How Brexit Is Already Breaking Britain

[Canary42]

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://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/1-trillion-leaves-british-shores-ahead-of-brexit-d-day/09/01/

[jim360]

I think the key was "an explicit goal" in my phrase. I see the point you are making, but what I mean is that there are a number of people on this thread who argued that they voted to Leave "end of", which I understand to mean that they were never interested in any sort of future EU relationship. That is different from ending up in No Deal *despite* having pursued a future relationship of some sort, and failed.

[ToraToraTora]

"there are a number of people on this thread who argued that they voted to Leave "end of"" - again you mis interpret, it means they are prepared to "leave, end of" - ie in the absence of any sort of sensible deal that helps both sides, doesn't mean that is the aim point blank from the start.

[jim360]

Well, perhaps, but I am not so sure. I am willing to be corrected if, say, baza agrees with your interpretation of what they said.

But right now I'm heading off.

[Khandro]

Napoleon Bonaparte said the Britain was a nation of shopkeepers, and reading some of these posts make me think he was right.

[naomi24]

In response to the posters on both sides of the argument who claim ‘respect’ for the opposing argument, I don’t claim that. I don’t believe that is true and I have no respect whatsoever for the disingenuous.

[jim360]

I'm sorry you feel that way, Naomi, but it's the truth. You argue for what you sincerely believe in, as do I. Which of us, then, is being disingenuous? There is clearly an answer to this: neither of us.

The point about AB, though, is quite significant: The first and golden site rule is this: "Treat others as you would like to be treated and respect other people’s opinions." In that case, it is not merely me asking you this: it is the entire ethos of the site.

If you still refuse to respect me or my opinion, then that is your right, but please, in the spirit of the site, keep that lack of respect to yourself.

[naomi24]

Crikey Jim! I read that and had to check the author. I’d have sworn …

I don’t respect arguments deliberately designed to misrepresent others.

[youngmafbog]

With Naomi.

[gulliver1]

19.16 "We could just retire from the whole Idea gracefully" seems a good Idea to me.

[Old_Geezer]

We have been trying to retire from the EU gracefully, but some "aren't having it". :-(

[KARL]

TTT, the EU has and is always likely to have a completely different outlook to those in the UK who want to negotiate with the EU whith the aim is to arrive at a relationship requiring the EU to change its systems, methods of operation, aims, etc. just so the UK is happy that they have what they want. The EU has always wanted to negotiate how the UK's exit from the EU is managed, i.e. how and when the different interactions change from membership to non-membership. So far the UK has been trying to negotiate something in-between, the famous cherry picking comes to mind. This the EU has always said is not an option, but typically the UK continues banging on and insisting the EU must do as it is told. The EU on the other hand was and is expecting to work out an orderly departure and changeover from membership to non-membership - they are still waiting and hoping but time is running out. The UK is not likely to intimidate/bully their way out of this one and it looks very much like a no-deal exit with things just crashing into place somehow. The UK's idea of a deal and the EU's idea of a deal are very different indeed and the two are in a sense discussing at cross purposes, or so public posturing would have us believe. I think the UK has all along known there was no realistic hope of telling the EU what to accept but posturing requirements in the UK dictate that reality must be denied at all costs.

[Old_Geezer]

The exit should never have been complicated. Cease that which has no mutual benefit, continue that which has, and which needs not be related to membership. Discussion should have been primarily with future trade. But one side wanted to waste the time trying to impose payments and issues before starting on the real requirements. Excusing that by claiming they were trying to organise a graceful spilt, and claiming those who were wanting to discuss the relevant future relationship were just posturing, is most unconvincing.