ChatterBank5 mins ago
How Brexit Is Already Breaking Britain
Banks and financial institutions have shifted at least $1 trillion worth of assets out of the UK and into the European Union because of Brexit, EY [Ernst & Young Global Limited - see ey.com] have claimed in a report published this week.
Many banks have set up new offices in Europe to safeguard their regional operations, which means they have moved substantial assets over to satisfy EU regulators.
Other firms are moving assets to protect clients against market volatility and sudden changes in regulation.
In total at least £800 billion, or 10 per cent of the total assets of the UK banking sector, has been moved, according to “conservative estimates”.
Omar Ali, head of financial services at EY, said: “Our numbers only reflect the moves that have been announced publicly.
“We know that behind the scenes firms are continuing to plan for a ‘no deal’ scenario.”
Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Citi have moved parts of their business out of the United Kingdom with Dublin, Luxembourg, Frankfurt and Paris among the most popular destinations.
More assets are likely to be moved over the coming weeks, with Ali noting that “the closer we get to March 29 without a deal, the more assets will be transferred and headcount hired locally or relocated.”
London has been Europe’s undisputed financial capital for decades, and is home to the international headquarters of dozens of global banks.
The financial services industry employs 2.2 million people across the country, and contributes 12.5 per cent of GDP.
It generates £72 billion in tax revenue each year, according to the City of London Corporation.
https:/
Many banks have set up new offices in Europe to safeguard their regional operations, which means they have moved substantial assets over to satisfy EU regulators.
Other firms are moving assets to protect clients against market volatility and sudden changes in regulation.
In total at least £800 billion, or 10 per cent of the total assets of the UK banking sector, has been moved, according to “conservative estimates”.
Omar Ali, head of financial services at EY, said: “Our numbers only reflect the moves that have been announced publicly.
“We know that behind the scenes firms are continuing to plan for a ‘no deal’ scenario.”
Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Citi have moved parts of their business out of the United Kingdom with Dublin, Luxembourg, Frankfurt and Paris among the most popular destinations.
More assets are likely to be moved over the coming weeks, with Ali noting that “the closer we get to March 29 without a deal, the more assets will be transferred and headcount hired locally or relocated.”
London has been Europe’s undisputed financial capital for decades, and is home to the international headquarters of dozens of global banks.
The financial services industry employs 2.2 million people across the country, and contributes 12.5 per cent of GDP.
It generates £72 billion in tax revenue each year, according to the City of London Corporation.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It was their position at the time too, Togo. Here's them advocating the same plan (rather stupidly called 'Flexcit') in February 2016:
http://
http://
sorry jim can't see where you think we are wrong: "But let me just make a slightly different point. I disagree with TTT, with NJ, with v-e, with Naomi, and with every other Brexit supporter on AB. I think you are wrong, I think you have always been wrong. But one thing I will *never* think is that you are dishonest, or lacking in integrity, or anti-democratic, or treacherous, or a Vichy Brit, or a racist, or any other disgusting label you have thrown my way or Remainers may have thrown yours.
Show some respect for the people that disagree with you. You want what you think to be best for the UK. So do I. Do me the courtesy of acknowledging that. " - do you mean wrong to have opinions about the remain camp? They are simply our retorts to the remain camps names for us, "racists", "morons", etc
Show some respect for the people that disagree with you. You want what you think to be best for the UK. So do I. Do me the courtesy of acknowledging that. " - do you mean wrong to have opinions about the remain camp? They are simply our retorts to the remain camps names for us, "racists", "morons", etc
The EU was not against a deal - the point is that they wanted an agreement on how the departure takes place, the details of curtailment. They did not have in mind creating a new type of membership, part-membership or non-membership.
I repeat, the two sides (proponents and opponents of Brexit) accusing each other of all manner of things is not really of any interest to the EU and they almost certainly take no notice - none of that affects how the various details of how non-membership will evolve (pre-agreed or simply "happens") except strictly within the UK (any of the following: lack of co-ordination, prevarication, general confusion, mess, etc. or gloriously efficient and smooth).
Togo, I truly fail to understand your post beyond the opening paragraph.
I repeat, the two sides (proponents and opponents of Brexit) accusing each other of all manner of things is not really of any interest to the EU and they almost certainly take no notice - none of that affects how the various details of how non-membership will evolve (pre-agreed or simply "happens") except strictly within the UK (any of the following: lack of co-ordination, prevarication, general confusion, mess, etc. or gloriously efficient and smooth).
Togo, I truly fail to understand your post beyond the opening paragraph.
TTT -- try to set aside the fact that I disagree with you for a second, and instead focus on the fact that debates must start from a position of mutual respect, where it is implicitly believed that both sides of a debate hold their position honestly. This seems to have been lost in Brexit. I am sure that there are, sadly, many Remainers who do not believe that there are any good intentions in Brexiteers, but I try my utmost not to be one of them. I am asking that you afford me the same courtesy. That you can do when we agree and when we disagree in equal measure. It shouldn't be too strange a request. It is, in particular, directed at Naomi and ymb, who both seem to have formed very negative and wholly inaccurate impressions of me that they give voice to far too often. That defeats the spirit of debate -- and, more to the point, it defeats the spirit of AB.
// That defeats the spirit of debate -- and, more to the point, it defeats the spirit of AB. //
Agreed.
The language that is used on this site currently goes way further than heat of argument and into outright hostility. All these soundbites of 'treachery', 'vichy British', 'agendas' is really not conducive to a healthy discussion.
Agreed.
The language that is used on this site currently goes way further than heat of argument and into outright hostility. All these soundbites of 'treachery', 'vichy British', 'agendas' is really not conducive to a healthy discussion.
"...focus on the fact that debates must start from a position of mutual respect, where it is implicitly believed that both sides of a debate hold their position honestly. This seems to have been lost in Brexit."
Not with me it hasn't, Jim and I believe you accept that. We hold (very) opposing views but I like to think our clashes have been respectful (although I think we've both come close to virtual blows once or twice!). I try not to do disrespect on AB or anywhere else as I don't much see the point.
Not with me it hasn't, Jim and I believe you accept that. We hold (very) opposing views but I like to think our clashes have been respectful (although I think we've both come close to virtual blows once or twice!). I try not to do disrespect on AB or anywhere else as I don't much see the point.
But, leaving that aside, it is worth backing up kromo's point. Here is David Davis on why we should leave the EU, and -- more importantly for what I want to say -- how we should go about it:
// I believe that we can achieve both of these aims [renegotiating our EU relationship and securing our future, with emphasis on negotiation] with a focussed approach, using the so-called **double referendum strategy**. [emphasis added]
...First it requires us to decide very clearly what our negotiating aims are ... Then we present that negotiating package to the British people, and seek their approval for it in a referendum... we also commit the country to a decision referendum, to be held when the EU negotiation is concluded.
...
To make this work we have also to be clear what our position would be if the European Union did not deliver a package that appealed to the British people...
We have a range of options, from European Economic Area and European Free Trade Agreement membership like Norway, or the series of bilateral arrangements that Switzerland has, to a World Trade Organisation-based minimalist relationship. ...
My preference would be that we should **remain within the Customs Union of the EU** [emphasis added].
//
I have abridged the relevant passage slightly, and it also might be argued -- not least by David Davis, who presumably doesn't want a second referendum any more -- that maybe the "first referendum" in his scenario turned into the 2015 Election. Still, it rather makes for some interesting reading. Note the lengths he went to to make clear that he was seeking a negotiation with the EU. Not a flat "let's just leave"; nor even a one-off referendum.
http://
// I believe that we can achieve both of these aims [renegotiating our EU relationship and securing our future, with emphasis on negotiation] with a focussed approach, using the so-called **double referendum strategy**. [emphasis added]
...First it requires us to decide very clearly what our negotiating aims are ... Then we present that negotiating package to the British people, and seek their approval for it in a referendum... we also commit the country to a decision referendum, to be held when the EU negotiation is concluded.
...
To make this work we have also to be clear what our position would be if the European Union did not deliver a package that appealed to the British people...
We have a range of options, from European Economic Area and European Free Trade Agreement membership like Norway, or the series of bilateral arrangements that Switzerland has, to a World Trade Organisation-based minimalist relationship. ...
My preference would be that we should **remain within the Customs Union of the EU** [emphasis added].
//
I have abridged the relevant passage slightly, and it also might be argued -- not least by David Davis, who presumably doesn't want a second referendum any more -- that maybe the "first referendum" in his scenario turned into the 2015 Election. Still, it rather makes for some interesting reading. Note the lengths he went to to make clear that he was seeking a negotiation with the EU. Not a flat "let's just leave"; nor even a one-off referendum.
http://
For what it is worth, NJ, I agree with you there and don't think that the respect I speak of has been lost between us. I do get exasperated at your intransigence sometimes, to be sure, but that's not quite the same thing, and it quickly passes.
To have my integrity, or respect for democracy, called into question is what angers me.
To have my integrity, or respect for democracy, called into question is what angers me.
jim: "TTT -- try to set aside the fact that I disagree with you for a second.....etc" - I get it jim and respect your honesty and belief in my honesty. Any disparaging terms are not aimed at you personally as I know neither are the brickbats aimed at the brexit camp. If you have felt you have become collateral damage in the exchanges then I apologise that is not my intention.
Also, here is Daniel Hannan, one of the leading Leave advocates in the Tory party (pre-2016, at least -- he seems to have dropped somewhat out of the picture since):
// A referendum is best understood as voters instructing their government, rather as a client instructs his barrister. Voting to leave means giving ministers a mandate: we’d be telling them to negotiate our departure on the best possible terms. [emphasis added]
A vote to leave won’t start any countdowns. Ministers would simply be under instruction to find departure terms that suit Britain – and, indeed, that suit the rest of the EU.//
It isn't difficult to find similar pieces, where major Leave supporters advocate trying to reach some sort of deal with the EU, and by extension ruling out a No Deal departure as an explicit goal.
Where this idea that a vote to Leave was a vote to sever all ties with the EU instantly, with no effort taken to negotiate, is anyone's guess -- but it certainly wasn't in the minds of many prominent Brexiteers.
https:/
// A referendum is best understood as voters instructing their government, rather as a client instructs his barrister. Voting to leave means giving ministers a mandate: we’d be telling them to negotiate our departure on the best possible terms. [emphasis added]
A vote to leave won’t start any countdowns. Ministers would simply be under instruction to find departure terms that suit Britain – and, indeed, that suit the rest of the EU.//
It isn't difficult to find similar pieces, where major Leave supporters advocate trying to reach some sort of deal with the EU, and by extension ruling out a No Deal departure as an explicit goal.
Where this idea that a vote to Leave was a vote to sever all ties with the EU instantly, with no effort taken to negotiate, is anyone's guess -- but it certainly wasn't in the minds of many prominent Brexiteers.
https:/
jim: "It isn't difficult to find similar pieces, where major Leave supporters advocate trying to reach some sort of deal with the EU, and by extension ruling out a No Deal departure as an explicit goal. " - that's it right there, you say "by extension ruling out no deal" -NO x 1000, we are saying do a deal if we can but it's not at any cost, if it's unacceptable then no deal is acceptable why do you think trying to do a deal means we rule out no deal?
Latest Posts
Harmony Glow Cbd Gummies Reviews , Best...
Jokes11 mins ago
What If The Labour Party Got Rid Of...
Politics15 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Classic Books Off The Gcse List But Only...
News23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.