Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 309 of 2586 < 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 >

Topic Locked

Rudi Hedman Caterham 29 Jun 16 11.46am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Of course they are, its in their interest. They hold a strong hand, we're the player at the table who might be bluffing. We might see a mass exodus of banks, what we might need is look at how to mitigate that loss, such as setting up a bank of our own to compensate for those departures etc. (Note I don't know whether that would work). The banks 'thinking' of leaving are and will be investment banks and clearing/middle/back office and operations, not retail. That is what came after the 2007/08 crisis, a split of wholesale and retail and securing the safety of retail in crises. Interesting that BNP Paribas (French) were one of the first to threaten leaving. It costs a lot of money moving to Frankfurt and they're assuming staff don't mind moving with family out of the most popular city in the world. You could also see the clearing and administration of trades moving to Germany but I don't see how it's necessary to do it just because we've left the EU. We never joined the Euro and those thousands of jobs never left the city. It actually kept growing. Article on Hollande wanting clearing to leave London. [Link] He won't be able to instantly move it out of the city and he may not even be governing the French in a year anyway. 'London’s role in clearing trades in the $493 trillion derivatives market came into focus when the European Central Bank lost a court case with the U.K. last year. The ECB had sought to bring clearing under its regulatory control by shifting it to a euro-area country. The court ruling was seen at the time as reinforcing London’s status as Europe’s financial hub, but U.K. officials have since said that Chancellor of the Exchequer’s George Osborne’s victory wouldn’t have been possible were the country outside the EU.' Edited by Rudi Hedman (29 Jun 2016 12.02pm) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 29 Jun 16 11.46am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Of course they are, its in their interest. They hold a strong hand, we're the player at the table who might be bluffing. We might see a mass exodus of banks, what we might need is look at how to mitigate that loss, such as setting up a bank of our own to compensate for those departures etc. (Note I don't know whether that would work).

The banks 'thinking' of leaving are and will be investment banks and clearing/middle/back office and operations, not retail. That is what came after the 2007/08 crisis, a split of wholesale and retail and securing the safety of retail in crises.

Interesting that BNP Paribas (French) were one of the first to threaten leaving. It costs a lot of money moving to Frankfurt and they're assuming staff don't mind moving with family out of the most popular city in the world.

You could also see the clearing and administration of trades moving to Germany but I don't see how it's necessary to do it just because we've left the EU. We never joined the Euro and those thousands of jobs never left the city. It actually kept growing.

Article on Hollande wanting clearing to leave London. [Link]

He won't be able to instantly move it out of the city and he may not even be governing the French in a year anyway.

'London’s role in clearing trades in the $493 trillion derivatives market came into focus when the European Central Bank lost a court case with the U.K. last year. The ECB had sought to bring clearing under its regulatory control by shifting it to a euro-area country.
The court ruling was seen at the time as reinforcing London’s status as Europe’s financial hub, but U.K. officials have since said that Chancellor of the Exchequer’s George Osborne’s victory wouldn’t have been possible were the country outside the EU.'

Edited by Rudi Hedman (29 Jun 2016 12.02pm)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jun 16 11.46am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The EU's responsibility is not to us, but to its self, which is part of why we left. Its not bully or punishing really, its leverage. The EU knows the UK is better off economically as part of the EEA, and knows that if it allows the UK to avoid freedom of movement, that other EU members will want to do the same. Its not bullying, its how generally trade negotiations go, the strong exploit those in a weaker position. Its what we've done for centuries. The EU know they have a position of strength, and are doing exactly what we would do in the same place. For the EU, the best outcome is that the UK flounders and comes back into the fold, chastened. But if so many members would want to restrict freedom of movement, then it must be a flawed policy.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Jun 16 11.46am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The EU's responsibility is not to us, but to its self, which is part of why we left. Its not bully or punishing really, its leverage. The EU knows the UK is better off economically as part of the EEA, and knows that if it allows the UK to avoid freedom of movement, that other EU members will want to do the same.

Its not bullying, its how generally trade negotiations go, the strong exploit those in a weaker position. Its what we've done for centuries. The EU know they have a position of strength, and are doing exactly what we would do in the same place.

For the EU, the best outcome is that the UK flounders and comes back into the fold, chastened.

But if so many members would want to restrict freedom of movement, then it must be a flawed policy.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 29 Jun 16 12.10pm
More bullying threats over the city by Hollande [Link] Speaking in Brussels on Tuesday night, French president Francois Hollande argued that now Britain has voted to leave the EU the City will no longer be able to clear euro-denominated trades, a key role of the Square Mile in the European currency markets. "The City, which thanks to the EU was able to handle clearing operations for the eurozone, will not be able to do them,” he said, according to a Financial Times report. “It can serve as an example for those who seek the end of Europe . . . It can serve as a lesson.” Hollande's view is one backed up by Germany's financial regulator, which has also said that London will no longer be the center of euro-denominated trading. The European Central Bank has wanted to stop British operations from clearing euros for many years, leading to a fierce court battle over the issue in 2015. However now that Britain is preparing to leave the EU, all bets are off. So there isn't any reason why we cannot clear trades in the city other than they don't want us to/punish us to show that “It can serve as an example for those who seek the end of Europe . . . It can serve as a lesson.” But you have to take seriously the possible movement of investment banks, if they are serious (The Morgan Stanley moving to Europe rumour was denied) The financial jobs exodus Uncertainty over the City of London's role as Europe's key financial hub, once the UK leaves the European Union, means that many banks are thought to be considering moving substantial numbers of staff away from their UK operations and to elsewhere on the continent. On Friday it was rumoured that Morgan Stanley is preparing to move thousands of staff out of Britain, a rumour that was denied. It is also thought that HSBC and JP Morgan are among the banks that could send UK-based staff elsewhere in the aftermath of Brexit. Business Insider's Matt Turner has a handy chart to show just what banks may do in terms of UK staff. "US global banks are likely to start strategically implementing parts of their contingency plans rather than wait for trade and service arrangements to be agreed," ratings agency Fitch said in a note on Tuesday. Edited by Rudi Hedman (29 Jun 2016 12.11pm) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 29 Jun 16 12.10pm

More bullying threats over the city by Hollande [Link]

Speaking in Brussels on Tuesday night, French president Francois Hollande argued that now Britain has voted to leave the EU the City will no longer be able to clear euro-denominated trades, a key role of the Square Mile in the European currency markets.

"The City, which thanks to the EU was able to handle clearing operations for the eurozone, will not be able to do them,” he said, according to a Financial Times report. “It can serve as an example for those who seek the end of Europe . . . It can serve as a lesson.”

Hollande's view is one backed up by Germany's financial regulator, which has also said that London will no longer be the center of euro-denominated trading. The European Central Bank has wanted to stop British operations from clearing euros for many years, leading to a fierce court battle over the issue in 2015. However now that Britain is preparing to leave the EU, all bets are off.

So there isn't any reason why we cannot clear trades in the city other than they don't want us to/punish us to show that “It can serve as an example for those who seek the end of Europe . . . It can serve as a lesson.”

But you have to take seriously the possible movement of investment banks, if they are serious (The Morgan Stanley moving to Europe rumour was denied)

The financial jobs exodus

Uncertainty over the City of London's role as Europe's key financial hub, once the UK leaves the European Union, means that many banks are thought to be considering moving substantial numbers of staff away from their UK operations and to elsewhere on the continent.

On Friday it was rumoured that Morgan Stanley is preparing to move thousands of staff out of Britain, a rumour that was denied. It is also thought that HSBC and JP Morgan are among the banks that could send UK-based staff elsewhere in the aftermath of Brexit. Business Insider's Matt Turner has a handy chart to show just what banks may do in terms of UK staff.

"US global banks are likely to start strategically implementing parts of their contingency plans rather than wait for trade and service arrangements to be agreed," ratings agency Fitch said in a note on Tuesday.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (29 Jun 2016 12.11pm)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 29 Jun 16 12.22pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman The financial jobs exodus Uncertainty over the City of London's role as Europe's key financial hub, once the UK leaves the European Union, means that many banks are thought to be considering moving substantial numbers of staff away from their UK operations and to elsewhere on the continent. On Friday it was rumoured that Morgan Stanley is preparing to move thousands of staff out of Britain, a rumour that was denied. It is also thought that HSBC and JP Morgan are among the banks that could send UK-based staff elsewhere in the aftermath of Brexit. Business Insider's Matt Turner has a handy chart to show just what banks may do in terms of UK staff. "US global banks are likely to start strategically implementing parts of their contingency plans rather than wait for trade and service arrangements to be agreed," ratings agency Fitch said in a note on Tuesday. Edited by Rudi Hedman (29 Jun 2016 12.11pm) It could happen. But I don't see it myself. Some of the front office staff might move but the employment regulations are so much tighter across the continent that organisations that like to have "flexible" staffing will be very reluctant. It takes months more to get rid of staff, if it can be done at all in France, Germany, Italy, etc. Redundancy packages are negotiable and can be rejected. I know one relatively senior guy who had it in his contract he could only be sacked on two days a year (30 June, 31 December), in person, and in the office. He was allowed to take those two days off on holiday though so could prevent himself from ever being sacked. And even if they did he had a years notice! Banks do not want to move staff to the continent if they can avoid it. But if passporting is not agreed then they will look for alternatives. Dublin, Frankfurt, and Edinburgh (if they go independent and join again) would be the obvious options. But Dublin and Edinburgh don't have the infrastructure to take on thousands of more people. And they're both already really expensive cities - it would become prohibitively so. "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 29 Jun 16 12.22pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
The financial jobs exodus

Uncertainty over the City of London's role as Europe's key financial hub, once the UK leaves the European Union, means that many banks are thought to be considering moving substantial numbers of staff away from their UK operations and to elsewhere on the continent.

On Friday it was rumoured that Morgan Stanley is preparing to move thousands of staff out of Britain, a rumour that was denied. It is also thought that HSBC and JP Morgan are among the banks that could send UK-based staff elsewhere in the aftermath of Brexit. Business Insider's Matt Turner has a handy chart to show just what banks may do in terms of UK staff.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (29 Jun 2016 12.11pm)

It could happen. But I don't see it myself. Some of the front office staff might move but the employment regulations are so much tighter across the continent that organisations that like to have "flexible" staffing will be very reluctant. It takes months more to get rid of staff, if it can be done at all in France, Germany, Italy, etc. Redundancy packages are negotiable and can be rejected. I know one relatively senior guy who had it in his contract he could only be sacked on two days a year (30 June, 31 December), in person, and in the office. He was allowed to take those two days off on holiday though so could prevent himself from ever being sacked. And even if they did he had a years notice!

Banks do not want to move staff to the continent if they can avoid it. But if passporting is not agreed then they will look for alternatives. Dublin, Frankfurt, and Edinburgh (if they go independent and join again) would be the obvious options. But Dublin and Edinburgh don't have the infrastructure to take on thousands of more people. And they're both already really expensive cities - it would become prohibitively so.

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 29 Jun 16 1.23pm
Cameron: "You cannot have the benefits from the EU without the costs." So Cameron calls it/them "costs" (mainly immigration as that's what they're don't want us to limit) EU MEP's and Juncker etc call it "punishment." The language is telling. The intention to dictate and now 'punish' is no longer in doubt. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 29 Jun 16 1.23pm

Cameron: "You cannot have the benefits from the EU without the costs."

So Cameron calls it/them "costs" (mainly immigration as that's what they're don't want us to limit)

EU MEP's and Juncker etc call it "punishment."

The language is telling. The intention to dictate and now 'punish' is no longer in doubt.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jun 16 1.49pm
We have a problem. The country by majority wants to curb immigration and break free from the dictate of Europe. The men who are negotiating the way forward are pro European Union. This is not acceptable. We need people from the Leave camp to negotiate for us and take the tough decisions and the hard road ahead if necessary. What was the point of coming out of the EU otherwise?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Jun 16 1.49pm

We have a problem.

The country by majority wants to curb immigration and break free from the dictate of Europe.
The men who are negotiating the way forward are pro European Union. This is not acceptable.
We need people from the Leave camp to negotiate for us and take the tough decisions and the hard road ahead if necessary.
What was the point of coming out of the EU otherwise?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 29 Jun 16 1.52pm
Originally posted by nickgusset No, at least 4 people had mentioned the drop, it was s joke. Look at the link that I put with the comment and you will see. Stop being so defensive. It's nearly the hols. Lighten up Mr Stirling. Contract's up at the Hols.....Might be on here a lot more. I'm not sure that's gonna be a good thing for any of us. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

29 Jun 16 1.52pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

No, at least 4 people had mentioned the drop, it was s joke. Look at the link that I put with the comment and you will see. Stop being so defensive. It's nearly the hols. Lighten up Mr Stirling.

Contract's up at the Hols.....Might be on here a lot more. I'm not sure that's gonna be a good thing for any of us.

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

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 29 Jun 16 2.40pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger We have a problem. The country by majority wants to curb immigration and break free from the dictate of Europe. The men who are negotiating the way forward are pro European Union. This is not acceptable. We need people from the Leave camp to negotiate for us and take the tough decisions and the hard road ahead if necessary. What was the point of coming out of the EU otherwise? Problem you've got is that the leaders of the Leave camp - Johnson, Gove, Hannan, etc. - do not agree. They just want to be able to control immigration, but not reduce it. And given the nature of the referendum, they can argue they have a democratic mandate to pursue that aim. The population wasn't asked why they wanted to come out of Europe, just whether they did. "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 29 Jun 16 2.40pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

We have a problem.

The country by majority wants to curb immigration and break free from the dictate of Europe.
The men who are negotiating the way forward are pro European Union. This is not acceptable.
We need people from the Leave camp to negotiate for us and take the tough decisions and the hard road ahead if necessary.
What was the point of coming out of the EU otherwise?

Problem you've got is that the leaders of the Leave camp - Johnson, Gove, Hannan, etc. - do not agree. They just want to be able to control immigration, but not reduce it.

And given the nature of the referendum, they can argue they have a democratic mandate to pursue that aim. The population wasn't asked why they wanted to come out of Europe, just whether they did.

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Jun 16 2.56pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger But if so many members would want to restrict freedom of movement, then it must be a flawed policy. It is, for nations, but for the EU corporate entities and national governments, its a great policy. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Jun 16 2.56pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

But if so many members would want to restrict freedom of movement, then it must be a flawed policy.

It is, for nations, but for the EU corporate entities and national governments, its a great policy.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 29 Jun 16 2.59pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger We have a problem. The country by majority wants to curb immigration and break free from the dictate of Europe. The men who are negotiating the way forward are pro European Union. This is not acceptable. We need people from the Leave camp to negotiate for us and take the tough decisions and the hard road ahead if necessary. What was the point of coming out of the EU otherwise? This is why an election is needed. We had the Leave or Stay, but if we don't have an election based on how to leave, then we just end up back at square one with unrepresentative governance, from a distanced, self interested elite. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 29 Jun 16 2.59pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

We have a problem.

This is why an election is needed. We had the Leave or Stay, but if we don't have an election based on how to leave, then we just end up back at square one with unrepresentative governance, from a distanced, self interested elite.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jun 16 3.07pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 It is, for nations, but for the EU corporate entities and national governments, its a great policy. Exactly. Hopefully Britain will lead the way for other countries to say no to this madness via the ballot box.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Jun 16 3.07pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

It is, for nations, but for the EU corporate entities and national governments, its a great policy.

Exactly. Hopefully Britain will lead the way for other countries to say no to this madness via the ballot box.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jun 16 3.18pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 This is why an election is needed. We had the Leave or Stay, but if we don't have an election based on how to leave, then we just end up back at square one with unrepresentative governance, from a distanced, self interested elite. An election now could see one or more parties campaigning with the promise of doing what many Brexiters wanted in the first place. How can we trust them to deliver on election promises? I see UKIP taking a much bigger chunk of the vote but we still have the bloody SNP making life difficult. I dread to think how much political upheavel this country will be in if a new government tries to go back on an election promise to curb migration at all costs within out exit negotiation.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Jun 16 3.18pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

An election now could see one or more parties campaigning with the promise of doing what many Brexiters wanted in the first place.
How can we trust them to deliver on election promises?
I see UKIP taking a much bigger chunk of the vote but we still have the bloody SNP making life difficult.
I dread to think how much political upheavel this country will be in if a new government tries to go back on an election promise to curb migration at all costs within out exit negotiation.

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 309 of 2586 < 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors