was going to pull the plug. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The funny thing is that the only semi-official comment from the company makes it pretty clear that, in the event of a hard Brexit, they'll probably have to rethink this
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yet they're planning to go ahead anyway which shows their confidence is closer to mine that a reasonable agreement will be made rather than the Project Doom from others that there is nothing but disaster ahead.
You really are a poster child for confirmation bias. There could be a thousand experts that say X, but if one says ~X, you'll pretend he's the only one that matters. A thousand companies can say X is bad, but one (kind of) says X is ok, and that's the only company that matters.
Last edited by Loki; 10-16-2016 at 12:10 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
ING is kinda small fry compared to big players in London and they've been having a rough time of late. Given their official cautionary remark about a possible hard Brexit, I wouldn't take this as a sign of real confidence in the outcome you're hoping for. Even if it were, that belief would have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
ING maybe have shrunk a bit, but it isn't a small player. The fact that they will still do business in London and obviously relocate some roles to that location doesn't change the fact that a significant part of business is at risk of moving out.
Congratulations America
The big FS players are still waiting to see what actual deals are reached on Brexit.
No hard decisions on relocations or staff reductions will be made before then.
60 staff moved here there and everywhere is normal BAU activity, and not indicative of anything. My own particular department of the bank relocates dozens of staff around the globe every month of the year, as does every department in every global bank.
If Brexit negatively impacts FS operating in London, then tens or possibly hundreds of thousands will be relocated or axed. That's the time to take note.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 10-16-2016 at 07:25 AM.
Fully agreed. It's just nice to post some selective good news amidst the never ending relentless gloom from some people.
ING isn't "small fry" in absolute terms, however afaict it's fairly small in London, compared to other similar firms in London. Given its recent troubles I don't feel like the decision to relocate some traders to London is something that should inspire particularly great confidence in any specific outcome becoming more or less likely. In the event of a hard Brexit with all that's likely to entail, we should expect those positions to move right back (unless the actual traders are Brits, I guess
Yup
Nice? I guess I can see how it might be nice, in a psychological sense, to cherry-pick the occasional seemingly positive event out of the bitter pie that is Brexit, but I'm not sure I see how it's particularly informative or how it can justify the overly-confident comments from yourself or from that so-called "city veteran". This one event should have only a negligible impact on the confidence one feels in the future--long term--of London's financial sector.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Bitter pie? The UK is the fastest growing G7 nation not one mired in a DIY recession. So far the bitterness is coming from Remoaners as all the negative speculation has fallen flat to date. That could change yet but hasn't so far.
You do realize you haven't actually left the EU yet, right? You remember that thing we were talking a while back, that business with you delaying your exit from the EU? You remember that? I'm just checking.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes the prediction was that a recession would hit immediately as the mere shock of having chosen to leave would destroy all confidence, halt all investment etc
You do realise that we did vote to leave already but confidence etc is still high.
Your PM at the time said he would trigger article 50 immediately. Predictions were based on that. Did your previous PM trigger article 50 on june 24th?
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote