Not wishing to score a point, is not the latest problem for the Banks the cut by the BoE in interest rates? To me that cut was unnecessary and creates more panic in the markets than would a statement of no change.
That hasn't helped, but bank share prices collapsed before that.
Like you, I'm not sure that the BoE action is wise. It's a difficult judgement for them, but I think we've probably reached or exceeded the 'pushing on a string' point, not to mention the knock-on effects on pension-scheme deficits, and the diversion of investment into pushing up bond and other asset prices.
I view most of our largest banks as old, unchanging, locked into ways of operating and newer rivals will eat their lunch.
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
Except that will never happen. The passport value has been grossly misjudged IMO, the trade we may lose to Dublin will be smaller than expected and we might gain a lot more from being outside of the EU regulatory system and out of ECJ jurisdiction. Making sweeping judgements about losing whole industries is premature at best.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
At the presentation today, the option that was considered likely was we left the EU regs/ECJ etc, but to retain access to the single market and passporting etc, we'd agree to pass exactly identically legislation/regulation as the EU/single market.
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
would these be the tax revenues we all had to hand back to bail out the banks ?
I'd have let the banks fail.
True free market capitalist am I.
It is odd, how the bankers really managed to get the likes of Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond crawling up their arses.
yes , but we didnt and HMG dumped all the debt on the taxpayer. Osborne then made it worse by giving a nod and a wink to his mates that none of them would suffer too much.
I've spent the afternoon at a presentation on the Banking and FS industry in a post Brexit world, one bit of datum you'd have loved.
George Osborne (pbuh) really did tax the bankers that made the pips squeak, relatively speaking.
he'd have been safer letting a pile of the senior ones go to jail pour encourager les autres. It would have saved stacks of pointless legislation.
That's far too French for my liking.
Since when was Admiral Byng French ?
It was the use of the French language.
Mind you, I've written an upcoming thread partly in French.
Headline is 'Le Royaume-Uni est insulaire et maritime'
Isnt that from Hollande's speech when Dave got him to threaten us ?
First Francois, then Obama if youd have got them to say never use AV we;d have voted for electoral reform by now.
Is a direct quote from that quite awful Frenchman, Charles de Gaulle
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
Except that will never happen. The passport value has been grossly misjudged IMO, the trade we may lose to Dublin will be smaller than expected and we might gain a lot more from being outside of the EU regulatory system and out of ECJ jurisdiction. Making sweeping judgements about losing whole industries is premature at best.
I saw a few weeks ago that the cost of losing passporting to the City might be as much as £10bn per annum. That is so small a figure in the business conducted as to be the equivalent of a rounding error. A pisser if your business depends on it, of course, but not something the country should even worry about.
£10 billion is a small figure? A rounding error.
So why did you Leavers get so exercised over our £10 bn or so net contribution to the EU?
I mean, as per you, it isn't something the country should even worry about.
If you are asking me personally, then I cannot recall ever thinking the scale of our contribution was a necessary and sufficient reason for leaving the EU. Now, lets talk about context, the amount of money traded in the City each year is in the trillions. HMG spends a shade over £700bn of taxpayers money every year.
We'll have to pick this up later, I'm on the 17:50 Manchester Pic to Dore train, and the signal cuts out over rural and scenic Derbyshire and Yorkshire.
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
Except that will never happen. The passport value has been grossly misjudged IMO, the trade we may lose to Dublin will be smaller than expected and we might gain a lot more from being outside of the EU regulatory system and out of ECJ jurisdiction. Making sweeping judgements about losing whole industries is premature at best.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
At the presentation today, the option that was considered likely was we left the EU regs/ECJ etc, but to retain access to the single market and passporting etc, we'd agree to pass exactly identically legislation/regulation as the EU/single market.
So we'd be out, but effectively in.
I called it separate but equal
I like the smell of sovereignty reclaimed in the morning.
Not wishing to score a point, is not the latest problem for the Banks the cut by the BoE in interest rates? To me that cut was unnecessary and creates more panic in the markets than would a statement of no change.
That hasn't helped, but bank share prices collapsed before that.
Like you, I'm not sure that the BoE action is wise. It's a difficult judgement for them, but I think we've probably reached or exceeded the 'pushing on a string' point, not to mention the knock-on effects on pension-scheme deficits, and the diversion of investment into pushing up bond and other asset prices.
Capital raising is going to be tougher as well. I read in the FT that each quarter point cut in the base rate lowers bank profits by £150m or so in the UK. I think the article written by Robert's colleague gave a very good insight into why low interest rates are probably more damaging they are beneficial for us right now. Hopefully someone will forward it to the governor.
In general on interest rates I think we've reached the point exhaustion of current policy measures. The market is so far detached from the real economy and so hooked on funny money that we need to try something different. Look at Japan, Abe has tested QE to destruction and it hasn't really worked, the Japanese economy is still suffering for under-utilisation and deflation. To some degree the rise in inflation may just come at the right time for the UK economy as it could allow the BoE to change monetary policy and follow the Fed in raising rates until we reach 1.75-2%, that will help banks raise capital and it will increase the savings rate, both of those will help support lending in the real economy rather than just blowing up asset bubbles.
There just doesn't seem to be any mileage left in monetary (or fiscal, IMO) stimulus. We need to look at other solutions to get the economy moving and it starts with education and welfare reform.
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
would these be the tax revenues we all had to hand back to bail out the banks ?
I'd have let the banks fail.
True free market capitalist am I.
It is odd, how the bankers really managed to get the likes of Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond crawling up their arses.
yes , but we didnt and HMG dumped all the debt on the taxpayer. Osborne then made it worse by giving a nod and a wink to his mates that none of them would suffer too much.
I've spent the afternoon at a presentation on the Banking and FS industry in a post Brexit world, one bit of datum you'd have loved.
George Osborne (pbuh) really did tax the bankers that made the pips squeak, relatively speaking.
he'd have been safer letting a pile of the senior ones go to jail pour encourager les autres. It would have saved stacks of pointless legislation.
That's far too French for my liking.
Since when was Admiral Byng French ?
It was the use of the French language.
Mind you, I've written an upcoming thread partly in French.
Headline is 'Le Royaume-Uni est insulaire et maritime'
Isnt that from Hollande's speech when Dave got him to threaten us ?
First Francois, then Obama if youd have got them to say never use AV we;d have voted for electoral reform by now.
Is a direct quote from that quite awful Frenchman, Charles de Gaulle
That's unfair, awful is just the natural state for frenchmen, why pick on Charles ?
Interesting move in USA - wages started to move up at starter level in law firms.
"Cravath’s announcement that the firm would raise associate salaries has dominated water cooler talk around the legal industry for the past two months. The list of firms that immediately followed Cravath’s lead and those that didn’t was closely scrutinized. Any firms that delayed announcing salary increases were subjected to conjecture and scorn, with open questions asked about the health of the firm and its commitment to associates. In the end, nearly every Am Law 50 firm fell into line and accepted Cravath’s new salary structure, or a slightly modified version of it, as its own."
Interesting fact (or not): Cravath has made four lateral partner hires in its 200 year history. The last was David Kappos, the former Director of the US Patent an Trademark Office:
Cravath partners earn an average £1 million a year. It's a great firm to get into as even if you don't make it to partner you can leave and do very well elsewhere. If they are putting associate earnings up, that is significant. And if they are it does leave other firms no choice but to do the same.
Osborne is about to earn squillions on the lecture circuit.
so once agin he follows in Brown's footsteps.
Oh, come on, Mr. Brooke. Where is your sense of history? Anything that will stoke asset prices to the benefit of the already rich, and especially if they can turn them into short term profits to buy even more assets is a defacto Tory policy (especially for those of the Cameron and Osborne ilk).
The short-termism of these gentlemen capitalists have been a plague on on our Islands for hundreds of years, the cause of the curse of Empire, the reason for our dreadful education system and the reason for our relative decline compared to Germany and the USA.
P.S. There are some good city firms of course, even some honest ones. As Jim Hacker said, "The ideal City firm is one that is both competent and honest". However, Sir Humphrey retorted, "Yes, let me know if you find one". They do exist though (I don't want assassins sent by Charles lurking in my garden), just not commonly.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
would these be the tax revenues we all had to hand back to bail out the banks ?
I'd have let the banks fail.
True free market capitalist am I.
It is odd, how the bankers really managed to get the likes of Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond crawling up their arses.
yes , but we didnt and HMG dumped all the debt on the taxpayer. Osborne then made it worse by giving a nod and a wink to his mates that none of them would suffer too much.
I've spent the afternoon at a presentation on the Banking and FS industry in a post Brexit world, one bit of datum you'd have loved.
George Osborne (pbuh) really did tax the bankers that made the pips squeak, relatively speaking.
he'd have been safer letting a pile of the senior ones go to jail pour encourager les autres. It would have saved stacks of pointless legislation.
That's far too French for my liking.
Since when was Admiral Byng French ?
It was the use of the French language.
Mind you, I've written an upcoming thread partly in French.
Headline is 'Le Royaume-Uni est insulaire et maritime'
Isnt that from Hollande's speech when Dave got him to threaten us ?
First Francois, then Obama if youd have got them to say never use AV we;d have voted for electoral reform by now.
Is a direct quote from that quite awful Frenchman, Charles de Gaulle
That's unfair, awful is just the natural state for frenchmen, why pick on Charles ?
That de Gaulle speech is riveting, and surely proved absolutely spot on by events up to and including Brexit?
Esp riveting is his "opening the floodgates" argument - if UK joined another country might join, and then another, until we get "à treize. Et puis peut-être à dix-huit." Vingt-huit would presumably have impressed him even less.
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
Except that will never happen. The passport value has been grossly misjudged IMO, the trade we may lose to Dublin will be smaller than expected and we might gain a lot more from being outside of the EU regulatory system and out of ECJ jurisdiction. Making sweeping judgements about losing whole industries is premature at best.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
At the presentation today, the option that was considered likely was we left the EU regs/ECJ etc, but to retain access to the single market and passporting etc, we'd agree to pass exactly identically legislation/regulation as the EU/single market.
So we'd be out, but effectively in.
I called it separate but equal
I like the smell of sovereignty reclaimed in the morning.
You may think sovereignty is a joke but thankfully there were enough decent, patriotic people who thought otherwise.
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
Except that will never happen. The passport value has been grossly misjudged IMO, the trade we may lose to Dublin will be smaller than expected and we might gain a lot more from being outside of the EU regulatory system and out of ECJ jurisdiction. Making sweeping judgements about losing whole industries is premature at best.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
At the presentation today, the option that was considered likely was we left the EU regs/ECJ etc, but to retain access to the single market and passporting etc, we'd agree to pass exactly identically legislation/regulation as the EU/single market.
So we'd be out, but effectively in.
I called it separate but equal
I like the smell of sovereignty reclaimed in the morning.
You may think sovereignty is a joke but thankfully there were enough decent, patriotic people who thought otherwise.
I don't think sovereignty is a joke.
I think we had it pre-Brexit, we have it now, and we will have it post-Brexit.
Interesting move in USA - wages started to move up at starter level in law firms.
"Cravath’s announcement that the firm would raise associate salaries has dominated water cooler talk around the legal industry for the past two months. The list of firms that immediately followed Cravath’s lead and those that didn’t was closely scrutinized. Any firms that delayed announcing salary increases were subjected to conjecture and scorn, with open questions asked about the health of the firm and its commitment to associates. In the end, nearly every Am Law 50 firm fell into line and accepted Cravath’s new salary structure, or a slightly modified version of it, as its own."
Interesting fact (or not): Cravath has made four lateral partner hires in its 200 year history. The last was David Kappos, the former Director of the US Patent an Trademark Office:
Cravath partners earn an average £1 million a year. It's a great firm to get into as even if you don't make it to partner you can leave and do very well elsewhere. If they are putting associate earnings up, that is significant. And if they are it does leave other firms no choice but to do the same.
hmmm not convinced SO
surely the big downside is you have to come clean and tell people you are a lawyer ?
people can have a perfectly respectable career in blood diamonds or child trafficking, where admittedly you may not earn as much, but you wont' get socially ostracised at parties.
James Vaughan From Kilroy-Silk's diary on his reselection battle in 1985. Corbyn described as a "bastard", "creep" and "that rat". https://t.co/HWgXKJke48
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
Mr. Topping, I took Herself out for lunch today (that's twice this week and one last week, a habit seems to be forming) and as one does on these occasions, at least out here in the sticks, we stopped off to do some shopping. What we bought was mostly New Zealand wine, plus some electrical stuff from the far east, neither place do we have a single market or passporting.
I don't think that NZ vineyard has an office in the UK, or the people who are flogging their electrics. Even if they did the price/quality ration was fine by me.
So actually I couldn't give a big rat's arse about your tales of not being able to sell into the EU unless you had to open an office there. We sold into Europe before 1973 quite happily (the Llama family did quite well flogging stuff into Portugal) and we will do so again. We sell into China, the USA, and all sorts of other places and we don't seem to need to be a member of a single market or accept any judicial arrangements, just comply with local laws..
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
Mr. Topping, I took Herself out for lunch today (that's twice this week and one last week, a habit seems to be forming) and as one does on these occasions, at least out here in the sticks, we stopped off to do some shopping. What we bought was mostly New Zealand wine, plus some electrical stuff from the far east, neither place do we have a single market or passporting.
I don't think that NZ vineyard has an office in the UK, or the people who are flogging their electrics. Even if they did the price/quality ration was fine by me.
So actually I couldn't give a big rat's arse about your tales of not being able to sell into the EU unless you had to open an office there. We sold into Europe before 1973 quite happily (the Llama family did quite well flogging stuff into Portugal) and we will do so again. We sell into China, the USA, and all sorts of other places and we don't seem to need to be a member of a single market or accept any judicial arrangements, just comply with local laws..
OK let me try to put it in terms that you might understand or relate to.
These are the UK regulations that your Kiwi wine exporters must adhere to if they want to end up with you buying their plonk of an afternoon with your missus.
Now. It may be that NZ has exactly similar regulations and the fact that the UK has a some which exactly mirror NZ's ones is a happy coincidence. But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
James Vaughan From Kilroy-Silk's diary on his reselection battle in 1985. Corbyn described as a "bastard", "creep" and "that rat". https://t.co/HWgXKJke48
In general I'm not in favour of deselections without extreme cause. But I've met Kilroy-Silk and he stood in my area as a Veritas candidate. Always baffled me why we ever selected him.
OK let me try to put it in terms that you might understand or relate to.
These are the UK regulations that your Kiwi wine exporters must adhere to if they want to end up with you buying their plonk of an afternoon with your missus.
Now. It may be that NZ has exactly similar regulations and the fact that the UK has a some which exactly mirror NZ's ones is a happy coincidence. But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
Sure, so NZ winemakers are happy to sell us their wine and to comply with out regulations. Our banks will do the same to sell services into Europe. Every time a nation has tried to claim jurisdiction over financial services the banks invariably rebel. It will be no different for the EU. You can spout your mifids and whatever else, there are always loopholes and the tighter the EU makes its regulatory net the less businesses will want to locate there.
The EU market is not as attractive as they think it is and without the UK the fear of over regulation becomes very real. Better to just sell into it than locate there. Which is probably what will happen in the end.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
Mr. Topping, I took Herself out for lunch today (that's twice this week and one last week, a habit seems to be forming) and as one does on these occasions, at least out here in the sticks, we stopped off to do some shopping. What we bought was mostly New Zealand wine, plus some electrical stuff from the far east, neither place do we have a single market or passporting.
I don't think that NZ vineyard has an office in the UK, or the people who are flogging their electrics. Even if they did the price/quality ration was fine by me.
So actually I couldn't give a big rat's arse about your tales of not being able to sell into the EU unless you had to open an office there. We sold into Europe before 1973 quite happily (the Llama family did quite well flogging stuff into Portugal) and we will do so again. We sell into China, the USA, and all sorts of other places and we don't seem to need to be a member of a single market or accept any judicial arrangements, just comply with local laws..
................ But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
So the NZ people manage to sell to us despite the rules. SBO.
James Vaughan From Kilroy-Silk's diary on his reselection battle in 1985. Corbyn described as a "bastard", "creep" and "that rat". https://t.co/HWgXKJke48
In general I'm not in favour of deselections without extreme cause. But I've met Kilroy-Silk and he stood in my area as a Veritas candidate. Always baffled me why we ever selected him.
Ah, Veritas, what fun they were. An example of what may well happen to Farage if he splits from UKIP and forms a new party.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
Mr. Topping, I took Herself out for lunch today (that's twice this week and one last week, a habit seems to be forming) and as one does on these occasions, at least out here in the sticks, we stopped off to do some shopping. What we bought was mostly New Zealand wine, plus some electrical stuff from the far east, neither place do we have a single market or passporting.
I don't think that NZ vineyard has an office in the UK, or the people who are flogging their electrics. Even if they did the price/quality ration was fine by me.
So actually I couldn't give a big rat's arse about your tales of not being able to sell into the EU unless you had to open an office there. We sold into Europe before 1973 quite happily (the Llama family did quite well flogging stuff into Portugal) and we will do so again. We sell into China, the USA, and all sorts of other places and we don't seem to need to be a member of a single market or accept any judicial arrangements, just comply with local laws..
OK let me try to put it in terms that you might understand or relate to.
These are the UK regulations that your Kiwi wine exporters must adhere to if they want to end up with you buying their plonk of an afternoon with your missus.
Now. It may be that NZ has exactly similar regulations and the fact that the UK has a some which exactly mirror NZ's ones is a happy coincidence. But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
Could not give big rats arse, their wine is very good, it complies with UK re health and such like, and it is reasonably priced. When we sell stuff into the USA, China, New Zealand we have to cater for their local regulations. Seems to work OK. Has done for hundreds of years, give or take the odd hiccup (the Opium Wars spring to mind).
Now you want to run an export business, then like the Llama family selling into Portugal all those years ago, you comply with the local laws. If that hits your profit margin, I really don't care because in the great scheme of things that difference won't count for anything.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
Mr. Topping, I took Herself out for lunch today (that's twice this week and one last week, a habit seems to be forming) and as one does on these occasions, at least out here in the sticks, we stopped off to do some shopping. What we bought was mostly New Zealand wine, plus some electrical stuff from the far east, neither place do we have a single market or passporting.
I don't think that NZ vineyard has an office in the UK, or the people who are flogging their electrics. Even if they did the price/quality ration was fine by me.
So actually I couldn't give a big rat's arse about your tales of not being able to sell into the EU unless you had to open an office there. We sold into Europe before 1973 quite happily (the Llama family did quite well flogging stuff into Portugal) and we will do so again. We sell into China, the USA, and all sorts of other places and we don't seem to need to be a member of a single market or accept any judicial arrangements, just comply with local laws..
OK let me try to put it in terms that you might understand or relate to.
These are the UK regulations that your Kiwi wine exporters must adhere to if they want to end up with you buying their plonk of an afternoon with your missus.
Now. It may be that NZ has exactly similar regulations and the fact that the UK has a some which exactly mirror NZ's ones is a happy coincidence. But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
Shit ! Regulations !
Bankers might actually have to work to the same rules as the rest of us.
OK let me try to put it in terms that you might understand or relate to.
These are the UK regulations that your Kiwi wine exporters must adhere to if they want to end up with you buying their plonk of an afternoon with your missus.
Now. It may be that NZ has exactly similar regulations and the fact that the UK has a some which exactly mirror NZ's ones is a happy coincidence. But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
Sure, so NZ winemakers are happy to sell us their wine and to comply with out regulations. Our banks will do the same to sell services into Europe. Every time a nation has tried to claim jurisdiction over financial services the banks invariably rebel. It will be no different for the EU. You can spout your mifids and whatever else, there are always loopholes and the tighter the EU makes its regulatory net the less businesses will want to locate there.
The EU market is not as attractive as they think it is and without the UK the fear of over regulation becomes very real. Better to just sell into it than locate there. Which is probably what will happen in the end.
Of course they will just sell into it, Max. But they will have to follow all the EU rules, into which we will have precious little input, if they do.
Dear god 99.9% of my posts on Brexit have observed how comparatively we will be in a worse position if we leave on account of our exclusion from the decision-making and formulation of EU rules on financial services. Nothing more, nothing less. A perhaps small point but I asked many times: why would we have chosen to be less influential than more influential in this vital area of UK interests?
Well of course the reason we chose that is because 99.9% of people have no idea what it really means ("you can spout your mifids" - LOL) and bang on about BMWs or NZ wine for fuck's sake.
It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
Mr. Topping, I took Herself out for ngle market or passporting.
I don't think that NZ vineyard has an office in the UK, or the people who are flogging their electrics. Even if they did the price/quality ration was fine by me.
So actually I couldn't give a big rat's arse about your tales of not being able to sell into the EU unless you had to open an office there. We sold into Europe before 1973 quite happily (the Llama family did quite well flogging stuff into Portugal) and we will do so again. We sell into China, the USA, and all sorts of other places and we don't seem to need to be a member of a single market or accept any judicial arrangements, just comply with local laws..
OK let me try to put it in terms that you might understand or relate to.
These are the UK regulations that your Kiwi wine exporters must adhere to if they want to end up with you buying their plonk of an afternoon with your missus.
Now. It may be that NZ has exactly similar regulations and the fact that the UK has a some which exactly mirror NZ's ones is a happy coincidence. But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
Could not give big rats arse, their wine is very good, it complies with UK re health and such like, and it is reasonably priced. When we sell stuff into the USA, China, New Zealand we have to cater for their local regulations. Seems to work OK. Has done for hundreds of years, give or take the odd hiccup (the Opium Wars spring to mind).
Now you want to run an export business, then like the Llama family selling into Portugal all those years ago, you comply with the local laws. If that hits your profit margin, I really don't care because in the great scheme of things that difference won't count for anything.
"It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be"
Translation some bankers and City types will lose a few quid.
This is not a message that will sell, Mr. Topping.
"It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be"
Translation some bankers and City types will lose a few quid.
This is not a message that will sell, Mr. Topping.
translation - overpaid eejits might have to earn their money for a change.
"It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be"
Translation some bankers and City types will lose a few quid.
This is not a message that will sell, Mr. Topping.
Now that is the first sensible thing you have said on the subject all evening.
Exactly right. The value of the City of London to the rest of the UK, the jobs therein, the related jobs it supports, the position of the UK's financial services in the world and certainly in Europe, the plight of the bankers (!) ...none of it will be of the remotest interest to most of the public and some might even wish it ill.
Of course they will just sell into it, Max. But they will have to follow all the EU rules, into which we will have precious little input, if they do.
Dear god 99.9% of my posts on Brexit have observed how comparatively we will be in a worse position if we leave on account of our exclusion from the decision-making and formulation of EU rules on financial services. Nothing more, nothing less. A perhaps small point but I asked many times: why would we have chosen to be less influential than more influential in this vital area of UK interests?
Well of course the reason we chose that is because 99.9% of people have no idea what it really means ("you can spout your mifids" - LOL) and bang on about BMWs or NZ wine for fuck's sake.
It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be.
Again, you are attaching far too much value to the EU market. We can sell in and comply on a product by product basis if we need to. The point is that the EU can set regulations for products that are sold in their regions and markets. Our banks and financial services companies will comply with those regulations when they need to. If the EU tries to claim jurisdiction over EUR trading I'd like to see how they react to an offshore market the size of the City. It will dwarf their domestic market and in the end more EUR trading will done outside of their regulatory net entirely.
Again, you're stuck in a defensive frame of mind. You're a scared little europhile remainer, you don't think we can govern ourselves and our future lies in the superstate. I can understand your anger at the leave vote, but we're a pretty resourceful bunch and the mood music from the commission in regulation is extremely hostile, they are talking about resurrecting ideas like the FTT. I remember discussing the BRRD with you before the referendum as a poorly thought out regulation that we have been forced to implement. Look at how it has come to bite them in the bum. You're scared of losing business to the EU. I'm not, the picture is the same now as when we leave. If anything the commission is more hostile and we're friendlier with probable lower taxation and lighter touch regulation.
The EU is shit, and thankfully the public recognised that. Deal with it.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
Mr. Topping, I took Herself out for lunch today (that's twice this week and one last week, a habit seems to be forming) and as one does on these occasions, at least out here in the sticks, we stopped off to do some shopping. What we bought was mostly New Zealand wine, plus some electrical stuff from the far east, neither place do we have a single market or passporting.
I don't think that NZ vineyard has an office in the UK, or the people who are flogging their electrics. Even if they did the price/quality ration was fine by me.
So actually I couldn't give a bigseem to need to be a member of a single market or accept any judicial arrangements, just comply with local laws..
OK let me try to put it in terms that you might understand or relate to.
These are the UK regulations that your Kiwi wine exporters must adhere to if they want to end up with you buying their plonk of an afternoon with your missus.
Now. It may be that NZ has exactly similar regulations and the fact that the UK has a some which exactly mirror NZ's ones is a happy coincidence. But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
Could not give big rats arse, their wine is very good, it complies with UK re health and such like, and it is reasonably priced. When we sell stuff into the USA, China, New Zealand we have to cater for their local regulations. Seems to work OK. Has done for hundreds of years, give or take the odd hiccup (the Opium Wars spring to mind).
Now you want to run an export business, then like the Llama family selling into Portugal all those years ago, you comply with the local laws. If that hits your profit margin, I really don't care because in the great scheme of things that difference won't count for anything.
If it's a repeated experience across a variety of industries it means less government income. That does matter.
"It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be"
Translation some bankers and City types will lose a few quid.
This is not a message that will sell, Mr. Topping.
Now that is the first sensible thing you have said on the subject all evening.
Exactly right. The value of the City of London to the rest of the UK, the jobs therein, the related jobs it supports, the position of the UK's financial services in the world and certainly in Europe, the plight of the bankers (!) ...none of it will be of the remotest interest to most of the public and some might even wish it ill.
They'll miss the money the City contributes. This may be the opportunity to rebalance our economy.
Of course they will just sell into it, Max. But they will have to follow all the EU rules, into which we will have precious little input, if they do.
Well of course the reason we chose that is because 99.9% of people have no idea what it really means ("you can spout your mifids" - LOL) and bang on about BMWs or NZ wine for fuck's sake.
It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be.
Again, you are attaching far too much value to the EU market. We can sell in and comply on a product by product basis if we need to. The point is that the EU can set regulations for products that are sold in their regions and markets. Our banks and financial services companies will comply with those regulations when they need to. If the EU tries to claim jurisdiction over EUR trading I'd like to see how they react to an offshore market the size of the City. It will dwarf their domestic market and in the end more EUR trading will done outside of their regulatory net entirely.
Again, you're stuck in a defensive frame of mind. Your a scared little europhile remainer, you don't think we can govern ourselves and our future lies in the superstate. I can understand your anger at the leave vote, but we're a pretty resourceful bunch and the mood music from the commission in regulation is extremely hostile, they are talking about resurrecting ideas like the FTT. I remember discussing the BRRD with you before the referendum as a poorly thought out regulation that we have been forced to implement. Look at how it has come to bite them in the bum. You're scared of losing business to the EU. I'm not, the picture is the same now as when we leave. If anything the commission is more hostile and we're friendlier with probable lower taxation and lighter touch regulation.
The EU is shit, and thankfully the public recognised that. Deal with it.
Mostly I enjoy discussing things with people, often even when they, like you, don't know anything about the subject they are discussing (no way an analyst of whatever stripe you are, unless you are in FIG, understands why EU regs are so important to us).
But tonight I have had enough of it with you Max. You can do the whole "scared little this or that" thing all you want. But the louder you shout or insult, the more you confirm you don't quite understand what you are talking about. And it is very very boring. It was boring pre-June 23rd and is doubly so now.
If it's a repeated experience across a variety of industries it means less government income. That does matter.
Well anecdotally the FinTech industry is still recruiting in London. A friend of mine who owns one has no interest in moving to Europe and he says others he knows have the same opinion. You might remember that the mayor of Berlin sent advertising buses to London to try and win them over. None have gone for fear of over regulation in the EU once we're out and not there to fight their corner.
Of course they will just sell into it, Max. But they will have to follow all the EU rules, into which we will have precious little input, if they do.
Dear god 99.9% of my posts on Brexit have observed how comparatively we will be in a worse position if we leave on account of our exclusion from the decision-making and formulation of EU rules on financial services. Nothing more, nothing less. A perhaps small point but I asked many times: why would we have chosen to be less influential than more influential in this vital area of UK interests?
Well of course the reason we chose that is because 99.9% of people have no idea what it really means ("you can spout your mifids" - LOL) and bang on about BMWs or NZ wine for fuck's sake.
It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be.
Again, you are attaching far too much value to the EU market. We can sell in and comply on a product by product basis if we need to. The point is that the EU can set regulations for products that are sold in their regions and markets. Our banks and financial services companies will comply with those regulations when they need to. If the EU tries to claim jurisdiction over EUR trading I'd like to see how they react to an offshore market the size of the City. It will dwarf their domestic market and in the end more EUR trading will done outside of their regulatory net entirely.
Again, you're stuck in a defensive frame of mind. You're a scared little europhile remainer, you don't think we can govern ourselves and our future lies in the superstate. I can understand your anger at the leave vote, but we're a pretty resourceful bunch and the mood music from the commission in regulation is extremely hostile, they are talking about resurrecting ideas like the FTT. I remember discussing the BRRD with you before the referendum as a poorly thought out regulation that we have been forced to implement. Look at how it has come to bite them in the bum. You're scared of losing business to the EU. I'm not, the picture is the same now as when we leave. If anything the commission is more hostile and we're friendlier with probable lower taxation and lighter touch regulation.
The EU is shit, and thankfully the public recognised that. Deal with it.
Great. The solution is to make the City a great, big offshore financial centre. That will end well.
"It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be"
Translation some bankers and City types will lose a few quid.
This is not a message that will sell, Mr. Topping.
Now that is the first sensible thing you have said on the subject all evening.
Exactly right. The value of the City of London to the rest of the UK, the jobs therein, the related jobs it supports, the position of the UK's financial services in the world and certainly in Europe, the plight of the bankers (!) ...none of it will be of the remotest interest to most of the public and some might even wish it ill.
They'll miss the money the City contributes. This may be the opportunity to rebalance our economy.
Yep. That together with a 30% house price correction and we will indeed be in the place we should have started from.
Of course they will just sell into it, Max. But they will have to follow all the EU rules, into which we will have precious little input, if they do.
Dear god 99.9% of my posts on Brexit have observed how comparatively we will be in a worse position if we leave on account of our exclusion from the decision-making and formulation of EU rules on financial services. Nothing more, nothing less. A perhaps small point but I asked many times: why would we have chosen to be less influential than more influential in this vital area of UK interests?
Well of course the reason we chose that is because 99.9% of people have no idea what it really means ("you can spout your mifids" - LOL) and bang on about BMWs or NZ wine for fuck's sake.
It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be.
Again, you are attaching far too much value to the EU market. We can sell in and comply on a product by product basis if we need to. The point is that the EU can set regulations for products that are sold in their regions and markets. Our banks and financial services companies will comply with those regulations when they need to. If the EU tries to claim jurisdiction over EUR trading I'd like to see how they react to an offshore market the size of the City. It will dwarf their domestic market and in the end more EUR trading will done outside of their regulatory net entirely.
Again, you're stuck in a defensive frame of mind. You're a scared little europhile remainer, you don't think we can govern ourselves and our future lies in the superstate. I can understand your anger at the leave vote, but we're a pretty resourceful bunch and the mood music from the commission in regulation is extremely hostile, they are talking about resurrecting ideas like the FTT. I remember discussing the BRRD with you before the referendum as a poorly thought out regulation that we have been forced to implement. Look at how it has come to bite them in the bum. You're scared of losing business to the EU. I'm not, the picture is the same now as when we leave. If anything the commission is more hostile and we're friendlier with probable lower taxation and lighter touch regulation.
The EU is shit, and thankfully the public recognised that. Deal with it.
Great. The solution is to make the City a great, big offshore financial centre. That will end well.
Still regulated by the BoE and FCA, just outside of the EU net.
Of course they will just sell into it, Max. But they will have to follow all the EU rules, into which we will have precious little input, if they do.
Dear god 99.9% of my posts on Brexit have observed how comparatively we will be in a worse position if we leave on account of our exclusion from the decision-making and formulation of EU rules on financial services. Nothing more, nothing less. A perhaps small point but I asked many times: why would we have chosen to be less influential than more influential in this vital area of UK interests?
Well of course the reason we chose that is because 99.9% of people have no idea what it really means ("you can spout your mifids" - LOL) and bang on about BMWs or NZ wine for fuck's sake.
It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be.
Again, you are attaching far too much value to the EU market. We can sell in and comply on a product by product basis if we need to. The point is that the EU can set regulations for products that are sold in their regions and markets. Our banks and financial services companies will comply with those regulations when they need to. If the EU tries to claim jurisdiction over EUR trading I'd like to see how they react to an offshore market the size of the City. It will dwarf their domestic market and in the end more EUR trading will done outside of their regulatory net entirely.
Again, you're stuck in a defensive frame of mind. You're a scared little europhile remainer, you don't think we can govern ourselves and our future lies in the superstate. I can understand your anger at the leave vote, but we're a pretty resourceful bunch and the mood music from the commission in regulation is extremely hostile, they are talking about resurrecting ideas like the FTT. I remember discussing the BRRD with you before the referendum as a poorly thought out regulation that we have been forced to implement. Look at how it has come to bite them in the bum. You're scared of losing business to the EU. I'm not, the picture is the same now as when we leave. If anything the commission is more hostile and we're friendlier with probable lower taxation and lighter touch regulation.
The EU is shit, and thankfully the public recognised that. Deal with it.
Great. The solution is to make the City a great, big offshore financial centre. That will end well.
Still regulated by the BoE and FCA, just outside of the EU net.
Breaking my rule here: Max, you are a moron.
We will also, if we want to trade euro business, be regulated by the ECB.
If it's a repeated experience across a variety of industries it means less government income. That does matter.
Well anecdotally the FinTech industry is still recruiting in London. A friend of mine who owns one has no interest in moving to Europe and he says others he knows have the same opinion. You might remember that the mayor of Berlin sent advertising buses to London to try and win them over. None have gone for fear of over regulation in the EU once we're out and not there to fight their corner.
If the cost of doing business increases and profits go down, so does government tax take. That's my concern. We'll see what happens.
Strange as it may seem, there are those of us who think that our government should govern in the interests of the voters as a whole, rather than just the interests of people who work in the City.
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
Except that will never happen. The passport value has been grossly misjudged IMO, the trade we may lose to Dublin will be smaller than expected and we might gain a lot more from being outside of the EU regulatory system and out of ECJ jurisdiction. Making sweeping judgements about losing whole industries is premature at best.
It is not the direct cost. It is the having to comply with EU regs (the ones @MaxPB thinks we would be better off without) in order to do our business. It is the having to follow whatever EU regs are decided in Brussels without our input. It is the having to open a Paris office to be able to sell into the EU without the concomitant UK compliance. And it is perhaps having to comply with a whole new set of UK regs.
>£10bn.
At the presentation today, the option that was considered likely was we left the EU regs/ECJ etc, but to retain access to the single market and passporting etc, we'd agree to pass exactly identically legislation/regulation as the EU/single market.
So we'd be out, but effectively in.
I called it separate but equal
Those regulations would only apply in the area of trade though and it is likely we will only get partial rather than full access to the single market as we will only accept free movement with controls
Mr. Eagles, you may think a BINO would be fine and dandy [ahem], but it could cause serious ructions within the blues as well as providing a perfect platform for purple resurgence.
I don't want to vote UKIP at the next General Election. My constituency (currently, obviously it may get rejigged) is a blue-red marginal with a hefty slab of purple support too. Nonsense like staying in the customs union would not endear the Conservative Party to me.
Let us see how you cope without the tax revenues of the City of London and the financial services industry as a whole.
I'm sure the public will be fine with a few minor restrictions on freedom of movement.
For the greater good.
would these be the tax revenues we all had to hand back to bail out the banks ?
I'd have let the banks fail.
True free market capitalist am I.
It is odd, how the bankers really managed to get the likes of Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond crawling up their arses.
Lehmans did fail, albeit thanks to George W Bush, not Brown
We will also, if we want to trade euro business, be regulated by the ECB.
Well they might try and claim jurisdiction like the Americans do, but EUR trading isn't the be all and end all of the City like you make out it is. Only europhiles like to pretend that the single market and Euro are the most important markets. No surprise that you do it then. If leaving the EU means losing you to Frankfurt it won't be the biggest loss.
"It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be"
Translation some bankers and City types will lose a few quid.
This is not a message that will sell, Mr. Topping.
Now that is the first sensible thing you have said on the subject all evening.
Exactly right. The value of the City of London to the rest of the UK, the jobs therein, the related jobs it supports, the position of the UK's financial services in the world and certainly in Europe, the plight of the bankers (!) ...none of it will be of the remotest interest to most of the public and some might even wish it ill.
They'll miss the money the City contributes. This may be the opportunity to rebalance our economy.
Yep. That together with a 30% house price correction and we will indeed be in the place we should have started from.
We may have little option. My Remain was never about ideology it was about what we'd give up and what we'd gain. I was never sold on the benefits of leaving outweighing the downsides. But it was a referendum on immigration that Remain was always going to lose for that reason. We do all have to live with the result, and we will, but there is still time to shape what Brexit will end up looking like. That's why it's right to point out challenges, problems and solutions.
If it's a repeated experience across a variety of industries it means less government income. That does matter.
Well anecdotally the FinTech industry is still recruiting in London. A friend of mine who owns one has no interest in moving to Europe and he says others he knows have the same opinion. You might remember that the mayor of Berlin sent advertising buses to London to try and win them over. None have gone for fear of over regulation in the EU once we're out and not there to fight their corner.
If the cost of doing business increases and profits go down, so does government tax take. That's my concern. We'll see what happens.
A fair concern, I think Brexit could drag on corporate profits for a while, but in the long term it's not going to change a lot.
Is there not an ICM poll out as well which shows the Conservatives at 40 MINUS 3, UKIP at 14 presenting a totally different picture. All this trying to use everything available to knock Corbyn down is getting a bit silly. The one who is the most of a liability is Smith after his ISIS comment. Also can we also please stop talking about an early election when we all know it is almost impossible to arrange one under the present system. I am beginning to suspect someone is just trying to influence betting odds, equally doomed to failure, the bookies know that.
Jon Voight praises Trump as a visionary: '“(Mr Trump’s) outside the system and he’s an interesting character, he’s a real character, but he’s a wonderful character.
“Look at what he’s produced in terms of the extraordinary buildings that he has helped design, putting together these teams of people to do this extraordinary stuff.
“He’s a visionary. The children that he’s raised give you an example of his moral character and his loving kindness. He’s a loving man.
“He’s a great guy and he’s just the perfect guy to come from outside the system to do a lot of the work that needs to be done.”
We will also, if we want to trade euro business, be regulated by the ECB.
Well they might try and claim jurisdiction like the Americans do, but EUR trading isn't the be all and end all of the City like you make out it is. Only europhiles like to pretend that the single market and Euro are the most important markets. No surprise that you do it then. If leaving the EU means losing you to Frankfurt it won't be the biggest loss.
As the EU represents about half our trade and all of our top ten trading countries are in the EU or closely associated with it, with the sole exceptions of the USA and China, I can't see how you could describe that market as anything other than the most important one. We don't sell more to China just because we sell less to the EU.
Strange as it may seem, there are those of us who think that our government should govern in the interests of the voters as a whole, rather than just the interests of people who work in the City.
Completely agree. I imagine plenty of folk in the City would be very excited by it becoming a light touch regulation offshore centre underwritten by the British taxpayer. The government must not allow that to happen, while bearing in mind it needs the City to maximise its income in order to generate the tax revenues we all rely on.
James Vaughan From Kilroy-Silk's diary on his reselection battle in 1985. Corbyn described as a "bastard", "creep" and "that rat". https://t.co/HWgXKJke48
In general I'm not in favour of deselections without extreme cause. But I've met Kilroy-Silk and he stood in my area as a Veritas candidate. Always baffled me why we ever selected him.
Perhaps this is unkind of me, but the fact he spent a decade as an academic at a well-regarded university (University of Liverpool) before entering into a political career is something that I have to pinch myself about. Long way down from that to a daytime chat-show, is it not? As for Veritas...
Morrissey says Leave voters were 'victimised': “I am shocked at the refusal of the British media to be fair and accept the people’s final decision just because the result of the referendum did not benefit the establishment.
“It was a shock to hear how the BBC persistently denigrated everyone who voted to leave. They have managed to accuse, judge and convict the majority as racist, drunk and irresponsible. On the other hand I did not hear the BBC question the decision of remain voters.
Morrissey says Leave voters were 'victimised': “I am shocked at the refusal of the British media to be fair and accept the people’s final decision just because the result of the referendum did not benefit the establishment.
“It was a shock to hear how the BBC persistently denigrated everyone who voted to leave. They have managed to accuse, judge and convict the majority as racist, drunk and irresponsible. On the other hand I did not hear the BBC question the decision of remain voters.
Had the unemployment figures gone the other way I'm sure that would have been the lead story on the Six O'Clock News, rather than the new Posh and Becks.
Strange as it may seem, there are those of us who think that our government should govern in the interests of the voters as a whole, rather than just the interests of people who work in the City.
Completely agree. I imagine plenty of folk in the City would be very excited by it becoming a light touch regulation offshore centre underwritten by the British taxpayer. The government must not allow that to happen, while bearing in mind it needs the City to maximise its income in order to generate the tax revenues we all rely on.
No it doesnt.
It needs to diversify the economy and spread wealth around.
Morrissey says Leave voters were 'victimised': “I am shocked at the refusal of the British media to be fair and accept the people’s final decision just because the result of the referendum did not benefit the establishment.
“It was a shock to hear how the BBC persistently denigrated everyone who voted to leave. They have managed to accuse, judge and convict the majority as racist, drunk and irresponsible. On the other hand I did not hear the BBC question the decision of remain voters.
Had the unemployment figures gone the other way I'm sure that would have been the lead story on the Six O'Clock News, rather than the new Posh and Becks.
Yes, unemployment down and GB second in the Olympics medal table hardly a tale of woe
Morrissey says Leave voters were 'victimised': “I am shocked at the refusal of the British media to be fair and accept the people’s final decision just because the result of the referendum did not benefit the establishment.
“It was a shock to hear how the BBC persistently denigrated everyone who voted to leave. They have managed to accuse, judge and convict the majority as racist, drunk and irresponsible. On the other hand I did not hear the BBC question the decision of remain voters.
The BBC accused, judged and convicted Leavers of being "racist, drunk and irresponsible." As a fact did the BBC do any such thing? Is Mr Morrissey being fair himself?
James Vaughan From Kilroy-Silk's diary on his reselection battle in 1985. Corbyn described as a "bastard", "creep" and "that rat". https://t.co/HWgXKJke48
In general I'm not in favour of deselections without extreme cause. But I've met Kilroy-Silk and he stood in my area as a Veritas candidate. Always baffled me why we ever selected him.
Perhaps this is unkind of me, but the fact he spent a decade as an academic at a well-regarded university (University of Liverpool) before entering into a political career is something that I have to pinch myself about. Long way down from that to a daytime chat-show, is it not? As for Veritas...
I suspect the TV show made a LOT more money, and perhaps that weighed with him. I remember he campaigned for Veritas in a Rolls Royce, very much on the "vote for a fabulously wealthy entrepreneur like me and we'll all get rich" lines that Trump goes for. I do rather see why he and Corbyn would not be natural mates.
And he was a natural showman, which being a lecturer only offers limited scope for.
We will also, if we want to trade euro business, be regulated by the ECB.
Well they might try and claim jurisdiction like the Americans do, but EUR trading isn't the be all and end all of the City like you make out it is. Only europhiles like to pretend that the single market and Euro are the most important markets. No surprise that you do it then. If leaving the EU means losing you to Frankfurt it won't be the biggest loss.
It is not the be all and end all of course it isn't. But it is a significant part. That will remain under control and supervision of the ECB.
Complying with ECB/EU regs for those activities will either be onerous or, if as @TSE suggests, and we simply implement everything as is, disadvantageous because we will not have had any input into those regs.
But I'm beginning to bore myself. I think my views are pretty clear on this and I perfectly understand that in the scheme of reclaimed sovereignty and an imminent reduction in VAT on home energy supplies, it is but one part of the puzzle.
Strange as it may seem, there are those of us who think that our government should govern in the interests of the voters as a whole, rather than just the interests of people who work in the City.
Completely agree. I imagine plenty of folk in the City would be very excited by it becoming a light touch regulation offshore centre underwritten by the British taxpayer. The government must not allow that to happen, while bearing in mind it needs the City to maximise its income in order to generate the tax revenues we all rely on.
No it doesnt.
It needs to diversify the economy and spread wealth around.
All eggs in the City basket is just moronic.
As is actively reducing the tax take from the City while this necessary rebalancing occurs.
Morrissey says Leave voters were 'victimised': “I am shocked at the refusal of the British media to be fair and accept the people’s final decision just because the result of the referendum did not benefit the establishment.
“It was a shock to hear how the BBC persistently denigrated everyone who voted to leave. They have managed to accuse, judge and convict the majority as racist, drunk and irresponsible. On the other hand I did not hear the BBC question the decision of remain voters.
The BBC accused, judged and convicted Leavers of being "racist, drunk and irresponsible." As a fact did the BBC do any such thing? Is Mr Morrissey being fair himself?
Not literally of course but Morrissey is not entirely off on the general direction of coverage
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
Yep, it was. But the well-off Leavers were also a vital component. Those with the least to lose - pensioners - were very heavily for Leave, as were those who own their homes outright, I believe.
Strange as it may seem, there are those of us who think that our government should govern in the interests of the voters as a whole, rather than just the interests of people who work in the City.
Completely agree. I imagine plenty of folk in the City would be very excited by it becoming a light touch regulation offshore centre underwritten by the British taxpayer. The government must not allow that to happen, while bearing in mind it needs the City to maximise its income in order to generate the tax revenues we all rely on.
No it doesnt.
It needs to diversify the economy and spread wealth around.
All eggs in the City basket is just moronic.
As is actively reducing the tax take from the City while this necessary rebalancing occurs.
the rebalancing isnt occurring,
we have learnt nothing from the last crisis and are still overexposed to the bullshit economy.
Strange as it may seem, there are those of us who think that our government should govern in the interests of the voters as a whole, rather than just the interests of people who work in the City.
Completely agree. I imagine plenty of folk in the City would be very excited by it becoming a light touch regulation offshore centre underwritten by the British taxpayer. The government must not allow that to happen, while bearing in mind it needs the City to maximise its income in order to generate the tax revenues we all rely on.
No it doesnt.
It needs to diversify the economy and spread wealth around.
All eggs in the City basket is just moronic.
As is actively reducing the tax take from the City while this necessary rebalancing occurs.
the rebalancing isnt occurring,
we have learnt nothing from the last crisis and are still overexposed to the bullshit economy.
I'm pretty sure that wine bar on Throgmorton St closed and is now a steel foundry.
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
You mean those that pay most of taxes. Leave won by and large by people who don't contribute that much much to the national coffers, but expect alot.
The most likely end result of Brexit, some (but not complete) single market access for some controlled free movement will please neither camp but will ensure the City does not suffer too much damage while giving a nod to the reason most Leavers voted the way they did
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
forklift truck drivers dont give a toss about tax rates. they worry about their headline salaries which immigration has suppressed.
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
forklift truck drivers dont give a toss about tax rates. they worry about their headline salaries which immigration has suppressed.
Hmm - they worry if their tax goes up and/or the services they use are cut. No big problems for investment bankers.
Strange as it may seem, there are those of us who think that our government should govern in the interests of the voters as a whole, rather than just the interests of people who work in the City.
Completely agree. I imagine plenty of folk in the City would be very excited by it becoming a light touch regulation offshore centre underwritten by the British taxpayer. The government must not allow that to happen, while bearing in mind it needs the City to maximise its income in order to generate the tax revenues we all rely on.
No it doesnt.
It needs to diversify the economy and spread wealth around.
All eggs in the City basket is just moronic.
As is actively reducing the tax take from the City while this necessary rebalancing occurs.
the rebalancing isnt occurring,
we have learnt nothing from the last crisis and are still overexposed to the bullshit economy.
I'm pretty sure that wine bar on Throgmorton St closed and is now a steel foundry.
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
forklift truck drivers dont give a toss about tax rates. they worry about their headline salaries which immigration has suppressed.
Hmm - they worry if their tax goes up and/or the services they use are cut. No big problems for investment bankers.
funny, if it's no big problem for bankers and lawyers, why's PB crawling with the buggers saying the opposite ?
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
forklift truck drivers dont give a toss about tax rates. they worry about their headline salaries which immigration has suppressed.
Hmm - they worry if their tax goes up and/or the services they use are cut. No big problems for investment bankers.
funny, if it's no big problem for bankers and lawyers, why's PB crawling with the buggers saying the opposite ?
God knows. But then I'm not a Tory so can claim no great insight into why so many well-off people are not that keen on a bit of redistribution ;-)
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
forklift truck drivers dont give a toss about tax rates. they worry about their headline salaries which immigration has suppressed.
Hmm - they worry if their tax goes up and/or the services they use are cut. No big problems for investment bankers.
funny, if it's no big problem for bankers and lawyers, why's PB crawling with the buggers saying the opposite ?
God knows. But then I'm not a Tory so can claim no great insight into why so many well-off people are not that keen on a bit of redistribution ;-)
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
forklift truck drivers dont give a toss about tax rates. they worry about their headline salaries which immigration has suppressed.
Hmm - they worry if their tax goes up and/or the services they use are cut. No big problems for investment bankers.
funny, if it's no big problem for bankers and lawyers, why's PB crawling with the buggers saying the opposite ?
God knows. But then I'm not a Tory so can claim no great insight into why so many well-off people are not that keen on a bit of redistribution ;-)
I'm a Tory and the only way the UK works is if those who have understand the needs of those who haven't. I appreciate this is much more rehearsed in theory (and manifestos) than practice, sadly, but it underpins the Conservative political philosophy.
Of course it underpins the Labour political philosophy also but not only is that philosophy going through a bit of a re-write at the moment but Labour usually manage to cock it all up somehow when they get the chance to make a difference.
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
forklift truck drivers dont give a toss about tax rates. they worry about their headline salaries which immigration has suppressed.
Although, of course, that has also driven down the cost of transporting goods for British firms, lowering their costs and allowing them to compete better.
Presumably, as well, for goods going from the UK to EU (and vice-versa), we would expect that cheap foreign drivers will end up doing the driving anyway.
I don't think @SouthamObserver you are in Southam are you? Or I would have suggested I take a train to Warwick and you, @Alanbrooke and I go down the pub to continue the conversation as it seems to be just us...
Morrissey says Leave voters were 'victimised': “I am shocked at the refusal of the British media to be fair and accept the people’s final decision just because the result of the referendum did not benefit the establishment.
“It was a shock to hear how the BBC persistently denigrated everyone who voted to leave. They have managed to accuse, judge and convict the majority as racist, drunk and irresponsible. On the other hand I did not hear the BBC question the decision of remain voters.
The Brexit vote took place in a relatively benign economic environment so we are talking about growth forsworn rather than actual decline in the first instance. The downpayment on Brexit is 2% of GDP in the next couple of years and we will have to see what happens after that.
I think the economic effects will be patchy. It could be catastrophic for farmers, depending on what happens at the WTO. Bad for them but they only make up a small part of the overall economy. The City of London will be significantly hit, I suspect, but that's highly mobile work anyway. The rest will be marginal investment that drifts elsewhere.
The main problem with Brexit, as I see it, is that it will dominate government and business strategy for the next ten years. It will take years of grief, argument and gruelling effort to salvage as much as possible of the status quo and yet we will end up well short of where we were. That's just nuts.
the debate really hasnt moved on, it's still rich remainers worrying about their wallets.
And rich Leavers happy they'll not feel any meaningful financial downside.
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
it was the less well off who swung the out vote.
The economic impact of Leave (or Remain, had the vote gone the other way) will be marginal for most people.
precisely
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
Depends on how much government income is affected by Brexit. The investment banker will be fine if it falls. The forklift truck driver maybe not.
forklift truck drivers dont give a toss about tax rates. they worry about their headline salaries which immigration has suppressed.
Although, of course, that has also driven down the cost of transporting goods for British firms, lowering their costs and allowing them to compete better.
Presumably, as well, for goods going from the UK to EU (and vice-versa), we would expect that cheap foreign drivers will end up doing the driving anyway.
we shouldnt do.
I would say we should have higher prices and higher salaries.
the benefits of lower costs arent being distributed evenly, there are too many sinecures in the system which are not being sorted out.
for example why does a small shopkeeper face continually higher rates when HMG subsidises Amazon to compete aganst him ?
The Brexit vote took place in a relatively benign economic environment so we are talking about growth forsworn rather than actual decline in the first instance. The downpayment on Brexit is 2% of GDP in the next couple of years and we will have to see what happens after that.
I think the economic effects will be patchy. It could be catastrophic for farmers, depending on what happens at the WTO. Bad for them but they only make up a small part of the overall economy. The City of London will be significantly hit, I suspect, but that's highly mobile work anyway. The rest will be marginal investment that drifts elsewhere.
The main problem with Brexit, as I see it, is that it will dominate government and business strategy for the next ten years. It will take years of grief, argument and gruelling effort to salvage as much as possible of the status quo and yet we will end up well short of where we were. That's just nuts.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE FUCKING MONEY
Jesus. Why don't REMAINIACS get this?
The EU is about complete political integration; forging a new country called Europe. Its founding fathers and ideologists were admirably honest and upfront about this. The direction of travel is always for power to be transferred to the centre. I don't want to be part of that new nation, and if that means I'll be slightly poorer, ten years from now, than I would otherwise have been, so be it.
I would say we should have higher prices and higher salaries.
the benefits of lower costs arent being distributed evenly, there are too many sinecures in the system which are not being sorted out.
for example why does a small shopkeeper face continually higher rates when HMG subsidises Amazon to compete aganst him ?
I'm struggling to understand.
If a truck is going from Paris to London it will - in all likelihood - be shipped by either a UK or a French truck.
If we're saying it can only come from a UK truck, that would be a staggeringly big non tariff barrier, that would essentially eliminate all chance of an FTA with the EU.
Comments
So we'd be out, but effectively in.
I called it separate but equal
In general on interest rates I think we've reached the point exhaustion of current policy measures. The market is so far detached from the real economy and so hooked on funny money that we need to try something different. Look at Japan, Abe has tested QE to destruction and it hasn't really worked, the Japanese economy is still suffering for under-utilisation and deflation. To some degree the rise in inflation may just come at the right time for the UK economy as it could allow the BoE to change monetary policy and follow the Fed in raising rates until we reach 1.75-2%, that will help banks raise capital and it will increase the savings rate, both of those will help support lending in the real economy rather than just blowing up asset bubbles.
There just doesn't seem to be any mileage left in monetary (or fiscal, IMO) stimulus. We need to look at other solutions to get the economy moving and it starts with education and welfare reform.
http://www.iam-media.com/Blog/Detail.aspx?g=d9650cb8-cd08-4b03-ac2f-a5bd778469e5
Cravath partners earn an average £1 million a year. It's a great firm to get into as even if you don't make it to partner you can leave and do very well elsewhere. If they are putting associate earnings up, that is significant. And if they are it does leave other firms no choice but to do the same.
Some of the replies are even better.
The short-termism of these gentlemen capitalists have been a plague on on our Islands for hundreds of years, the cause of the curse of Empire, the reason for our dreadful education system and the reason for our relative decline compared to Germany and the USA.
P.S. There are some good city firms of course, even some honest ones. As Jim Hacker said, "The ideal City firm is one that is both competent and honest". However, Sir Humphrey retorted, "Yes, let me know if you find one". They do exist though (I don't want assassins sent by Charles lurking in my garden), just not commonly.
Esp riveting is his "opening the floodgates" argument - if UK joined another country might join, and then another, until we get "à treize. Et puis peut-être à dix-huit." Vingt-huit would presumably have impressed him even less.
Speech ici.
I think we had it pre-Brexit, we have it now, and we will have it post-Brexit.
Why so scared?
surely the big downside is you have to come clean and tell people you are a lawyer ?
people can have a perfectly respectable career in blood diamonds or child trafficking, where admittedly you may not earn as much, but you wont' get socially ostracised at parties.
From Kilroy-Silk's diary on his reselection battle in 1985. Corbyn described as a "bastard", "creep" and "that rat". https://t.co/HWgXKJke48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzZ86GYoxE0
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/shortcuts/2016/aug/17/how-john-major-became-an-unlikely-olympic-hero
I don't think that NZ vineyard has an office in the UK, or the people who are flogging their electrics. Even if they did the price/quality ration was fine by me.
So actually I couldn't give a big rat's arse about your tales of not being able to sell into the EU unless you had to open an office there. We sold into Europe before 1973 quite happily (the Llama family did quite well flogging stuff into Portugal) and we will do so again. We sell into China, the USA, and all sorts of other places and we don't seem to need to be a member of a single market or accept any judicial arrangements, just comply with local laws..
Clinton 36 .. Trump 47
http://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_IN_081716/
These are the UK regulations that your Kiwi wine exporters must adhere to if they want to end up with you buying their plonk of an afternoon with your missus.
https://food.gov.uk/business-industry/winestandards/wine-labelling
Now. It may be that NZ has exactly similar regulations and the fact that the UK has a some which exactly mirror NZ's ones is a happy coincidence. But two things are for sure - 1) the UK determines what those UK imported wine regulations should be and NZ producers have to follow them; and 2) NZ wine producers likely have little or no input into the formulation of those rules.
The EU market is not as attractive as they think it is and without the UK the fear of over regulation becomes very real. Better to just sell into it than locate there. Which is probably what will happen in the end.
Now you want to run an export business, then like the Llama family selling into Portugal all those years ago, you comply with the local laws. If that hits your profit margin, I really don't care because in the great scheme of things that difference won't count for anything.
Bankers might actually have to work to the same rules as the rest of us.
Dear god 99.9% of my posts on Brexit have observed how comparatively we will be in a worse position if we leave on account of our exclusion from the decision-making and formulation of EU rules on financial services. Nothing more, nothing less. A perhaps small point but I asked many times: why would we have chosen to be less influential than more influential in this vital area of UK interests?
Well of course the reason we chose that is because 99.9% of people have no idea what it really means ("you can spout your mifids" - LOL) and bang on about BMWs or NZ wine for fuck's sake.
It's not the end of the world. We will get by, so will our financial services firms, but we will be at a disadvantage compared with our being in the EU and that is a shame and will come at a cost, unnoticed by the general population as it will be.
K.
Translation some bankers and City types will lose a few quid.
This is not a message that will sell, Mr. Topping.
VA - Clinton 50 .. Trump 38
CO - Clinton 49 .. Trump 39
IA - Clinton 47 .. Trump 44
https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/ps/ps08172016_Spk79cr.pdf
Exactly right. The value of the City of London to the rest of the UK, the jobs therein, the related jobs it supports, the position of the UK's financial services in the world and certainly in Europe, the plight of the bankers (!) ...none of it will be of the remotest interest to most of the public and some might even wish it ill.
Again, you're stuck in a defensive frame of mind. You're a scared little europhile remainer, you don't think we can govern ourselves and our future lies in the superstate. I can understand your anger at the leave vote, but we're a pretty resourceful bunch and the mood music from the commission in regulation is extremely hostile, they are talking about resurrecting ideas like the FTT. I remember discussing the BRRD with you before the referendum as a poorly thought out regulation that we have been forced to implement. Look at how it has come to bite them in the bum. You're scared of losing business to the EU. I'm not, the picture is the same now as when we leave. If anything the commission is more hostile and we're friendlier with probable lower taxation and lighter touch regulation.
The EU is shit, and thankfully the public recognised that. Deal with it.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-shrinking-election-map-227076
"smacks head repeatedly into desk"
Best not, it can cause brain damage. Might explain why you're a Remainer.
Isn't life outside glorious.
But tonight I have had enough of it with you Max. You can do the whole "scared little this or that" thing all you want. But the louder you shout or insult, the more you confirm you don't quite understand what you are talking about. And it is very very boring. It was boring pre-June 23rd and is doubly so now.
Back to Catiline!
"I never expected the foreign media to take me down like this," the 28-year-old athlete tweeted.
"It's one thing if it was true, but I have to say I'm pretty devastated that they'd go so far to make something up to mock and ridicule me so much."
Lol, this guy seems to be taking this way too seriously. Or is something getting lost in translation?
James Bloodworth
It was of course Dr Eoin Clarke who first suggested 'empty chairing' ISIS. https://t.co/ffeN5uHynW
We will also, if we want to trade euro business, be regulated by the ECB.
“Look at what he’s produced in terms of the extraordinary buildings that he has helped design, putting together these teams of people to do this extraordinary stuff.
“He’s a visionary. The children that he’s raised give you an example of his moral character and his loving kindness. He’s a loving man.
“He’s a great guy and he’s just the perfect guy to come from outside the system to do a lot of the work that needs to be done.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/jon-voight-hails-donald-trump-as-a-visionary-a3322236.html
“It was a shock to hear how the BBC persistently denigrated everyone who voted to leave. They have managed to accuse, judge and convict the majority as racist, drunk and irresponsible. On the other hand I did not hear the BBC question the decision of remain voters.
“It just goes to show how the BBC, like Sky News and Fox News, did not really tell us the news, but tried to influence us with their opinions, which goes against the moral duty of the news networks.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/morrissey-says-leave-voters-were-victimised-and-made-to-look-irresponsible-after-brexit-a3321211.html
Of course, the well-off were never going to be affected very much whatever the result.
It needs to diversify the economy and spread wealth around.
All eggs in the City basket is just moronic.
And he was a natural showman, which being a lecturer only offers limited scope for.
Complying with ECB/EU regs for those activities will either be onerous or, if as @TSE suggests, and we simply implement everything as is, disadvantageous because we will not have had any input into those regs.
But I'm beginning to bore myself. I think my views are pretty clear on this and I perfectly understand that in the scheme of reclaimed sovereignty and an imminent reduction in VAT on home energy supplies, it is but one part of the puzzle.
indeed this is the bit the remainers didnt get - a forklift truck driver gets th.e same vote as an investment banker.
as the old saying goes who was it thought telling ex coalminers that bankers would lose their bonuses and David Cameron his job would swing the argument for Remain.
we have learnt nothing from the last crisis and are still overexposed to the bullshit economy.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/78213/excl-labour-bosses-probe-local-party-officials-far
time to pay yer taxes Tyson
It's a feature, not a bug, that in democracies, the vote of a rich person counts the same as the vote of a poor person.
Of course it underpins the Labour political philosophy also but not only is that philosophy going through a bit of a re-write at the moment but Labour usually manage to cock it all up somehow when they get the chance to make a difference.
Presumably, as well, for goods going from the UK to EU (and vice-versa), we would expect that cheap foreign drivers will end up doing the driving anyway.
Oh no...here's the Primrose Hill Mob...
Alongside Bono and Jeremy Corbyn, he's one of those people I like to be on the other side of the argument from.
Which reminds me...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNNC0pX79M
I would say we should have higher prices and higher salaries.
the benefits of lower costs arent being distributed evenly, there are too many sinecures in the system which are not being sorted out.
for example why does a small shopkeeper face continually higher rates when HMG subsidises Amazon to compete aganst him ?
And heaven knows I'm miserable now
- This charmless man aka Michael Gove
If a truck is going from Paris to London it will - in all likelihood - be shipped by either a UK or a French truck.
If we're saying it can only come from a UK truck, that would be a staggeringly big non tariff barrier, that would essentially eliminate all chance of an FTA with the EU.