The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
"I love Hillary Clinton. I am in awe of her. I am set free by her. She will be the finest world leader our galaxy has ever seen."
" But the feminist hero never got to be a legend first. And yet she is one, easily surpassing Ben Franklin, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs."
"She belongs to a much more elite class of Americans, the more-than-presidents. Neil Armstrong, Martin Luther King Jr., Alexander Fucking Hamilton."
"She cannot be faulted, criticized, or analyzed for even one more second. Instead, she will be decorated as an epochal heroine far too extraordinary to be contained by the mere White House. Let that revolting president-elect be Millard Fillmore or Herbert Hoover or whatever. Hillary is Athena."
Where's the vomit emoticon when you need it?
And what is about lefty fanboys? Obama stopping the rise of the oceans and healing the planet ...
Sounds more like this. I mean, I don't expect the Remainers to like having lost the referendum, but it would be nice if they could decide whether they've been brutally sidelined so that the lunatics can run the asylum, or if they're the put-upon adults being forced to humour the whims of the childish Leavers. The former seems more likely, given all the talk of second referenda and legal challenges, but as long as they pick one I don't really mind which.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
YouGov are polling on attitudes to the US election, Trump and the Special relationship. Also, for some reason, chatroulette and sickipedia (amongst other things).
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
Dual regulatory schemes have been bandied about, a UK regulatory scheme and an EU equivalency based one, companies can capitalise subsidiaries which can voluntarily take up the EU subset while the parent stays under the UK subset. I'm not sure whether the EU would get on board with that, but it would be a neat way for the EU to claim victory that we are taking their regulations and the UK can ensure that banks stay in London and the main parent is under UK regulatory control which we can make more flexible.
Nigel Farage has had a huge influence on UK, US and EU politics and it would be justified to appoint him to the HOL together with a few more Ukippers.
Please let me make it clear that I do not support UKIP but when you think how many the Lib Dems have in the HOL with only 8 MP's it does seem to be unfair
Absolutely right. Although, of course, it might simply make more sense to make the upper chamber elected, as it is in practically every other country in the world.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
I wouldn't. If an individual, or firm chose to do so, good luck to them. It'd be a neat solution.
Others might prefer not to and opt out of AIFMD, and bonus caps, particularly hedge funds.
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
Dual regulatory schemes have been bandied about, a UK regulatory scheme and an EU equivalency based one, companies can capitalise subsidiaries which can voluntarily take up the EU subset while the parent stays under the UK subset. I'm not sure whether the EU would get on board with that, but it would be a neat way for the EU to claim victory that we are taking their regulations and the UK can ensure that banks stay in London and the main parent is under UK regulatory control which we can make more flexible.
Is certainly also being discussed, especially wrt LCH of course depending on the merger.
One point - "can make more flexible": not within the EU regulatory envelope.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
I wouldn't. If an individual, or firm chose to do so, good luck to them. It'd be a neat solution.
Others might prefer not to and opt out of AIFMD, and bonus caps, particularly hedge funds.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
I wouldn't. If an individual, or firm chose to do so, good luck to them. It'd be a neat solution.
Others might prefer not to and opt out of AIFMD, and bonus caps, particularly hedge funds.
Huh? I would be amazed if the FCA repealed or somehow made voluntary AIFMD. It is, as they phrase it, a "harmonised framework". Will it be caught in the Great Repeal Act? Would in any case the FCA want to repeal it? My hunch is absolutely not. And so with most if not all other Financial Services regulation. I would be amazed if it was decided to repeal it.
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
Do you have any views on Richard Branson's claim that he cancelled an investment worth 3,000 jobs immediately after the vote:
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
How does £30bn by 19/20 (ie aggregating 3.5 years) validate a central estimate of £36bn per annum
Possibly £30bn of additional borrowing PER ANNUM by 2020. That would fit a backended £100bn cumulative figure for now until 2020 and the forecast £36bn p.a. fiscal deterioration
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
How does £30bn by 19/20 (ie aggregating 3.5 years) validate a central estimate of £36bn per annum
Possibly £30bn of additional borrowing PER ANNUM by 2020. That would fit a backended £100bn cumulative figure for now until 2020 and the forecast £36bn p.a. fiscal deterioration
It is basically the same as delaying the date at which we reach a surplus, which has happened before without great calamity.
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
Getting an outline in place will take time. The civil service are trying to finish their work by the year's end. Then there is going to be a period in which the politicians fight it out. Finally by early spring HMG should know what it wants.
That however is not the outline of a deal, merely the UK's opening negotiating position. An outline of what the deal will be can't happen until the negotiations have been underway for some time, probably, given the way the EU seems to work, until 2019.
If business leaders really want to put off decisions for that long then I for one would question why they are paid very large salaries, procrastination does not require talent. Furthermore something like 85% of businesses in the UK have no trading relationship with any country in the EU.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
How does £30bn by 19/20 (ie aggregating 3.5 years) validate a central estimate of £36bn per annum
Possibly £30bn of additional borrowing PER ANNUM by 2020. That would fit a backended £100bn cumulative figure for now until 2020 and the forecast £36bn p.a. fiscal deterioration
It is basically the same as delaying the date at which we reach a surplus, which has happened before without great calamity.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has drawn up the forecasts the government will present and officials acknowledge they have been grappling for weeks with weak tax revenues and an outlook for lower growth.
The consensus of independent economic forecasts, which are generally close to the OBR’s, show mediocre economic growth until 2020 with higher inflation and weaker business investment combining to slow revenues to the exchequer. Once converted by the OBR into likely tax revenues, the deterioration in the public finances will cumulate to around £100bn.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that a weaker economic outlook would lead to roughly £30bn in additional borrowing by 2019-20 before any gains from lower contributions to the EU budget are taken into account.
An official forecast along these lines would vindicate the Treasury’s pre-referendum central estimate of a £36bn annual cost of Brexit to the public purse but it would come only five years after the vote, indicating the cost might rise further in future.
How does £30bn by 19/20 (ie aggregating 3.5 years) validate a central estimate of £36bn per annum
Possibly £30bn of additional borrowing PER ANNUM by 2020. That would fit a backended £100bn cumulative figure for now until 2020 and the forecast £36bn p.a. fiscal deterioration
It is basically the same as delaying the date at which we reach a surplus, which has happened before without great calamity.
A billion here, a billion there...
Obviously not great, but not the end of the world either.
And @RobD, this is the point. Cons may be nasty but they know how to run the economy. Or used to. Now of course they have had Brexit foisted upon them, some of them, but it could easily dent, if not trash their reputation for fiscal competence.
And @RobD, this is the point. Cons may be nasty but they know how to run the economy. Or used to. Now of course they have had Brexit foisted upon them, some of them, but it could easily dent, if not trash their reputation for fiscal competence.
They didn't do too badly in 2015 despite missing their own targets.
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
Getting an outline in place will take time. The civil service are trying to finish their work by the year's end. Then there is going to be a period in which the politicians fight it out. Finally by early spring HMG should know what it wants.
That however is not the outline of a deal, merely the UK's opening negotiating position. An outline of what the deal will be can't happen until the negotiations have been underway for some time, probably, given the way the EU seems to work, until 2019.
If business leaders really want to put off decisions for that long then I for one would question why they are paid very large salaries, procrastination does not require talent. Furthermore something like 85% of businesses in the UK have no trading relationship with any country in the EU.
Exactly. My local newsagent is ploughing ahead with its investment programme.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
Dual regulatory schemes have been bandied about, a UK regulatory scheme and an EU equivalency based one, companies can capitalise subsidiaries which can voluntarily take up the EU subset while the parent stays under the UK subset. I'm not sure whether the EU would get on board with that, but it would be a neat way for the EU to claim victory that we are taking their regulations and the UK can ensure that banks stay in London and the main parent is under UK regulatory control which we can make more flexible.
Is certainly also being discussed, especially wrt LCH of course depending on the merger.
One point - "can make more flexible": not within the EU regulatory envelope.
Which is the point of a dual regulatory setup. UK regulations for the parent and voluntary EU equivalence for capitalised subsidiaries. It means that while they might need to set up a subsidiary, they won't need new investment for premises and hiring new people in a new city. As I said, the EU might not accept their regulations being a subset, but then again I think a lot of them are waking up to just how much inertia there is and how tough it is going to be to get more than the most marginal of business to move, even if it is a hard leave.
And @RobD, this is the point. Cons may be nasty but they know how to run the economy. Or used to. Now of course they have had Brexit foisted upon them, some of them, but it could easily dent, if not trash their reputation for fiscal competence.
They didn't do too badly in 2015 despite missing their own targets.
They are running out of people to blame, however. LibDems, the EU....
Well of course we know that all politicians will be blaming the EU for decades to come for their own failings, which is a shame, if not a touch ironic because Brexiters cited our politicians having to take responsibility for once, as a key argument to Leave.
And @RobD, this is the point. Cons may be nasty but they know how to run the economy. Or used to. Now of course they have had Brexit foisted upon them, some of them, but it could easily dent, if not trash their reputation for fiscal competence.
The alt.right are the new hard left: cut taxes and spend, spend, spend!
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
Getting an outline in place will take time. The civil service are trying to finish their work by the year's end. Then there is going to be a period in which the politicians fight it out. Finally by early spring HMG should know what it wants.
That however is not the outline of a deal, merely the UK's opening negotiating position. An outline of what the deal will be can't happen until the negotiations have been underway for some time, probably, given the way the EU seems to work, until 2019.
If business leaders really want to put off decisions for that long then I for one would question why they are paid very large salaries, procrastination does not require talent. Furthermore something like 85% of businesses in the UK have no trading relationship with any country in the EU.
Exactly. My local newsagent is ploughing ahead with its investment programme.
And @RobD, this is the point. Cons may be nasty but they know how to run the economy. Or used to. Now of course they have had Brexit foisted upon them, some of them, but it could easily dent, if not trash their reputation for fiscal competence.
Oh, come on, Mr. Topping, the Conservative governments in my lifetime have produced appalling cock-ups on the economic front. Conservative politicians no more know how to manage an economy than Labour Politicians or, indeed, my cat.
And @RobD, this is the point. Cons may be nasty but they know how to run the economy. Or used to. Now of course they have had Brexit foisted upon them, some of them, but it could easily dent, if not trash their reputation for fiscal competence.
They didn't do too badly in 2015 despite missing their own targets.
They are running out of people to blame, however. LibDems, the EU....
Well of course we know that all politicians will be blaming the EU for decades to come for their own failings, which is a shame, if not a touch ironic because Brexiters cited our politicians having to take responsibility for once, as a key argument to Leave.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
Dual regulatory schemes have been bandied about, a UK regulatory scheme and an EU equivalency based one, companies can capitalise subsidiaries which can voluntarily take up the EU subset while the parent stays under the UK subset. I'm not sure whether the EU would get on board with that, but it would be a neat way for the EU to claim victory that we are taking their regulations and the UK can ensure that banks stay in London and the main parent is under UK regulatory control which we can make more flexible.
Is certainly also being discussed, especially wrt LCH of course depending on the merger.
One point - "can make more flexible": not within the EU regulatory envelope.
Which is the point of a dual regulatory setup. UK regulations for the parent and voluntary EU equivalence for capitalised subsidiaries. It means that while they might need to set up a subsidiary, they won't need new investment for premises and hiring new people in a new city. As I said, the EU might not accept their regulations being a subset, but then again I think a lot of them are waking up to just how much inertia there is and how tough it is going to be to get more than the most marginal of business to move, even if it is a hard leave.
Yes I think that is right. Although there is also a non-trivial risk that the EU will think with their heart, not their head (sound familiar?). Euro clearing business may not move to Frankfurt or Paris, and would most likely go to NY, but it is possible that our erstwhile EU partners will see that as a price worth paying to say a big fuck you to London.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services will pay to play as part of the single market, perhaps a levy on individual firms to do so, which could be spun as private sector, rather than government money to Brussels.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
Dual regulatory schemes have been bandied about, a UK regulatory scheme and an EU equivalency based one, companies can capitalise subsidiaries which can voluntarily take up the EU subset while the parent stays under the UK subset. I'm not sure whether the EU would get on board with that, but it would be a neat way for the EU to claim victory that we are taking their regulations and the UK can ensure that banks stay in London and the main parent is under UK regulatory control which we can make more flexible.
Is certainly also being discussed, especially wrt LCH of course depending on the merger.
One point - "can make more flexible": not within the EU regulatory envelope.
Which is the point of a dual regulatory setup. UK regulations for the parent and voluntary EU equivalence for capitalised subsidiaries. It means that while they might need to set up a subsidiary, they won't need new investment for premises and hiring new people in a new city. As I said, the EU might not accept their regulations being a subset, but then again I think a lot of them are waking up to just how much inertia there is and how tough it is going to be to get more than the most marginal of business to move, even if it is a hard leave.
Yes I think that is right. Although there is also a non-trivial risk that the EU will think with their heart, not their head (sound familiar?). Euro clearing business may not move to Frankfurt or Paris, and would most likely go to NY, but it is possible that our erstwhile EU partners will see that as a price worth paying to say a big fuck you to London.
But why would business like that move to NY when it can just stay in London. If there is a punitive measure taken to exclude the UK then I'd expect it to go to the WTO.
But the data shows Juppe really needs the Left to turn out for him in this open primary, Republicans and FN (of course) are increasingly splitting for Sarko and Fillon.
At a city do this evening - one of the theories bandied around is that Financial Services
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
Dual regulatory schemes have been bandied about, a UK regulatory scheme and an EU equivalency based one, companies can capitalise subsidiaries which can voluntarily take up the EU subset while the parent stays under the UK subset. I'm not sure whether the EU would get on board with that, but it would be a neat way for the EU to claim victory that we are taking their regulations and the UK can ensure that banks stay in London and the main parent is under UK regulatory control which we can make more flexible.
Is certainly also being discussed, especially wrt LCH of course depending on the merger.
One point - "can make more flexible": not within the EU regulatory envelope.
Which is the point of a dual regulatory setup. UK regulations for the parent and voluntary EU equivalence for capitalised subsidiaries. It means that while they might need to set up a subsidiary, they won't need new investment for premises and hiring new people in a new city. As I said, the EU might not accept their regulations being a subset, but then again I think a lot of them are waking up to just how much inertia there is and how tough it is going to be to get more than the most marginal of business to move, even if it is a hard leave.
Yes I think that is right. Although there is also a non-trivial risk that the EU will think with their heart, not their head (sound familiar?). Euro clearing business may not move to Frankfurt or Paris, and would most likely go to NY, but it is possible that our erstwhile EU partners will see that as a price worth paying to say a big fuck you to London.
But why would business like that move to NY when it can just stay in London. If there is a punitive measure taken to exclude the UK then I'd expect it to go to the WTO.
Because if you try to dismantle what is a perfectly well functioning business such as LCH then it's all hats in the ring.
What is the point of moving to a 2-dimensional mapping (Egalitarian vs Authoritarian; Individualistic vs Communitarian/Populist) if you then continue to represent politics in one dimension?
But the data shows Juppe really needs the Left to turn out for him in this open primary, Republicans and FN (of course) are increasingly splitting for Sarko and Fillon.
Fillon still 9% behind making the run off. Really that's all that matters - he'd beat Sarko and a race vs Juppé would be close.
Alain Juppé is favourite at Betfair to be the next president of France, but according to this poll he is likely to lose the Republicans' primary (which is open to anyone who pays two euros and will probably go to a second round) to François Fillon, who's at half his price at Betfair. I doubt Juppé will run for president if he loses the primary.
But the data shows Juppe really needs the Left to turn out for him in this open primary, Republicans and FN (of course) are increasingly splitting for Sarko and Fillon.
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
Michel Barnier's negotiating approach for the EU appears to favour not settling anything at all that's permanent as part of the Article 50 talks. We'll haggle over a transition agreement.Whereas the UK government wants to get an all encompassing settlement in place.
If the agreement is term limited with guillotine clauses it could depress confidence in investments the UK. eg banks can continue to trade on the current basis, for a fee, until 2025. After that it will depend on what's negotiated in treaty talks. When it comes to investment decisions, companies could think Britain is just not worth the uncertainty, we'll go to France or the Netherlands instead
Alain Juppé is favourite at Betfair to be the next president of France, but according to this poll he is likely to lose the Republicans' primary (which is open to anyone who pays two euros and will probably go to a second round) to François Fillon, who's at half his price at Betfair. I doubt Juppé will run for president if he loses the primary.
The only poll, and that shows Fillon getting into the second round at all. Much more likely, at present, with one debate left, is Juppé v Sarkozy in the second round of the primary.
New York Mayor de Blasio said the city would resist any attempt by the Trump administration to access its database containing the names of undocumented immigrants who have received ID cards.
I'm curious whether it's this easy as a Brit to walk into America and live as an illegal immigrant. I'd assume if you wanted to get a 'real' job and buy property and file taxes it would be a problem? What about travelling in and out?
It's not possible to leave the EU? What a load of twaddle.
It's possible to leave the EU. But it's not possible to leave the EU and be better off. Or rather it is, but the voters would hate the things you have to do to make that happen even more than they hated the EU.
New York Mayor de Blasio said the city would resist any attempt by the Trump administration to access its database containing the names of undocumented immigrants who have received ID cards.
I'm curious whether it's this easy as a Brit to walk into America and live as an illegal immigrant. I'd assume if you wanted to get a 'real' job and buy property and file taxes it would be a problem? What about travelling in and out?
Filing taxes is not a problem. With 11 million undocumented Mexicans, the IRS is all too keen on them paying taxes, and does not pass information on to immigration.
Why on earth are the Republicans holding an open primary?
The non Les Republicans are less likely to back an extreme right candidate, of which Sarkozy is the closest.
Then the political left get used to transferring their vote in time for the presidential race itself.
If that's their logic, it sounds iffy. Longtime left-wing voters will vote against Le Pen anyway. I wonder how many on the far right will pay their two euros to try to remove Sarkozy, so as to set Le Pen further apart from the competition.
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
Michel Barnier's negotiating approach for the EU appears to favour not settling anything at all that's permanent as part of the Article 50 talks. We'll haggle over a transition agreement.Whereas the UK government wants to get an all encompassing settlement in place.
If the agreement is term limited with guillotine clauses it could depress confidence in investments the UK. eg banks can continue to trade on the current basis, for a fee, until 2025. After that it will depend on what's negotiated in treaty talks. When it comes to investment decisions, companies could think Britain is just not worth the uncertainty, we'll go to France or the Netherlands instead
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
Michel Barnier's negotiating approach for the EU appears to favour not settling anything at all that's permanent as part of the Article 50 talks. We'll haggle over a transition agreement.Whereas the UK government wants to get an all encompassing settlement in place.
If the agreement is term limited with guillotine clauses it could depress confidence in investments the UK. eg banks can continue to trade on the current basis, for a fee, until 2025. After that it will depend on what's negotiated in treaty talks. When it comes to investment decisions, companies could think Britain is just not worth the uncertainty, we'll go to France or the Netherlands instead
And we would agree to Barnier's approach why?
Because British voters will hate all possible long-term solutions, so it's better to sell whatever they come up with as a stop-gap and be vague about what the long-term deal is going to be.
Also because the British don't have the foggiest idea WTF they want the long-term solution to be.
New York Mayor de Blasio said the city would resist any attempt by the Trump administration to access its database containing the names of undocumented immigrants who have received ID cards.
I'm curious whether it's this easy as a Brit to walk into America and live as an illegal immigrant. I'd assume if you wanted to get a 'real' job and buy property and file taxes it would be a problem? What about travelling in and out?
Filing taxes is not a problem. With 11 million undocumented Mexicans, the IRS is all too keen on them paying taxes, and does not pass information on to immigration.
Working illegally does make people nervous of government. It is hard to know what data is shared, and asking risks exposure. A close friend worked illegally in NZ, but did it all cash in hand for that very reason. Illegality begats illegality.
New York Mayor de Blasio said the city would resist any attempt by the Trump administration to access its database containing the names of undocumented immigrants who have received ID cards.
I'm curious whether it's this easy as a Brit to walk into America and live as an illegal immigrant. I'd assume if you wanted to get a 'real' job and buy property and file taxes it would be a problem? What about travelling in and out?
Filing taxes is not a problem. With 11 million undocumented Mexicans, the IRS is all too keen on them paying taxes, and does not pass information on to immigration.
Working illegally does make people nervous of government. It is hard to know what data is shared, and asking risks exposure. A close friend worked illegally in NZ, but did it all cash in hand for that very reason. Illegality begats illegality.
I am sure you are right. I was just noting that the IRS has an explicit policy of not sharing tax data with immigration.
It's not possible to leave the EU? What a load of twaddle.
It's possible to leave the EU. But it's not possible to leave the EU and be better off. Or rather it is, but the voters would hate the things you have to do to make that happen even more than they hated the EU.
That's only requested later on. The first request was a plan just to leave the EU
FT front page make big claim about what Hammond will reveal as the cost of brexit next week (although it is predicated on being compared to Osborne's fancy figures for a budget surplus come 2019).
If £100bn is being leaked it won't be anywhere near as bad.
I would wait for the real figures, and then look at the underlying detail before jumping to any conclusions.
Business investment will be subdued until the outline of a Brexit deal is in place. I don't think that's arguable.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
Michel Barnier's negotiating approach for the EU appears to favour not settling anything at all that's permanent as part of the Article 50 talks. We'll haggle over a transition agreement.Whereas the UK government wants to get an all encompassing settlement in place.
If the agreement is term limited with guillotine clauses it could depress confidence in investments the UK. eg banks can continue to trade on the current basis, for a fee, until 2025. After that it will depend on what's negotiated in treaty talks. When it comes to investment decisions, companies could think Britain is just not worth the uncertainty, we'll go to France or the Netherlands instead
And we would agree to Barnier's approach why?
Because British voters will hate all possible long-term solutions, so it's better to sell whatever they come up with as a stop-gap and be vague about what the long-term deal is going to be.
Also because the British don't have the foggiest idea WTF they want the long-term solution to be.
New York Mayor de Blasio said the city would resist any attempt by the Trump administration to access its database containing the names of undocumented immigrants who have received ID cards.
I'm curious whether it's this easy as a Brit to walk into America and live as an illegal immigrant. I'd assume if you wanted to get a 'real' job and buy property and file taxes it would be a problem? What about travelling in and out?
Filing taxes is not a problem. With 11 million undocumented Mexicans, the IRS is all too keen on them paying taxes, and does not pass information on to immigration.
Working illegally does make people nervous of government. It is hard to know what data is shared, and asking risks exposure. A close friend worked illegally in NZ, but did it all cash in hand for that very reason. Illegality begats illegality.
I am sure you are right. I was just noting that the IRS has an explicit policy of not sharing tax data with immigration.
Amnesties for illegals do seem to increase tax, as people move into the legit economy.
New York Mayor de Blasio said the city would resist any attempt by the Trump administration to access its database containing the names of undocumented immigrants who have received ID cards.
I'm curious whether it's this easy as a Brit to walk into America and live as an illegal immigrant. I'd assume if you wanted to get a 'real' job and buy property and file taxes it would be a problem? What about travelling in and out?
Filing taxes is not a problem. With 11 million undocumented Mexicans, the IRS is all too keen on them paying taxes, and does not pass information on to immigration.
Working illegally does make people nervous of government. It is hard to know what data is shared, and asking risks exposure. A close friend worked illegally in NZ, but did it all cash in hand for that very reason. Illegality begats illegality.
I am sure you are right. I was just noting that the IRS has an explicit policy of not sharing tax data with immigration.
Amnesties for illegals do seem to increase tax, as people move into the legit economy.
I thought the IRS didn't share anything with the departments such as FBI as a matter of course? For instance, you are supposed to divulge income from criminal activity on your tax return.
It's not possible to leave the EU? What a load of twaddle.
It's possible to leave the EU. But it's not possible to leave the EU and be better off. Or rather it is, but the voters would hate the things you have to do to make that happen even more than they hated the EU.
That's only requested later on. The first request was a plan just to leave the EU
I think the voters are expecting some kind of alternative arrangements to be in place, rather than just leaving the EU and saying "fuck it".
Comments
So just some random guesses then.
https://twitter.com/DuncanCastles/status/798823837114564613
* the Lament Configuration?
* Alderaan?
Barclays boss: London's 'gravitational pull' on finance will not wane after Brexit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/16/barclays-boss-londons-gravitational-pull-on-finance-will-not-wan/
So pretty much worthless then.
The end is nigh for US college "safe spaces". Hopefully a national roll out.
Bloomberg – Verified account @business
French pollsters don’t think Marine Le Pen can win http://bloom.bg/2eZd2cJ
https://twitter.com/latimes/status/798712320738336768
And this is why:
http://www.ocvote.com/stayconnected/news/newsfeeds/
"Post Election Rundown: A 51 hour journey of a single ballot"
Yeap, it takes 51 hours to count a single ballot in California, lets hope no Presidential election comes down to California.
Nothing too dramatically original. The unknown is whether by so doing, and thus placing the sector under the EU regulatory bodies, ECB, ESMA, etc, anyone will notice what would in effect be a handing back of sovereignty by the sector (voluntarily and willingly of course, but the politicos and Brexiters might whine about it).
Here's their one from June 2010:
http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/docs/junebudget_annexc.pdf
Public sector net debt was supposed to reach £1,316bn in 2015/16 (see page 89) instead it currently stands at £1,627bn:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6w/pusf
and the current account deficit was supposed to be only £2bn in 2015 (page 84) instead it was £100bn:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp
£100bn error here, £300bn mistake there and yet some people think the utterances of Osborne's pet quango are the equivalent of Keynes or Friedman.
Yep. It fits.
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/94/20/2942095_bb187f74.jpg
Others might prefer not to and opt out of AIFMD, and bonus caps, particularly hedge funds.
Will a decline in investment from (say) 17% of GDP to 15% tip us into recession? Probably not, but it if a risk.
It's also a compelling argument for getting an outline in place as soon as possible, even if it's not a perfect one.
One point - "can make more flexible": not within the EU regulatory envelope.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/richard-branson-reveals-virgin-has-lost-a-third-of-its-value-since-brexit_uk_5772657be4b0d257114a5bb0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/11/16/premier-league-begins-conducting-secret-video-technology-trials/
That however is not the outline of a deal, merely the UK's opening negotiating position. An outline of what the deal will be can't happen until the negotiations have been underway for some time, probably, given the way the EU seems to work, until 2019.
If business leaders really want to put off decisions for that long then I for one would question why they are paid very large salaries, procrastination does not require talent. Furthermore something like 85% of businesses in the UK have no trading relationship with any country in the EU.
https://twitter.com/JazzShaw/status/798994413427060742
Well of course we know that all politicians will be blaming the EU for decades to come for their own failings, which is a shame, if not a touch ironic because Brexiters cited our politicians having to take responsibility for once, as a key argument to Leave.
Who cares about debt nowadays?
"Trump, Brexit, Front National, AfD: branches of the same tree"
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/16/trump-brexit-front-national-afd-branches-same-tree/
http://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/16112016_bfmtv_lopinion_les-intentions-de-vote-a-la-primaire-de-la-droite-et-du-centre.pdf
Headline is 34 Juppe 30 Sarkozy 21 Fillon
But the data shows Juppe really needs the Left to turn out for him in this open primary, Republicans and FN (of course) are increasingly splitting for Sarko and Fillon.
Clinton 61,839k (47.9%)
Trump 60,860k (47.1%)
http://edition.cnn.com/election
Dave Wasserman Retweeted
Ben Smith
1h
Ben Smith @BuzzFeedBen
Stunner from @CraigSilverman: Fake news *beat* real news on Facebook over last 3 months of election https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.nedPl5yoJ#.gbv7kadbn …
Post truth is here to stay.
Why on earth are the Republicans holding an open primary?
If the agreement is term limited with guillotine clauses it could depress confidence in investments the UK. eg banks can continue to trade on the current basis, for a fee, until 2025. After that it will depend on what's negotiated in treaty talks. When it comes to investment decisions, companies could think Britain is just not worth the uncertainty, we'll go to France or the Netherlands instead
None of them would stand as independents!
Then the political left get used to transferring their vote in time for the presidential race itself.
Also because the British don't have the foggiest idea WTF they want the long-term solution to be.
I don't think hubris even fits.