Geopolitical impact of Brexit

[Hazir]

Oh god, will you put a sock in it? Merkel has explicity told the people you hope to influence her on your behalf that they shouldn't even try. And the main representatives already reacted to that saying the whole idea that they value the British market more than the EU27 was ridiculous. That whole 'we buy their BMW's isn't going to make any difference.
It will be a bloody miracle if there is a deal at all with fuckwads like Bojo the Clown talking on your behalf. You have to live in an alternative reality where the British Empire didn't disappear to believe it's actually going to be a good deal. It's going to be a bad deal, the main difference for both sides being that it will be merely be bad for us and incredibly bad for you.

The alternative of a fullblown trade war is the most likely outcome of this mess.

[RandBlade]

Merkel's bluffing.

[Aimless]

We should probably be more clear about what we expect although regardless of outcome RB will declare victory.

[RandBlade]

Do you honestly think that regardless of outcome Hazir and Khendraja'aro won't declare victory?

[Aimless]

I guess that means all outcomes should be viewed as win-win.

[Timbuk2]

As expected, my bank is shifting 1,000 jobs from London to Paris. Investment banking operations are an activity in part governed by European regulation, so the job shift is a necessary consequence of Brexit.

UBS is following suit, with jobs moving to Germany or Spain.

US Banks JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will phase in job shifts away from London accordingly.

Any further labour movement away from the UK will depend on whether Theresa May can secure the European banking passporting rights as part of the Brexit negotiation. Without it, Banking operations in London will suddenly become more expensive, and the sector will shrink substantially, along with the wealth it generates for the country.

Further, banking bosses are meeting with Theresa May this week to discuss foreign labour, with concern in the banking sector that skilled labour will be harder to secure in UK positions post Brexit. Around half of my wider team are foreign nationals, which I would say is a general reflection of the rest of the bank's UK back and middle-office labour pool.

However, to quote Stuart Gulliver, Chairman of HSBC; ‘Irrespective of Brexit, London will remain a global financial centre, and the revenue impact of Brexit on financial services will be made good in two to three years’ time.’

Still much uncertainty here at the moment, so I hope he's right.

[Hazir]

I guess that means all outcomes should be viewed as win-win.

Oh well. As the Turkish proverb goes: for the madman every day is a Holiday.

[RandBlade]

Gulliver knows what he is talking about and is right Tim. The Eurozone nations have made themselves very unfriendly to banking for decades which is why London is the home of finance and that isn't going to change any time soon. Talk of an EU Financial Transactions Tax, on top of the Banker's Bonus etc not to forget corporation tax and personal income tax differences. Twice as many Euro's are traded in London every single day than in the entire Eurozone put together.

Worst case scenario is that there's no deal so a minimal number of paper jobs go into the Eurozone but the real work (and profits) are offshored (and taxed) in London. Don't forget that most of our financial exports are already to nations we don't have passport arrangements with anyway.

[Khendraja'aro]

Microsoft will probably also shift their data centers elsewhere - due to data protection laws, for one, and due to increased prices. They already said as much.

Gulliver knows what he is talking about and is right Tim. The Eurozone nations have made themselves very unfriendly to banking for decades which is why London is the home of finance and that isn't going to change any time soon. Talk of an EU Financial Transactions Tax, on top of the Banker's Bonus etc not to forget corporation tax and personal income tax differences. Twice as many Euro's are traded in London every single day than in the entire Eurozone put together.

Worst case scenario is that there's no deal so a minimal number of paper jobs go into the Eurozone but the real work (and profits) are offshored (and taxed) in London. Don't forget that most of our financial exports are already to nations we don't have passport arrangements with anyway.

No. Have a look at why Switzerland with its banks is not allowed to offer services in the EU. It's called "passporting". And you won't have that after Brexit.

[RandBlade]

Switzerland does offer a lot of services in the EU just as we do offer a lot of services with nations we don't have passport rights with [as I mentioned in my post]. I hope we'll negotiate passport rights but its not the end of the world if we don't.

[Timbuk2]

No. Have a look at why Switzerland with its banks is not allowed to offer services in the EU. It's called "passporting". And you won't have that after Brexit.

As I understand it, there is no definite say one way or the other at present.

[Hazir]

As I understand it, there is no definite say one way or the other at present.

Seems that the ECB isn't going to allow any post box solutions. So if passporting rights are lost it's really going to bite. Not just in margins but in market share.
The way I see it is that it's going to be very difficult to limit the damage and subsequently it will be extremely hard to strike a deal that's remotely good. The biggest chances I see for derailment and a train crash. Chances of the latter rise with every chipper remark about what a wonderful deal the UK is going to wrestle away from the EU.

[Loki]

By saying they're going to respect the Supreme Court's decision and have a bill passed by Parliament?

He keeps on arguing that the people's decision is final and binding. It is not. Only a parliament's decisions are binding.

[RandBlade]

Seems that the ECB isn't going to allow any post box solutions. So if passporting rights are lost it's really going to bite. Not just in margins but in market share.
The way I see it is that it's going to be very difficult to limit the damage and subsequently it will be extremely hard to strike a deal that's remotely good. The biggest chances I see for derailment and a train crash. Chances of the latter rise with every chipper remark about what a wonderful deal the UK is going to wrestle away from the EU.

No they don't they increase with everyone who suggests the UK/EU (delete as appropriate) will get a bad deal.

The only sustainable deal is one both parties are happy with. That's why ending our membership is in everyone's best interests and not a challenge to the EU.

He keeps on arguing that the people's decision is final and binding. It is not. Only a parliament's decisions are binding.

It is - politically.

Parliament passed the EU Referendum Act to get a "final and binding" decision from the people that the government pledged to honour. That is David Cameron's government and his and his government's words. And the words from the manifesto the government was elected on. So repeating those long established and well worn words is no disrespect at all.

[Hazir]

No you idiot, the good deal for everyone would be the UK remaining part of the Common Market and Customs Union. Every deal below that means there is damage to be spit, which is an incredible impediment to any deal at all, let alone a good deal.

[RandBlade]

We were happy with a customs union and common market until you decided to transform it into a political union that we didn't want. All our problems date back to Delors onwards. You've known for a long time the union was evolving in a way we didn't want it to so why should we stay unhappy? Your crocodile tears now as to why didn't we stay after years of you bleating about how great it would be to be rid of the pesky Brits is something to behold. You rejected Cameron's reasonable Bloomberg Speech proposals on EU reform and so now we are leaving.

Now it's in all our interests to make the most of it.

[Khendraja'aro]

We were happy with a customs union and common market until you decided to transform it into a political union that we didn't want.

The fuck? You morons*knew what you were getting into!*It ALWAYS WAS INTENDED AS A POLITICAL UNION!*The trade union it started out with was a stepping stone

You do realize that this union was created to bind Europe's countries closer together due to the*war that had happened?

You are an utter fuckhead for whining about how you didn't know anything about this. You did know. And*I've told you so before. Fucker.

After all, you joined up in the late 70s where the direction the trade union would take was*clear as day. And, hell, it states so in it's foundational manifesto. Which you signed upon becoming a member. I've asked before: Do you morons read what you're signing?

[RandBlade]

There are different interpretations of that language. Even if we'd stopped with the Single Market there would have forever been a closer union of the nations and people of Europe than there was pre-Treaty of Rome.

Ever closer union needn't mean forever integrating more and more without limit because that is IMPOSSIBLE. There has to be a limit eventually.

[Hazir]

We were happy with a customs union and common market until you decided to transform it into a political union that we didn't want. All our problems date back to Delors onwards. You've known for a long time the union was evolving in a way we didn't want it to so why should we stay unhappy? Your crocodile tears now as to why didn't we stay after years of you bleating about how great it would be to be rid of the pesky Brits is something to behold. You rejected Cameron's reasonable Bloomberg Speech proposals on EU reform and so now we are leaving.

Now it's in all our interests to make the most of it.

Hey you dimwit. You know what? You were already members when the EU came about. Your attempt to say that 'we' did it 25 years after you were heavily involved in drawing the blueprints though is totally in line with the inability of Brexitanians to say something that is remotely close to the truth.

[Hazir]

The fuck? You morons*knew what you were getting into!*It ALWAYS WAS INTENDED AS A POLITICAL UNION!*The trade union it started out with was a stepping stone

You do realize that this union was created to bind Europe's countries closer together due to the*war that had happened?

You are an utter fuckhead for whining about how you didn't know anything about this. You did know. And*I've told you so before. Fucker.

After all, you joined up in the late 70s where the direction the trade union would take was*clear as day. And, hell, it states so in it's foundational manifesto. Which you signed upon becoming a member. I've asked before: Do you morons read what you're signing?

It's much worse than that; they were part of the EC that was transformed into the EU. Like everything he says it's a lie wrapped in an untruth.

[Aimless]

Most importantly it was clear at the time they joined that they weren't merely signing up for a free trade treaty, and British citizens and politicians at the time recognized this. For most of the EU's history the UK has willingly and very actively participated in shaping policy.

[Khendraja'aro]

There are different interpretations of that language. Even if we'd stopped with the Single Market there would have forever been a closer union of the nations and people of Europe than there was pre-Treaty of Rome.

Ever closer union needn't mean forever integrating more and more without limit because that is IMPOSSIBLE. There has to be a limit eventually.

There are always different interpretations. However, in this case, there's only ONE correct one. It's not my problem if you*clowns are unable to comprehend the meaning of words in your own language and then proceed to completely misunderstand what you just signed.

That kind of thing bodes really well for your comprehension regarding the texts of future treaties with the US and others.

"Oh,*I didn't agree to that!" - "But it's right here, clear as day on the very first page. Which you signed willingly after giving the statement that you understood what you are about to sign."

[RandBlade]

Hey you dimwit. You know what? You were already members when the EU came about. Your attempt to say that 'we' did it 25 years after you were heavily involved in drawing the blueprints though is totally in line with the inability of Brexitanians to say something that is remotely close to the truth.

Yes we were involved when it transformed with Maastricht. You know that Treaty that was incredibly divisive and unpopular with large parts of the country. That Treaty that was only signed after we opted out of large parts of it. Yeah Maastricht wasn't at all unpopular here was it?

Weird.

[Loki]

No they don't they increase with everyone who suggests the UK/EU (delete as appropriate) will get a bad deal.

The only sustainable deal is one both parties are happy with. That's why ending our membership is in everyone's best interests and not a challenge to the EU.
It is - politically.

Parliament passed the EU Referendum Act to get a "final and binding" decision from the people that the government pledged to honour. That is David Cameron's government and his and his government's words. And the words from the manifesto the government was elected on. So repeating those long established and well worn words is no disrespect at all.

BS. The referendum was a recommendation. The decision lies with parliament. Even your courts said as much.

[RandBlade]

Legally yes. Politically no. Politically it is final and binding as the government said to the voters BEFORE the vote. Oh and the courts acknowledged that there are political consequences too but said that isn't their concern that is Parliament's concern. Davis was addressing Parliament not the courts.

[Aimless]

A promise to implement a policy in an unconstitutional manner is arguably illegitimate and void rather than being binding.

[Khendraja'aro]

Legally yes. Politically no. Politically it is final and binding as the government said to the voters BEFORE the vote. Oh and the courts acknowledged that there are political consequences too but said that isn't their concern that is Parliament's concern. Davis was addressing Parliament not the courts.

By that logic, any promise a politician makes is final and binding.

[Hazir]

By that logic, any promise a politician makes is final and binding.

Well, that's easy then: The law of the land is not what the law states explicitly (advisory referendum) but what some campaigning dude said it meant (the exact opposite).

[RandBlade]

A promise to implement a policy in an unconstitutional manner is arguably illegitimate and void rather than being binding.

They're proposing to implement it by an Act of Parliament rather than unconstitutionally so what's your point?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38753808

By that logic, any promise a politician makes is final and binding.

If they're elected on that mandate then politically [as opposed to legally] yes absolutely it should be. Any politician in Parliament that then goes against that mandate should be held accordingly.

[Khendraja'aro]

If they're elected on that mandate then politically [as opposed to legally] yes absolutely it should be. Any politician in Parliament that then goes against that mandate should be held accordingly.

Oh naivety, thy name is Rand.

What do you do, Rand, if they don't do as you wish? Give them*a stern talking-to?