Britain Sets Date for EU Referendum -- Brexit

[SpankyMcFarland]

It's from the Financial Times. Here is a taste:

Banks have already begun to take action to shift operations out of the UK, but most of their staff will have to wait several months to find out how many thousands of them will be asked to move to fledgling financial hotspots like Paris, Dublin and Frankfurt.

Investment banks, who donated heavily to the Remain campaign, have reacted immediately to Britain’s referendum result, with some of London’s largest institutions approaching regulators to secure licences and lining up executives to relocate.

The big US banks — JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley — have large operations employing tens of thousands of people in the UK. They have historically set up their regulated businesses in Britain and then used its right to “passport” into the rest of the 28-member bloc.

But lawyers are warning that after Brexit, they would likely need a new legal home base, so they are preparing to shift at least some work to cities such as Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt.

UK banks were also re-evaluating what to do with their businesses that trade EU — as opposed to UK — securities, because many analysts assume that clearing of those products will move to the continent.

If Britain holds all the good cards in this game, as you say, they should just dictate terms and exit immediately. Will this happen?

Imagine a 'spontaneous uprising' of ethnic Russians in the Baltic States a la Ukraine. Do you really think Moscow will get nuked over that?

Did you see Farage in the European Parliament this week? Doesn't go down well when a deal has to be made afterwards.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Britain isn't going to lose anything. Once the dust settles, they'll be ahead of where they were the day before the vote. They absolutely WILL have open access to the European common market, just as several other non-EU countries do.

Each of those existing deals come with different disadvantages. Which one should they take?

[Wilber]

Farage is a wanker

It's from the Financial Times. Here is a taste:

If Britain holds all the good cards in this game, as you say, they should just dictate terms and exit immediately. Will this happen?

Imagine a 'spontaneous uprising' of ethnic Russians in the Baltic States a la Ukraine. Do you really think Moscow will get nuked over that?

Did you see Farage in the European Parliament this week? Doesn't go down well when a deal has to be made afterwards.

Exactly, Gove is now saying here will be no rush. My guess is it will be put off and put off and then die.

Farage is a wanker. A silver spoon public school boy, who except for 11 years working it the financial district has spent all his time in politics, telling all his MEP colleagues that they have never had a real job in their lives. The moron does more damage to his country every day.

[Derek 2.0]

It's from the Financial Times. Here is a taste:

It tastes like dated and incorrect news, as several of said companies have denied anything of the sort.

If Britain holds all the good cards in this game, as you say, they should just dictate terms and exit immediately. Will this happen?

I never said they held all the good cards, but the advantage is clearly theirs.......a trade deficit can't be denied.

Imagine a 'spontaneous uprising' of ethnic Russians in the Baltic States a la Ukraine. Do you really think Moscow will get nuked over that?

NATO doesn't have a first use nuclear policy........none the less, after the United States, the British military is the most capable and experienced in all of NATO.......note that the British, and not the French, will be leading one of the multinational brigades in Eastern Europe.

Did you see Farage in the European Parliament this week? Doesn't go down well when a deal has to be made afterwards.

Farage and UKIP are no longer relevant.

[Argus]

Britain isn't going to lose anything. Once the dust settles, they'll be ahead of where they were the day before the vote. They absolutely WILL have open access to the European common market, just as several other non-EU countries do.

They will likely negotiate some kind of trade agreement with the US and Canada, as well.

[SpankyMcFarland]

It tastes like dated and incorrect news, as several of said companies have denied anything of the sort.

I never said they held all the good cards, but the advantage is clearly theirs.......a trade deficit can't be denied.

NATO doesn't have a first use nuclear policy........none the less, after the United States, the British military is the most capable and experienced in all of NATO.......note that the British, and not the French, will be leading one of the multinational brigades in Eastern Europe.

Farage and UKIP are no longer relevant.

I never said the pain would be all on one side either. The banks did not support Remain for no reason and those reasons have not gone away.

If the UK gets a special BMW-friendly deal, a lot of countries will think of leaving.

Influence is about more than guns and bombs. If the EU breaks up, will Russia's influence increase or decrease in Eastern Europe? I strongly suspect the former.

Edited July 1, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Gove is getting it up the Khyber for his treachery to BJ and rightly so. Looks like May is the last horse with a rider.

[SpankyMcFarland]

If May and Eagle win, the following posts will be occupied by women in the UK:

1. Head of state.

2. PM.

3. Labour Party leader.

4. Scottish First Minister.

5. Scottish Labour Party leader.

6. Scottish Conservative Party leader.

7. Northern Ireland First Minister.

8. Plaid Cymru leader (Wales).

[Argus]

If May and Eagle win, the following posts will be occupied by women in the UK:

1. Head of state.

2. PM.

3. Labour Party leader.

4. Scottish First Minister.

5. Scottish Labour Party leader.

6. Scottish Conservative Party leader.

7. Northern Ireland First Minister.

8. Plaid Cymru leader (Wales).

When people are living in a nanny state, what better person to lead it than a nanny type person?

[kimmy]

When people are living in a nanny state, what better person to lead it than a nanny type person?

oh, ok, so women are nanny-type people, that's what you're saying?

-k

[Wilber]

When people are living in a nanny state, what better person to lead it than a nanny type person?

Maggie Thatcher was nobodies nanny, more like a domineering governess.

[eyeball]

We are getting closer to the proletariat uprising you have dreamed of! You should be excited!

-k

It's way too late in the day for that to make much difference to the trajectory things are on.

[jbg]

I don't really understand the logic behind the move by Cameron to resign after the disappointing result but at the same time announcing that new leader will be elected in September especially when the Tories' MP-group elects the party-leader. Now the country is in a state of limbo for 2-3 months without an effective government.

To make matters more complicated, the leader of the main opposition-party the Labour-party was sacked by his party for failing to promote the remain-campaign enough. The brexit got a lot of support in the traditional heartlands of the Labour-party.

So in less than a week both main parties in the UK have gone into meltdown and the situation is a mess.

The British constitution is unwritten. I see the Brexit vote as being analogous to a confidence vote.

[Argus]

Maggie Thatcher was nobodies nanny, more like a domineering governess.

And loathed by progressives because of it.

[Argus]

Rex Murphy sums up the situation nicely, in terms of why people voted to leave as well as the petty sniveling by those upset over it.

Rationalizing a loss is, of course, not a new phenomenon. But building a rationalization on the idea that the crowd you lost to cannot, as the phrase has it, walk and chew gum at the same time, is a novel excursion. If you lost to a pack of fools and social Neanderthals, and if you lost with your side having all respectable opinion, the organs of academia, the press and business interests on your side, then it should prompt some serious and not-too-flattering introspection. In a nutshell, if the Leave side was so stupid and out of touch with everything in the modern age, how on earth did Remain, with all that intelligence and authority, lose the vote?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-those-who-voted-to-leave-the-eu-werent-stupid-they-were-just-angry-and-with-cause

[Argus]

oh, ok, so women are nanny-type people, that's what you're saying?

-k

Yes. Women are the key supporters of social welfare spending and of the state 'taking care' of everyone's problem for them. Women have always shown more favour to politicians offering government solutions to problems than to those wanting to balance the budget and cut taxes. When people talk about 'womens issues' they're talking about social welfare spending. The more of it the better.

[Wilber]

And loathed by progressives because of it.

Regardless, this was a decision made in anger and decisions motivated by anger are almost always wrong. That's what people like Johnson, Farage, Trump, Murdoch etc count on. Idiots can go on about sticking it to the elite but the elite are laughing their heads off. It is they who will be calling the shots as Britain struggles to deal with pulling out of the EU. They will get whatever they want in order to remain in the UK, if it still exists. People can think what they will of Thatcher but she would have never made a decision on the EU based on anger.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Wilber

[Big Guy]

“Important decisions that will affect a nation’s fate or humanity’s fate cannot be left to the referendums! Because such decisions require good knowledge of history; they require a sound reason and a powerful logic and masses often do not have such characteristics!”
― Mehmet Murat ildan

Hear that JT?

[overthere]

Regardless, this was a decision made in anger and decisions motivated by anger are almost always wrong. That's what people like Johnson, Farage, Trump, Murdoch etc count on. Idiots can go on about sticking it to the elite but the elite are laughing their heads off. It is they who will be calling the shots as Britain struggles to deal with pulling out of the EU. They will get whatever they want in order to remain in the UK, if it still exists. People can think what they will of Thatcher but she would have never made a decision on the EU based on anger.

I don't agree that this decision was made in anger. A lot of Britons had the rare opportunity to express themselves directly on an issue that resonated with large numbers, on both sides. I think they made the wrong choice, but I respect their reasons for making their individual choices, and their right to make it.

[Icebound]

Yes. Women are the key supporters of social welfare spending and of the state 'taking care' of everyone's problem for them. Women have always shown more favour to politicians offering government solutions to problems than to those wanting to balance the budget and cut taxes. When people talk about 'womens issues' they're talking about social welfare spending. The more of it the better.

If all governments of the past 50 years had stuck to strict "balance the budget and cut taxes" practices.... then the revolt against the "elites" would have come a LONG time ago, and probably not in the form of a more-or-less peaceful referendum.

Social Welfare is what has kept a lot of these people afloat as long as it has. Naturally, as more and more of it is cut back.... and as the promised "trickle down" effects of "lower taxes, more trade" never really materialized.... the anger has built up.

If we don't like "social welfare", then... we had better find a better economic model than "balance the budget, cut taxes".

..

[overthere]

Banks have already begun to take action to shift operations out of the UK, but most of their staff will have to wait several months to find out how many thousands of them will be asked to move to fledgling financial hotspots like Paris, Dublin and Frankfurt.

The first paret is inevitable, there is simply no way for the trillions in EU based transactions not to be moved out of London to elsewhere.

I doubt that many employees with UK passports would be asked to move anywhere but out of the building and onto the dole. There would be little cooperation from EU host countries to issue work visas to unemployed British banking types. EU members are required to allow EU citizens to enter and work, but that does not apply to British citizens now. That issue was central to the result of the referendum, and it cuts both ways.

[overthere]

And it runs a trade deficit. Drying up trade with the UK would harm the EU.

And yet, somehow, those other nations survive.

You don't know what percentage of exports would be affected, or what the countervailing reduction in imports would do, nor what agreements the UK might reach with the EU or other countries, including Canada. Nor do you know what percentage of the UK economy is made up by exports.

You assume, incorrectly, that the EU would necessarily go elsewhere outside the EU to replace UK imports. In reality, every member country will fight like wolverines to take that industrial capacity for their own- of course. A couple of significant UK exports to the EU are automobiles/parts and pharmaceuticals.exported from UK to EU . The EU would just tariff those to quick exticntion, add some shifts to underproducing EU factories, and help their own chronic underemployment problems. Ended, and production switched easily. Another is aerospace(mostly Airbus) which would take longer to shift but would surely happen.

The UK market is only 8% of EU exports. The EU is 44% of UK exports. That is not a problem you can simply blow off. And trade agreements with others require a quick look at a map. Europe is 40 kms from the UK. Everything else is much further.

Edited July 2, 2016 by overthere

[SpankyMcFarland]

Rex Murphy sums up the situation nicely, in terms of why people voted to leave as well as the petty sniveling by those upset over it.

Rationalizing a loss is, of course, not a new phenomenon. But building a rationalization on the idea that the crowd you lost to cannot, as the phrase has it, walk and chew gum at the same time, is a novel excursion. If you lost to a pack of fools and social Neanderthals, and if you lost with your side having all respectable opinion, the organs of academia, the press and business interests on your side, then it should prompt some serious and not-too-flattering introspection. In a nutshell, if the Leave side was so stupid and out of touch with everything in the modern age, how on earth did Remain, with all that intelligence and authority, lose the vote?

The press interests were on the side of Remain? Has Rex read the Mail etc. recently?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/24/mail-sun-uk-brexit-newspapers

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/its-press-wot-won-brexit-nows-time-show-responsibility/1400131#

The Telegraph is described as on the fence here but was very much pro-Leave in its coverage.

Edited July 2, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

If all governments of the past 50 years had stuck to strict "balance the budget and cut taxes" practices.... then the revolt against the "elites" would have come a LONG time ago, and probably not in the form of a more-or-less peaceful referendum.

The Nordic countries managed to have both balanced budgets and social welfare program for most of the last fifty years.

The Canadian problem is we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want all the programs but none of the costs. So we get the programs and borrow the money to put it on our kids heads.

I'm not suggesting there should be no social welfare programs. I'm suggesting that we should decide what we need and then pay for it. A lot of countries in Europe do the same as we do, "generously" gift people with programs and services they don't have to pay for by borrowing, which is why their economies are in such a mess. If you continue to run up bills then eventually you face a time when you have no choice but to impose austerity. Of course, by then people like Trudeau are usually retired and don't have to deal with the mess.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

You assume, incorrectly, that the EU would necessarily go elsewhere outside the EU to replace UK imports.

You can replace imports a hell of a lot easier than you can replace exports. If they impose punitive tariffs on trade with the UK then the British will do the same.

The UK market is only 8% of EU exports. The EU is 44% of UK exports.

But the actual amount of British imports from the EU exceeds their exports to them. And the countries it has the most trade with are also the most influential, ie, the Germans.