' I said this before. All the talk in my bubble of London ABers (typically in consulting, FS, or advertising) is about delaying or abandoning investments, relocations, and potential opportunities abroad. I accept we represent a tiny fraction of the population, but we drive the economy. Any rebalancing away from a services-led, London-led economy is decades away. Or perhaps not now that we've decided to go full Pol Pot. '
Its noticeable how many Pbers of that time received the red card but what happened to Speedy ?
I don't think that tweet was too far off the mark. I am seeing a lot of stuff moving out of the UK. Just because it isn't making headlines don't think it isn't happening.
Its happening but you can't see it ? LOL
Meanwhile employment, house prices and the stock market are up.
And the number of people who have relocated is how many ?
Certainly not these:
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
"You're looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months," predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. "Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week." '
May’s ratings on her handling of Brexit remain dire (-30%, when the proportion who disapprove of her handling of it – 56% – is subtracted from the proportion who approve – 26%).
But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn fares even worse with a net rating of -46 (62% disapprove, against 16% who approve).
The poll shows that if the UK is still a member of the EU on 23 May, more British people would find voting in the European elections unacceptable (43%) than would be relaxed about the idea (38%). If the UK were to elect a new batch of MEPs, 13% say they would not vote, 19% would vote for Labour, 19% for the Tories and 11% for Ukip.
A fortnight ago May held a 15-point lead over Corbyn when voters were asked who would make the best prime minister. This has fallen slightly and is now an 11-point lead.
Bipartisan note: I was at Labour (animal welfare) meeting today, and chatted in the break to some of the participants about Brexit - they said that they were sorry for Mrs May and teasing her over her bad throat was way out of order. They didn't approve of her approach but at a human level they thought she was conducting herself with dignity. "Imagine the national embarassment if Boris was doing it", said one sarcastically, with an eye-roll. They liked McDonnell's approach, were less keen on Corbyn's.
It was funny that the biggest news out of the City in a week when the UK government showed the world it was completely clueless was Goldman Sachs easing up on the dress code.
Exactly the same proportion of voters believe there should be a second referendum on Brexit as think the UK should leave the EU without a deal, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.
The survey shows the country split down the middle, with 43% supporting a delay to Brexit in order to hold a second public vote and 43% believing the UK should simply quit without any agreement with Brussels.
If a second referendum were held with the options of accepting Theresa May’s deal or remaining in the EU on the ballot paper, 46% said they would back remain, against 36% who would vote to leave on the terms of the prime minister’s proposal.
So as No Deal and Remain cancel each other out both having equal levels of support and Remain also fails to get over 50% against May's Deal, some sort of Single Market and/or Customs Union soft Brexit is the least unpopular option if May's Deal fails again
Back to my Norway option. If people had only listened to me on 26th June 2016 we could have avoided all this hassle.
The Norway option is more palatable now because EU immigration to the UK has fallen since the Brexit vote, however as William Glenn points out it would still require a Customs Union at least for Northern Ireland to ensure the backstop until an alternative solution is found for the Irish border
Nope again that is wrong. The Norway option was always palatable for a large number of people - I include the reference to the polls at the time in the article. And the Irish border became an issue because of the way we handled Brexit. Basically no one in their right minds would trust the UK after the last 3 years. Had we negotiated a reasonable Brexit from the start we and the EU would have worked together to make sure the border was not an issue.
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
"You're looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months," predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. "Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week." '
' LONDON (Reuters) - As few as 630 UK-based finance jobs have been shifted or created overseas with just six months to go before Brexit, a far lower total than banks said could move after Britain’s surprise vote to leave the European Union, according to a new Reuters survey. '
Exactly the same proportion of voters believe there should be a second referendum on Brexit as think the UK should leave the EU without a deal, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.
The survey shows the country split down the middle, with 43% supporting a delay to Brexit in order to hold a second public vote and 43% believing the UK should simply quit without any agreement with Brussels.
If a second referendum were held with the options of accepting Theresa May’s deal or remaining in the EU on the ballot paper, 46% said they would back remain, against 36% who would vote to leave on the terms of the prime minister’s proposal.
So as No Deal and Remain cancel each other out both having equal levels of support and Remain also fails to get over 50% against May's Deal, some sort of Single Market and/or Customs Union soft Brexit is the least unpopular option if May's Deal fails again
Back to my Norway option. If people had only listened to me on 26th June 2016 we could have avoided all this hassle.
' I said this before. All the talk in my bubble of London ABers (typically in consulting, FS, or advertising) is about delaying or abandoning investments, relocations, and potential opportunities abroad. I accept we represent a tiny fraction of the population, but we drive the economy. Any rebalancing away from a services-led, London-led economy is decades away. Or perhaps not now that we've decided to go full Pol Pot. '
Its noticeable how many Pbers of that time received the red card but what happened to Speedy ?
I don't think that tweet was too far off the mark. I am seeing a lot of stuff moving out of the UK. Just because it isn't making headlines don't think it isn't happening.
And yet many of us are not seeing it, at least not to any great extent. You want to see issues and so they are there for you.
Exactly the same proportion of voters believe there should be a second referendum on Brexit as think the UK should leave the EU without a deal, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.
The survey shows the country split down the middle, with 43% supporting a delay to Brexit in order to hold a second public vote and 43% believing the UK should simply quit without any agreement with Brussels.
If a second referendum were held with the options of accepting Theresa May’s deal or remaining in the EU on the ballot paper, 46% said they would back remain, against 36% who would vote to leave on the terms of the prime minister’s proposal.
So as No Deal and Remain cancel each other out both having equal levels of support and Remain also fails to get over 50% against May's Deal, some sort of Single Market and/or Customs Union soft Brexit is the least unpopular option if May's Deal fails again
Back to my Norway option. If people had only listened to me on 26th June 2016 we could have avoided all this hassle.
The Norway option is more palatable now because EU immigration to the UK has fallen since the Brexit vote, however as William Glenn points out it would still require a Customs Union at least for Northern Ireland to ensure the backstop until an alternative solution is found for the Irish border
Nope again that is wrong. The Norway option was always palatable for a large number of people - I include the reference to the polls at the time in the article. And the Irish border became an issue because of the way we handled Brexit. Basically no one in their right minds would trust the UK after the last 3 years. Had we negotiated a reasonable Brexit from the start we and the EU would have worked together to make sure the border was not an issue.
It was always palatable for a significant number yes but the immigration/free movement issue was also a barrier for large numbers of others, the fact EU immigration has fallen since the Brexit vote means the Norway option is better able to be the consensus option on Brexit.
On the Irish border the EU is quite clear it needs a Customs Union element to avoid a hard border until another solution is found, whether that could have been avoided beforehand is a hypothetical, we are where we are now
It was always palatable for a significant number yes but the immigration/free movement issue was also a barrier for large numbers of others, the fact EU immigration has fallen since the Brexit vote means the Norway option is better able to be the consensus option on Brexit.
On the Irish border the EU is quite clear it needs a Customs Union element to avoid a hard border until another solution is found, whether that could have been avoided beforehand is a hypothetical, we are where we are now
No they are clear on it now. Because we cannot be trusted to make sure a solution is in place. Had the UK behaved like adults in the first place and come forward with workable proposals for the WA with a clear eventual destination that was acceptable to the EU then there would not be this issue.
It was always palatable for a significant number yes but the immigration/free movement issue was also a barrier for large numbers of others, the fact EU immigration has fallen since the Brexit vote means the Norway option is better able to be the consensus option on Brexit.
On the Irish border the EU is quite clear it needs a Customs Union element to avoid a hard border until another solution is found, whether that could have been avoided beforehand is a hypothetical, we are where we are now
No they are clear on it now. Because we cannot be trusted to make sure a solution is in place. Had the UK behaved like adults in the first place and come forward with workable proposals for the WA with a clear eventual destination that was acceptable to the EU then there would not be this issue.
Workable solutions that would look very similar to the backstop given the EU's refusal to accept any solutions based on technology as yet
Exactly the same proportion of voters believe there should be a second referendum on Brexit as think the UK should leave the EU without a deal, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.
The survey shows the country split down the middle, with 43% supporting a delay to Brexit in order to hold a second public vote and 43% believing the UK should simply quit without any agreement with Brussels.
If a second referendum were held with the options of accepting Theresa May’s deal or remaining in the EU on the ballot paper, 46% said they would back remain, against 36% who would vote to leave on the terms of the prime minister’s proposal.
So as No Deal and Remain cancel each other out both having equal levels of support and Remain also fails to get over 50% against May's Deal, some sort of Single Market and/or Customs Union soft Brexit is the least unpopular option if May's Deal fails again
Back to my Norway option. If people had only listened to me on 26th June 2016 we could have avoided all this hassle.
' I said this before. All the talk in my bubble of London ABers (typically in consulting, FS, or advertising) is about delaying or abandoning investments, relocations, and potential opportunities abroad. I accept we represent a tiny fraction of the population, but we drive the economy. Any rebalancing away from a services-led, London-led economy is decades away. Or perhaps not now that we've decided to go full Pol Pot. '
Its noticeable how many Pbers of that time received the red card but what happened to Speedy ?
I don't think that tweet was too far off the mark. I am seeing a lot of stuff moving out of the UK. Just because it isn't making headlines don't think it isn't happening.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result.
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result.
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
What would be the reaction, do you think, if there were to be an expansion of the City, and manufacturing and agriculture were to struggle?
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result.
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result.
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
What would be the reaction, do you think, if there were to be an expansion of the City, and manufacturing and agriculture were to struggle?
I don't think it would be pleasant, speaking as somebody who lives in the manufacturing heartland of the Midlands (which is not having a happy time of it).
But there would be a certain grim irony if a vote that was at least partly an FU to the City by those in the primary and secondary sectors turned out to benefit bankers and screw over manual workers.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result.
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
What would be the reaction, do you think, if there were to be an expansion of the City, and manufacturing and agriculture were to struggle?
I'm not sure, but I think that's what's on the cards. Manufacturing will struggle for 3-5 years IMO, even with a deal. Until businesses know what the future is going to be for exporting from the UK (long term deal, keeping existing trade deals going) investment is going to be limited to whatever is necessary to keep things running rather than expanding output, that has already started happening. It will increase if it is no deal but essentially stay the same with the deal.
I don't have enough insight into agriculture to make a judgement, but tbh the whole sector needs shaking up IMO so it could be a positive or a negative depending on how the sector reacts.
Simply, services exports are not subject to tariffs or border controls but manufacturing exports are. There is a lot more certainty in the services sector which is why it will continue to grow and overseas demand won't really change.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result.
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
What would be the reaction, do you think, if there were to be an expansion of the City, and manufacturing and agriculture were to struggle?
I don't think it would be pleasant, speaking as somebody who lives in the manufacturing heartland of the Midlands (which is not having a happy time of it).
But there would be a certain grim irony if a vote that was at least partly an FU to the City by those in the primary and secondary sectors turned out to benefit bankers and screw over manual workers.
My thoughts exactly from the rural bit of the NE of England. Would not surprise me though. Brexiting means we will be forced to rely even more on our specialisms. Which has become selling the world's richest people ways to become even wealthier.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result. , however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
What would be the reaction, do you think, if there were to be an expansion of the City, and manufacturing and agriculture were to struggle?
I'm not sure, but I think that's what's on the cards. Manufacturing will struggle for 3-5 years IMO, even with a deal. Until businesses know what the future is going to be for exporting from the UK (long term deal, keeping existing trade deals going) investment is going to be limited to whatever is necessary to keep things running rather than expanding output, that has already started happening. It will increase if it is no deal but essentially stay the same with the deal.
I don't have enough insight into agriculture to make a judgement, but tbh the whole sector needs shaking up IMO so it could be a positive or a negative depending on how the sector reacts.
Simply, services exports are not subject to tariffs or border controls but manufacturing exports are. There is a lot more certainty in the services sector which is why it will continue to grow and overseas demand won't really change.
Fishing is going to be shafted whatever, and since it employs fewer people than Harrods has no power. Gove had the right idea on farming, saving money on the subsidies to the big landowners and providing more support for the smaller and more remote farms. But it's the big farmers that have the power within the Tory Party and he has already been nobbled to push the date of any change right back.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result.
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
What would be the reaction, do you think, if there were to be an expansion of the City, and manufacturing and agriculture were to struggle?
I don't think it would be pleasant, speaking as somebody who lives in the manufacturing heartland of the Midlands (which is not having a happy time of it).
But there would be a certain grim irony if a vote that was at least partly an FU to the City by those in the primary and secondary sectors turned out to benefit bankers and screw over manual workers.
I think Fox has let the country down very badly in all of this. If the trade department had been focussed on getting the 45 EU trade deals rolled over so that the UK was party to them a lot of the export uncertainty goes away because most businesses are working from a zero tariff baseline wrt exports to the EU but aren't sure what tariffs will be applicable on exports to Korea, Japan and other countries the EU has zero tariff exports to but the UK wouldn't were we to leave the customs union today.
The only fair point Corby's permanent customs union idea has is that it removes this uncertainty completely and ensures the UK stays in all of the EU trade deals in perpetuity and would be party to any new ones (though without any say in negotiations). But again, it's only a fair point because Fox has been such a huge disaster.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
Only the hereditaries are elected, by themselves.
And in the European Parliament, who isn't appointed by means of the infamous party list system?
We had the existing party list system imposed on us by the then Labour Government, since it was the least open system they could get away with. ie the one which gave the most party control. We could have had other voting systems, and I believe that most of the EU does.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
Only the hereditaries are elected, by themselves.
And in the European Parliament, who isn't appointed by means of the infamous party list system?
We had the existing party list system imposed on us by the then Labour Government, since it was the least open system they could get away with. ie the one which gave the most party control. We could have had other voting systems, and I believe that most of the EU does.
The only alternative allowed is STV, used by Northern Ireland, Ireland, Malta and I think that's it. Everyone else uses naked cronyism party lists.
The solution to the MV impasse is possibly procedural says Rory. A series of votes needs to be organized so that the least popular option is removed each time until the compromise filters to the top.
The solution to the MV impasse is possibly procedural says Rory. A series of votes needs to be organized so that the least popular option is removed each time until the compromise filters to the top.
The solution to the MV impasse is possibly procedural says Rory. A series of votes needs to be organized so that the least popular option is removed each time until the compromise filters to the top.
In which case Norway+ or permanent Customs Union likely wins
On the Rory video, watch at 13:50 for a brilliant riff on how a 2nd vote which remain won would be like a divorced husband coming back to his wife after two years and saying, you know what I've had a think and I'm moving back in. And by the way, here's what I wont eat for dinner.
The solution to the MV impasse is possibly procedural says Rory. A series of votes needs to be organized so that the least popular option is removed each time until the compromise filters to the top.
In which case Norway+ or permanent Customs Union likely wins
He thinks The Deal. But possibly with a CU bolted on.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
It's about 10% but the most common move has been to outside Europe. An entirely predictable result.
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
Agree with this. I work in insurance, and have just received an email from a recruiter claiming that recruitment in my area has recently picked up, partially due to "reallocation/growth of resource to accommodate new legal entities". In other words, EU business is leaving the country (and in a few cases, UK business is being repatriated from the EU to the UK), but it turns out the expertise to manage the additional complexity is mostly already here, so the job market is ticking up.
Obviously it's a recruiter, so I'm treating with a large dose of salt, but it does tally with everything else I'm hearing at the moment. Obviously there are negative consequences for pricing and/or profit margins, so it's not unadulterated good news for UK PLC.
I'm not sure how likely looser regulations are to come about, though. All the worries in my field are about the PRA/FCA gold plating everything once they have the chance, and being very hesitant to remove the dafter EU requirements, out of fear of being considered not equivalent to the EU and finding it harder to attract business here because of it.
The EU is war-gaming for the fall of Theresa May amid a complete collapse in confidence in the prime minister after a week of chaos over Brexit, a leaked document seen by the Observer reveals.
In the run-up to a crucial summit of EU leaders where May will ask for a delay to Brexit, Brussels fears there is little hope that she will succeed in passing her deal this week and is preparing itself for a change of the guard in Downing Street.
A diplomatic note of a meeting of EU ambassadors and senior officials reveals an attempt to ensure that any new prime minister cannot immediately unpick the withdrawal agreement should May be replaced in the months ahead. Some hardline Brexiters want to replace her with a leader who will back a harder split with Brussels.
According to the minutes, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, who is known as a master of strategy, asked: “Imagine that they have a new Brexit secretary or prime minister – what then? Article 50 has been agreed and the process has ended. It must be clear that the starting point is not a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement.”
On the Rory video, watch at 13:50 for a brilliant riff on how a 2nd vote which remain won would be like a divorced husband coming back to his wife after two years and saying, you know what I've had a think and I'm moving back in. And by the way, here's what I wont eat for dinner.
On the Rory video, watch at 13:50 for a brilliant riff on how a 2nd vote which remain won would be like a divorced husband coming back to his wife after two years and saying, you know what I've had a think and I'm moving back in. And by the way, here's what I wont eat for dinner.
The EU is war-gaming for the fall of Theresa May amid a complete collapse in confidence in the prime minister after a week of chaos over Brexit, a leaked document seen by the Observer reveals.
In the run-up to a crucial summit of EU leaders where May will ask for a delay to Brexit, Brussels fears there is little hope that she will succeed in passing her deal this week and is preparing itself for a change of the guard in Downing Street.
A diplomatic note of a meeting of EU ambassadors and senior officials reveals an attempt to ensure that any new prime minister cannot immediately unpick the withdrawal agreement should May be replaced in the months ahead. Some hardline Brexiters want to replace her with a leader who will back a harder split with Brussels.
According to the minutes, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, who is known as a master of strategy, asked: “Imagine that they have a new Brexit secretary or prime minister – what then? Article 50 has been agreed and the process has ended. It must be clear that the starting point is not a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement.”
The solution to the MV impasse is possibly procedural says Rory. A series of votes needs to be organized so that the least popular option is removed each time until the compromise filters to the top.
In which case Norway+ or permanent Customs Union likely wins
He thinks The Deal. But possibly with a CU bolted on.
The EU is war-gaming for the fall of Theresa May amid a complete collapse in confidence in the prime minister after a week of chaos over Brexit, a leaked document seen by the Observer reveals.
In the run-up to a crucial summit of EU leaders where May will ask for a delay to Brexit, Brussels fears there is little hope that she will succeed in passing her deal this week and is preparing itself for a change of the guard in Downing Street.
A diplomatic note of a meeting of EU ambassadors and senior officials reveals an attempt to ensure that any new prime minister cannot immediately unpick the withdrawal agreement should May be replaced in the months ahead. Some hardline Brexiters want to replace her with a leader who will back a harder split with Brussels.
According to the minutes, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, who is known as a master of strategy, asked: “Imagine that they have a new Brexit secretary or prime minister – what then? Article 50 has been agreed and the process has ended. It must be clear that the starting point is not a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement.”
The EU is war-gaming for the fall of Theresa May amid a complete collapse in confidence in the prime minister after a week of chaos over Brexit, a leaked document seen by the Observer reveals.
In the run-up to a crucial summit of EU leaders where May will ask for a delay to Brexit, Brussels fears there is little hope that she will succeed in passing her deal this week and is preparing itself for a change of the guard in Downing Street.
A diplomatic note of a meeting of EU ambassadors and senior officials reveals an attempt to ensure that any new prime minister cannot immediately unpick the withdrawal agreement should May be replaced in the months ahead. Some hardline Brexiters want to replace her with a leader who will back a harder split with Brussels.
According to the minutes, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, who is known as a master of strategy, asked: “Imagine that they have a new Brexit secretary or prime minister – what then? Article 50 has been agreed and the process has ended. It must be clear that the starting point is not a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement.”
The EU is war-gaming for the fall of Theresa May amid a complete collapse in confidence in the prime minister after a week of chaos over Brexit, a leaked document seen by the Observer reveals.
In the run-up to a crucial summit of EU leaders where May will ask for a delay to Brexit, Brussels fears there is little hope that she will succeed in passing her deal this week and is preparing itself for a change of the guard in Downing Street.
A diplomatic note of a meeting of EU ambassadors and senior officials reveals an attempt to ensure that any new prime minister cannot immediately unpick the withdrawal agreement should May be replaced in the months ahead. Some hardline Brexiters want to replace her with a leader who will back a harder split with Brussels.
According to the minutes, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, who is known as a master of strategy, asked: “Imagine that they have a new Brexit secretary or prime minister – what then? Article 50 has been agreed and the process has ended. It must be clear that the starting point is not a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement.”
The solution to the MV impasse is possibly procedural says Rory. A series of votes needs to be organized so that the least popular option is removed each time until the compromise filters to the top.
In which case Norway+ or permanent Customs Union likely wins
He thinks The Deal. But possibly with a CU bolted on.
Some sort of addendum to the political declaration committing the UK and EU to a customs union seems like the way out. I doubt that even 10% of the electorate would care about such a thing, and it would be overwhelmingly popular with business.
The EU is war-gaming for the fall of Theresa May amid a complete collapse in confidence in the prime minister after a week of chaos over Brexit, a leaked document seen by the Observer reveals.
In the run-up to a crucial summit of EU leaders where May will ask for a delay to Brexit, Brussels fears there is little hope that she will succeed in passing her deal this week and is preparing itself for a change of the guard in Downing Street.
A diplomatic note of a meeting of EU ambassadors and senior officials reveals an attempt to ensure that any new prime minister cannot immediately unpick the withdrawal agreement should May be replaced in the months ahead. Some hardline Brexiters want to replace her with a leader who will back a harder split with Brussels.
According to the minutes, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, who is known as a master of strategy, asked: “Imagine that they have a new Brexit secretary or prime minister – what then? Article 50 has been agreed and the process has ended. It must be clear that the starting point is not a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement.”
That would surely not apply in the event of a change of government which would be prepared to change the 'red lines'.
Yes, it would, because they don't want to go through all that again.
And since the WA could lead to a softening anyway, it would be pointless to renegotiate it.
I know this is being hypothetical , but I suspect that if a General Election were held which led to a change of government, the EU would be inclined to reassess its position and pay regard to the intent of the incoming administration. A change in the Tory Leadership alone would result in a much more rigid and firm response.
The solution to the MV impasse is possibly procedural says Rory. A series of votes needs to be organized so that the least popular option is removed each time until the compromise filters to the top.
In which case Norway+ or permanent Customs Union likely wins
He thinks The Deal. But possibly with a CU bolted on.
Some sort of addendum to the political declaration committing the UK and EU to a customs union seems like the way out. I doubt that even 10% of the electorate would care about such a thing, and it would be overwhelmingly popular with business.
10% is high imho. I doubt 1 in a 100 people even knows what a customs union is, even in a rough, vague way. Nor do they give a flying f about trade deals with places they have never heard of.
According to the minutes, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, who is known as a master of strategy, asked: “Imagine that they have a new Brexit secretary”
I don't think that tweet was too far off the mark. I am seeing a lot of stuff moving out of the UK. Just because it isn't making headlines don't think it isn't happening.
I read somewhere that 10% of funds under management in the City have moved to other EU countries. Don't know if it's true, but if it is that's a pretty big loss. Anecdotally foreign financial institutions in London have stopped expanding operations here and are locating any new activity in the 27. I would expect gradual losses to continue for many years.
As of January about £800 billion of assets had been shifted out of the UK. This is equivalent to the loss of a Big 4 bank. Those were assets that have already shifted. There's a lot more that is in the process of being shifted and as a trend more again will be moved.
Completely OT. This is really irresponsible from Cadbury and is causing a lot of anger in the archaeology and heritage community. It is basically encouraging kids to go out and break the law and damage archaeological sites.
There are already moves from some official organisations to make a complaint to the relevant advertising authorities.
10% is high imho. I doubt 1 in a 100 people even knows what a customs union is, even in a rough, vague way. Nor do they give a flying f about trade deals with places they have never heard of.
I was being generous.
It's more of a parliamentary issue than a political issue. Anyone member of the public who would get seriously annoyed about it is almost certainly already a Kipper.
What sort of slogan is "Trust God and Leave?" Who on Earth is that supposed to appeal to? Rather sums it up really.
It's eerily reminiscent of Trump's core "fundamentalist" supporters. During the election campaign I heard on radio an American lady of say him that, yes he was immoral but that God would see to that. I guess anyone who believes in creationism probability has an elastic view towards data.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
Only the hereditaries are elected, by themselves.
And in the European Parliament, who isn't appointed by means of the infamous party list system?
We had the existing party list system imposed on us by the then Labour Government, since it was the least open system they could get away with. ie the one which gave the most party control. We could have had other voting systems, and I believe that most of the EU does.
The only alternative allowed is STV, used by Northern Ireland, Ireland, Malta and I think that's it. Everyone else uses naked cronyism party lists.
She tried that one before, unsuccessfully. Better luck fourth time?
But if there are die hards wavering, and enoug of them (and Labour and the DUP) to see it over the line (I doubt it, but let us imagine), then the first of them to waver on MV2 May have some bragging rights. After all, they can argue that the PM did get something extra, even if it was not great, to justify them changing their minds, whereas since May won’t get anything new from the EU before Tuesday, anyone who changes their minds is doing so out of fear. Which the MV2 group probably were too, but have at least a pretext of another reason.
May's done the "nothing has changed" thing so often that now nothing genuinely has changed she has, er, nowhere to go to get people to change their minds.
She's tried leaning on the EU and Cox, she's tried bribery with extra money for just about everyone, she's going for the patriotism angle. I wonder what else is on her desperation list?
Grounding parliament to it's bedroom without any video games Crying Full blow tantrum Jammy donuts for deal backers Reverse psychology Magic Going in the huff but not saying why
Just take it May. The Labour lot who say they don’t want a referendum don’t appear willing to do anything to avoid that, like voting for the deal, so no sense relying on them, and even best case scenario the DUP and most of the ERG come on board the vote would be super tight and probably lost. So yes, getting the public to back a deal that has been trashed for the last half year will be tough, but it gives it more of a chance than MV4 or 5 or whatever.
Yes, it would, because they don't want to go through all that again.
And since the WA could lead to a softening anyway, it would be pointless to renegotiate it.
I know this is being hypothetical , but I suspect that if a General Election were held which led to a change of government, the EU would be inclined to reassess its position and pay regard to the intent of the incoming administration. A change in the Tory Leadership alone would result in a much more rigid and firm response.
You suspect wrongly, simply because the whole point of the WA is to leave maximum room for manoeuvre on the future relationship. Therefore, there is no point in renegotiating it.
It could easily lead to permanent SM+CU in the hands of the right negotiators. That certainly wouldn't be the Conservatives, as the political declaration shows. But it could be in the hands of Labour, although it won't be if Corbyn is leader (not that he shows the slightest sign of understanding the different options anyway).
So why should they reopen it? Endorse it and move to the next phase. Indeed, just putting it that way shows why our MPs are so stupid to block it.
That said, there is every reason to think those supine pseudo lawyers, oops, the Advocate General and CJEU, came up with that ridiculous judgement on Article 50 under heavy pressure from the Secretariat who believed we would ultimately not sign the deal but choose to remain. It is therefore instructive, and would be amusing if the consequences were not so serious, to note the reason it is stalled is because Remainers are now holding out to revoke - which could easily cause a major crisis in the EU - but is likely to mean we leave with no deal, which could cause a major worldwide crisis.
Does that mean, like the Spelman no deal amendment, that if there was a successful vote for that amendment that the government - if it really didn't want a second referendum - would have to start whipping people to vote against the deal in the amended motion?
Just take it May. The Labour lot who say they don’t want a referendum don’t appear willing to do anything to avoid that, like voting for the deal, so no sense relying on them, and even best case scenario the DUP and most of the ERG come on board the vote would be super tight and probably lost. So yes, getting the public to back a deal that has been trashed for the last half year will be tough, but it gives it more of a chance than MV4 or 5 or whatever.
What options would the confirmation ballot have? If the deal is not confirmed in the confirmation ballot what would happen?
Just take it May. The Labour lot who say they don’t want a referendum don’t appear willing to do anything to avoid that, like voting for the deal, so no sense relying on them, and even best case scenario the DUP and most of the ERG come on board the vote would be super tight and probably lost. So yes, getting the public to back a deal that has been trashed for the last half year will be tough, but it gives it more of a chance than MV4 or 5 or whatever.
What options would the confirmation ballot have? If the deal is not confirmed in the confirmation ballot what would happen?
Parliament has already voted against No Deal under any circumstances so the assumption would be the options are Deal/Remain.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
People who are placed on top of party lists are elected, but by a narrow electorate of party members, rather than the electorate as a whole.
Yes, it would, because they don't want to go through all that again.
And since the WA could lead to a softening anyway, it would be pointless to renegotiate it.
I know this is being hypothetical , but I suspect that if a General Election were held which led to a change of government, the EU would be inclined to reassess its position and pay regard to the intent of the incoming administration. A change in the Tory Leadership alone would result in a much more rigid and firm response.
You suspect wrongly, simply because the whole point of the WA is to leave maximum room for manoeuvre on the future relationship. Therefore, there is no point in renegotiating it.
It could easily lead to permanent SM+CU in the hands of the right negotiators. That certainly wouldn't be the Conservatives, as the political declaration shows. But it could be in the hands of Labour, although it won't be if Corbyn is leader (not that he shows the slightest sign of understanding the different options anyway).
So why should they reopen it? Endorse it and move to the next phase. Indeed, just putting it that way shows why our MPs are so stupid to block it.
That said, there is every reason to think those supine pseudo lawyers, oops, the Advocate General and CJEU, came up with that ridiculous judgement on Article 50 under heavy pressure from the Secretariat who believed we would ultimately not sign the deal but choose to remain. It is therefore instructive, and would be amusing if the consequences were not so serious, to note the reason it is stalled is because Remainers are now holding out to revoke - which could easily cause a major crisis in the EU - but is likely to mean we leave with no deal, which could cause a major worldwide crisis.
But the point is that in such a scenario , there would be negotiations - as you imply 'in the hands of the right negotiators'. I accept that it would likely amount to an amendment of the existing deal rather than going back to square one.
Just take it May. The Labour lot who say they don’t want a referendum don’t appear willing to do anything to avoid that, like voting for the deal, so no sense relying on them, and even best case scenario the DUP and most of the ERG come on board the vote would be super tight and probably lost. So yes, getting the public to back a deal that has been trashed for the last half year will be tough, but it gives it more of a chance than MV4 or 5 or whatever.
What options would the confirmation ballot have? If the deal is not confirmed in the confirmation ballot what would happen?
Parliament has already voted against No Deal under any circumstances so the assumption would be the options are Deal/Remain.
Parliament has also voted against Remain via Article 50, so why assume that should be an option?
Completely OT. This is really irresponsible from Cadbury and is causing a lot of anger in the archaeology and heritage community. It is basically encouraging kids to go out and break the law and damage archaeological sites.
There are already moves from some official organisations to make a complaint to the relevant advertising authorities.
10% is high imho. I doubt 1 in a 100 people even knows what a customs union is, even in a rough, vague way. Nor do they give a flying f about trade deals with places they have never heard of.
I was being generous.
It's more of a parliamentary issue than a political issue. Anyone member of the public who would get seriously annoyed about it is almost certainly already a Kipper.
Just take it May. The Labour lot who say they don’t want a referendum don’t appear willing to do anything to avoid that, like voting for the deal, so no sense relying on them, and even best case scenario the DUP and most of the ERG come on board the vote would be super tight and probably lost. So yes, getting the public to back a deal that has been trashed for the last half year will be tough, but it gives it more of a chance than MV4 or 5 or whatever.
What options would the confirmation ballot have? If the deal is not confirmed in the confirmation ballot what would happen?
Parliament has already voted against No Deal under any circumstances so the assumption would be the options are Deal/Remain.
Parliament has also voted against Remain via Article 50, so why assume that should be an option?
Voting to give the PM the power to invoke Article 50 does nothing to preclude revoking it.
Does that mean, like the Spelman no deal amendment, that if there was a successful vote for that amendment that the government - if it really didn't want a second referendum - would have to start whipping people to vote against the deal in the amended motion?
Yes. But, the amendment will fail, unless the government supports it.
Just take it May. The Labour lot who say they don’t want a referendum don’t appear willing to do anything to avoid that, like voting for the deal, so no sense relying on them, and even best case scenario the DUP and most of the ERG come on board the vote would be super tight and probably lost. So yes, getting the public to back a deal that has been trashed for the last half year will be tough, but it gives it more of a chance than MV4 or 5 or whatever.
What options would the confirmation ballot have? If the deal is not confirmed in the confirmation ballot what would happen?
Parliament has already voted against No Deal under any circumstances so the assumption would be the options are Deal/Remain.
Parliament has also voted against Remain via Article 50, so why assume that should be an option?
Voting to give the PM the power to invoke Article 50 does nothing to preclude revoking it.
Does that mean, like the Spelman no deal amendment, that if there was a successful vote for that amendment that the government - if it really didn't want a second referendum - would have to start whipping people to vote against the deal in the amended motion?
Yes. But, the amendment will fail, unless the government supports it.
Some people said the same about Spelman, it passed by 4 votes
Just take it May. The Labour lot who say they don’t want a referendum don’t appear willing to do anything to avoid that, like voting for the deal, so no sense relying on them, and even best case scenario the DUP and most of the ERG come on board the vote would be super tight and probably lost. So yes, getting the public to back a deal that has been trashed for the last half year will be tough, but it gives it more of a chance than MV4 or 5 or whatever.
What options would the confirmation ballot have? If the deal is not confirmed in the confirmation ballot what would happen?
Parliament has already voted against No Deal under any circumstances so the assumption would be the options are Deal/Remain.
Parliament has also voted against Remain via Article 50, so why assume that should be an option?
Voting to give the PM the power to invoke Article 50 does nothing to preclude revoking it.
Voting to giv the PM the power to invoke Article 50 did not force her to actually do it. The Easter Act 1928 gives the Home Secretary the power, following consultation, to fix Easter Sunday as the Sunday following the second Saturday in April, never been used. I rashly predicted two years ago that the Article 50 Act would be the 21st century equivalent of the Easter Act because I did not imagine any PM being so rash as to hand over that much leverage so quickly.
Does that mean, like the Spelman no deal amendment, that if there was a successful vote for that amendment that the government - if it really didn't want a second referendum - would have to start whipping people to vote against the deal in the amended motion?
Yes. But, the amendment will fail, unless the government supports it.
Some people said the same about Spelman, it passed by 4 votes
Does that mean, like the Spelman no deal amendment, that if there was a successful vote for that amendment that the government - if it really didn't want a second referendum - would have to start whipping people to vote against the deal in the amended motion?
Possibly. But Unlike the no deal vote where losing had no real impact so it didn’t matter I guess since they could still bring back the WA for MV3, they would surely just lose again if the amendment had passed so what would be the point?
Just take it May. The Labour lot who say they don’t want a referendum don’t appear willing to do anything to avoid that, like voting for the deal, so no sense relying on them, and even best case scG come on board the vote would be super tight and probably lost. So yes, getting the public to back a deal that has been trashed for the last half year will be tough, but it gives it more of a chance than MV4 or 5 or whatever.
What options would the confirmation ballot have? If the deal is not confirmed in the confirmation ballot what would happen?
Not an easy question, and one which is a weakness of the amendment wording. Obviously the intent would be it is not a yes no vote by a yes (deal) no(remain) vote, which is not guaranteed by a mere confirmatory vote on the deal.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
People who are placed on top of party lists are elected, but by a narrow electorate of party members, rather than the electorate as a whole.
Hereditary lords are elected by history
Great parody line!
Hereditary lords might be elected by history, but any who now enter the Lords are not, since they have no automatic right to a place there anymore, except by election of the ones already there, as you know.
Does that mean, like the Spelman no deal amendment, that if there was a successful vote for that amendment that the government - if it really didn't want a second referendum - would have to start whipping people to vote against the deal in the amended motion?
Yes. But, the amendment will fail, unless the government supports it.
Some people said the same about Spelman, it passed by 4 votes
There are 334 MP's opposed to a 2nd referendum.
There are also 321 MPs opposed to No Deal, a few of the former are also in the latter and might switch to a 2nd referendum if it is the only way to stop No Deal
Fine! That presupposes there won’t be an election which the Conservatives lose anytime soon, so May should promise them involvement, it’ll be for a future PM to deal with anyway, Conservative or Labour.
The DUP may be overplaying their hand, a little bit too obviously pleased being able to dictate to the Tories whenever they like. They’re not totally wrong, but they could push it too far one day.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
People who are placed on top of party lists are elected, but by a narrow electorate of party members, rather than the electorate as a whole.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
People who are placed on top of party lists are elected, but by a narrow electorate of party members, rather than the electorate as a whole.
Hereditary lords are elected by history
House of Unelected Has-Beens!
You are always wrong when you say that Sunil, not all of them ever were in the first place, which is implied by your statement.
We should welcome the DUP to the negotiations for the trade deal, they seem to know what they are doing compared to the government.
A good deal of trouble could have been avoided if they'd been involved from the word go. And, if they're on board, it won't matter if a few loons support a VONC against the government.
I don’t quite follow how the MPs will decide which ‘Brexiteer’ candidate is suitable enough to send to the membership against, IDK, Hunt or Javid say. Must it be someone who did not vote for the deal ever? Someone who voted it against it twice? Is once enough? Did Raab and McVey quit Cabinet too late to have proper Brexiteer credentials?
Comments
Meanwhile employment, house prices and the stock market are up.
And the number of people who have relocated is how many ?
Certainly not these:
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
"You're looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months," predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. "Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week." '
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/248265/london-banking-redundancies-brexit
' If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were seemingly wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
"You're looking at anything from 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months," predicts one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. "Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week." '
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/uk-en/248265/london-banking-redundancies-brexit
The reality more than two years later:
' LONDON (Reuters) - As few as 630 UK-based finance jobs have been shifted or created overseas with just six months to go before Brexit, a far lower total than banks said could move after Britain’s surprise vote to leave the European Union, according to a new Reuters survey. '
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-city-exclusive/exclusive-with-six-months-to-go-before-brexit-630-finance-jobs-have-left-reuters-survey-idUKKCN1M60P4
And this is a reason why so many people are willing to roll the dice on No Deal.
On the Irish border the EU is quite clear it needs a Customs Union element to avoid a hard border until another solution is found, whether that could have been avoided beforehand is a hypothetical, we are where we are now
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/07/how-a-guy-from-a-montana-trailer-park-upturned-150-years-of-biology/491702/
Who on Earth is that supposed to appeal to?
Rather sums it up really.
Anyhow he doesn't need to be leader to be mentioned in a ballot paper strapline
From what I have seen the latter isn't happening, I work for a foreign bank and we're actively hiring in London. What I can see is some new business being located outside of Europe entirely which is what a lot of people expected. London's loss isn't turning into Frankfurt's gain, at least from my point of view, it is turning into Singapore's gain, however.
The interesting part of this is what happens in Europe when London gains regulatory independence. Whatever happens European banks and companies are still going to have to raise capital here, and if the government move to loosen regulations we could see the first really big growth in the City for 20 or so years.
Brexit isn't turning out to be negative for the City, the most common reaction is "we're ready" and the next most common reaction is "let's see how we can take advantage of leaving". Again, this is just my experience.
But there would be a certain grim irony if a vote that was at least partly an FU to the City by those in the primary and secondary sectors turned out to benefit bankers and screw over manual workers.
I don't have enough insight into agriculture to make a judgement, but tbh the whole sector needs shaking up IMO so it could be a positive or a negative depending on how the sector reacts.
Simply, services exports are not subject to tariffs or border controls but manufacturing exports are. There is a lot more certainty in the services sector which is why it will continue to grow and overseas demand won't really change.
The only fair point Corby's permanent customs union idea has is that it removes this uncertainty completely and ensures the UK stays in all of the EU trade deals in perpetuity and would be party to any new ones (though without any say in negotiations). But again, it's only a fair point because Fox has been such a huge disaster.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/multimedia/beer-and-brexit-with-rory-stewart-mp/#.XIzC6iM676E.twitter
Why this guy isn't in the Cabinet is one of the modern mysteries of the world.
Particularly when you look at who is.
naked cronyismparty lists.Ergo it is an awesome idea.
Obviously it's a recruiter, so I'm treating with a large dose of salt, but it does tally with everything else I'm hearing at the moment. Obviously there are negative consequences for pricing and/or profit margins, so it's not unadulterated good news for UK PLC.
I'm not sure how likely looser regulations are to come about, though. All the worries in my field are about the PRA/FCA gold plating everything once they have the chance, and being very hesitant to remove the dafter EU requirements, out of fear of being considered not equivalent to the EU and finding it harder to attract business here because of it.
In the run-up to a crucial summit of EU leaders where May will ask for a delay to Brexit, Brussels fears there is little hope that she will succeed in passing her deal this week and is preparing itself for a change of the guard in Downing Street.
A diplomatic note of a meeting of EU ambassadors and senior officials reveals an attempt to ensure that any new prime minister cannot immediately unpick the withdrawal agreement should May be replaced in the months ahead. Some hardline Brexiters want to replace her with a leader who will back a harder split with Brussels.
According to the minutes, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, who is known as a master of strategy, asked: “Imagine that they have a new Brexit secretary or prime minister – what then? Article 50 has been agreed and the process has ended. It must be clear that the starting point is not a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/16/eu-war-gaming-for-fall-of-theresa-may-government
And since the WA could lead to a softening anyway, it would be pointless to renegotiate it.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1107037319863980032?s=21
Huge.
There are already moves from some official organisations to make a complaint to the relevant advertising authorities.
https://treasures.cadbury.co.uk
It's more of a parliamentary issue than a political issue. Anyone member of the public who would get seriously annoyed about it is almost certainly already a Kipper.
During the election campaign I heard on radio an American lady of say him that,
yes he was immoral but that God would see to that. I guess anyone who believes in creationism probability has an elastic view towards data.
Lists can be open or closed.
But if there are die hards wavering, and enoug of them (and Labour and the DUP) to see it over the line (I doubt it, but let us imagine), then the first of them to waver on MV2 May have some bragging rights. After all, they can argue that the PM did get something extra, even if it was not great, to justify them changing their minds, whereas since May won’t get anything new from the EU before Tuesday, anyone who changes their minds is doing so out of fear. Which the MV2 group probably were too, but have at least a pretext of another reason.
She's tried leaning on the EU and Cox, she's tried bribery with extra money for just about everyone, she's going for the patriotism angle. I wonder what else is on her desperation list?
Grounding parliament to it's bedroom without any video games
Crying
Full blow tantrum
Jammy donuts for deal backers
Reverse psychology
Magic
Going in the huff but not saying why
It could easily lead to permanent SM+CU in the hands of the right negotiators. That certainly wouldn't be the Conservatives, as the political declaration shows. But it could be in the hands of Labour, although it won't be if Corbyn is leader (not that he shows the slightest sign of understanding the different options anyway).
So why should they reopen it? Endorse it and move to the next phase. Indeed, just putting it that way shows why our MPs are so stupid to block it.
That said, there is every reason to think those supine pseudo lawyers, oops, the Advocate General and CJEU, came up with that ridiculous judgement on Article 50 under heavy pressure from the Secretariat who believed we would ultimately not sign the deal but choose to remain. It is therefore instructive, and would be amusing if the consequences were not so serious, to note the reason it is stalled is because Remainers are now holding out to revoke - which could easily cause a major crisis in the EU - but is likely to mean we leave with no deal, which could cause a major worldwide crisis.
Does that mean, like the Spelman no deal amendment, that if there was a successful vote for that amendment that the government - if it really didn't want a second referendum - would have to start whipping people to vote against the deal in the amended motion?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/16/theresa-may-patriotic-thing-mps-do-vote-deal/
Hereditary lords might be elected by history, but any who now enter the Lords are not, since they have no automatic right to a place there anymore, except by election of the ones already there, as you know.
The DUP may be overplaying their hand, a little bit too obviously pleased being able to dictate to the Tories whenever they like. They’re not totally wrong, but they could push it too far one day.
Every time I have seen Raab on TV he has massively underwhelmed. No idea why he is seen as the torch bearer of a new generation.