I think you may have misspelt elitist there.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I truth I do know about markets and technology but I can only offer an opinion as to whether big financial institutions would move out of the City, But I do know that Brexit projects have been running since the referendum which would involve a risk assessment and impact analysis.

In my opinion if those institutions had a wif of Brexit upsetting the financial status quo and endangering their profits they would have been gone already

European businesses need access to our financial markets to raise money the EU may hate that and Frankfurt is a wannabe but money talks BS walks. If you are a German Company trying to raise capital you come to London.

One more point

Something went wrong with my PC I think.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Nov 2020 3.39pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Ah, I see now where you are confused

For some reason you think 'international' means 'global'.

International law, also known as public international law and law of nations, is the set of rules, norms, and standards generally accepted in relations between nations. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework to guide states across a broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, trade, and human rights. International law aims at the practice of stable, consistent, and organized international relations.

The sources of international law include international custom (general state practice accepted as law), treaties, and general principles of law recognized by most national legal systems.

International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily—though not exclusively—applicable to countries, rather than to individuals, and operates largely through consent, since there is no universally accepted authority to enforce it upon sovereign states. Consequently, states may choose to not abide by international law, and even to break a treaty. However, such violations, particularly of customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens), can be met with coercive action, ranging from military intervention to diplomatic and economic pressure.

This is Wikipedia which I now see says pretty much the same as I did earlier.

International Humanitarian Law (as laid out in the Geneva Conventions) is, I believe, a law that applies universally.

Everyone fighting a war needs to respect IHL, that means governmental forces and non-State armed groups.

A State responsible for IHL violations must make full reparation for the loss or injury it has caused. Serious violations of IHL are war crimes. Individuals responsible for these crimes can be investigated and prosecuted.

States can enforce the rules through their national legal systems, diplomatic channels or international dispute resolution mechanisms. War crimes can be investigated and prosecuted by any State or, in certain circumstances, by an international court. The United Nations can also take measures to enforce IHL. For example, the Security Council can compel States to comply with their obligations or establish a tribunal to investigate breaches.

Edited by Mapletree (13 Nov 2020 4.21pm)

I see your time away, and the opportunity to experience a greater breadth of opinions than can be found in this echo chamber hasn't been of much use to you. Same old, same old. Why am I not surprised?

This court does NOT deal with "war crimes"! You are confusing it with the "International Criminal Court". It's purpose is to sort out disputes between countries who have signed up to it, as we, and all other members of the UN have. The very fact it exists is sufficient in most cases for it not to be used and agreements reached between nations but should it be necessary to rule on a breach of an international convention no physical power is required at all. Countries have given their prior consent for disputes to be settled in this way. Once the court rules it's judgement is binding and there is no appeal.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.