Uk Economy Is Headed For The Worst Of...
News4 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.
Remainers are *not* to blame for this mess. It's a ludicrous assertion, the product presumably only of a refusal to take responsibility for something that Leavers supported, but then refused point-blank to take responsibility for delivering. That isn't on Remainers. It is on you. Have some courage, and take ownership of *your* project, for once!
I like Cassa's analogy of the messy divorce of which I've seen too many in my time. Never good, and especially when kids are involved.
And since I was doing typey typey I see Jim's popped up yet againg to blame Leavers for Mrs May. Well, the Tory party will have to take the rap for that one: nothing to do with me, guv.
Now, where was I? Ah...
The referendum presented a binary choice to a public which (unlike parliament) was deeply divided on the issue. The result, whoever won, was inevitably going to dismay a large portion of the electorate. But it was a peaceful way of deciding a contentious issue - rule by Brussels or rule by Parliament. That was not an option when the English had to decide another contentious issue four hundred years earlier - rule by Parliament or rule by divinely anointed king .
I hoped that the losers would accept their defeat graciously; I have been disappointed. If the result had been accepted by our representatives as I hoped it would then the British Government with Parliament's backing would have presented a united face in the subsequent negotiations with the EU. The negotiations would not have been about a fudged redefinition of Brexit, they would have been about establishing the rules for our future trading relationship with the EU and our continued co-operation on matters like security. ( Oh - mustn't forget - and making sure we settled the bar bill before we left) This approach would have prevented much of the "chaos", and would probably have achieved a reasonable agreement on the terms of trade post Brexit, because it is in neither the EU's or the UK's interest to cause more impediments to trade than absolutely necessary.
Do the Remainers (any of them? ANY OF THEM AT ALL?) acknowledge that their obstructive tactics since the referendum may have contributed to the "chaos" and denied them the "good deal" they wanted to achieve?
And since I was doing typey typey I see Jim's popped up yet againg to blame Leavers for Mrs May. Well, the Tory party will have to take the rap for that one: nothing to do with me, guv.
Now, where was I? Ah...
The referendum presented a binary choice to a public which (unlike parliament) was deeply divided on the issue. The result, whoever won, was inevitably going to dismay a large portion of the electorate. But it was a peaceful way of deciding a contentious issue - rule by Brussels or rule by Parliament. That was not an option when the English had to decide another contentious issue four hundred years earlier - rule by Parliament or rule by divinely anointed king .
I hoped that the losers would accept their defeat graciously; I have been disappointed. If the result had been accepted by our representatives as I hoped it would then the British Government with Parliament's backing would have presented a united face in the subsequent negotiations with the EU. The negotiations would not have been about a fudged redefinition of Brexit, they would have been about establishing the rules for our future trading relationship with the EU and our continued co-operation on matters like security. ( Oh - mustn't forget - and making sure we settled the bar bill before we left) This approach would have prevented much of the "chaos", and would probably have achieved a reasonable agreement on the terms of trade post Brexit, because it is in neither the EU's or the UK's interest to cause more impediments to trade than absolutely necessary.
Do the Remainers (any of them? ANY OF THEM AT ALL?) acknowledge that their obstructive tactics since the referendum may have contributed to the "chaos" and denied them the "good deal" they wanted to achieve?
Jim, your constant cry of ‘Not me guv’ doesn’t work. A ‘deal’ was not the Leavers’ project and it never has been. ‘Leave’ was the Leavers project – ‘Leave’ with no ifs and buts as we were promised - and nothing we’ve seen so far has come even close. A ‘deal’ is the Remainers’ project. Anything to keep a foot in the door. Courage is something that’s in short supply with Remainers who could never envisage a world in which this country wasn’t tied to our masters’ apron strings - and they’ve made every effort to make damn sure they weren’t cut loose. No point moaning now Jim – you wanted Brexit bu&&ered – so have the courage to take ownership of YOUR project - and of the mess it’s created.
My opinion is that what either Brexiteers or Remainers have said or done has had no effect whatever on the prospect of the negotiations over a departure agreement with the EU. The EU was never likely to, nor should it have been expected to, accede to a request for anything that resembled a concession of any kind - to them it was always "leaving means leaving", much more so than in any UK official's mind. To the EU it was just a matter of how to define the timetable and tie off the loose ends of curtailed commitments.
On the other hand, the UK has always proceeded (as even very soon after joining) that it had some sort of right to change the EU's workings and redefine the status/conditions of membership and now even non-membership. A non-member or leaving member has no right to make demands. All these leaver/remainer recriminations are internal to the UK and the EU probably has only passing interest at most, one that centres around the theoretical possibility of a reversal of the UK's decision to leave (and then thinking what that might entail). But I wonder if those who suggest large numbers of EU officials/public by now look forward to getting rid of the UK are not right.
On the other hand, the UK has always proceeded (as even very soon after joining) that it had some sort of right to change the EU's workings and redefine the status/conditions of membership and now even non-membership. A non-member or leaving member has no right to make demands. All these leaver/remainer recriminations are internal to the UK and the EU probably has only passing interest at most, one that centres around the theoretical possibility of a reversal of the UK's decision to leave (and then thinking what that might entail). But I wonder if those who suggest large numbers of EU officials/public by now look forward to getting rid of the UK are not right.
Nonsense Karl. Another EUSSR apologist makes excuse for an intransigent and evil regime...….Read this, regarding the birth of the pyramid scheme.
//The written legalistic text.
Yes, the Acquis Communautaire as it’s called. And that Acquis Communautaire is a special sort of document, because it has a one-way ratchet attached to it. Every piece of legislation that moves from national authority into the authority of the EU is banked and it never comes back. It’s like going into a black hole, a sort of political black hole. So, the only thing that the EU was ever going to offer in a . . . in inverted commas, ‘negotiation’ is subordination to the EU’s methods of operating, which mean staying within the EU but as a rule-taker, having lost any power over our own sovereign control. So the exact opposite of what the 17.4 million people voted for, the exact opposite. And as was pointed out by Dominic Raab in his resignation letter – which will go down in history I think as a significant document – something which no democratic state, certainly not the oldest democratic state, and let us not forget the world’s second most important geopolitical power – which is what we are – and fifth largest economy, the most important European state bar none, to bow the neck and to agree to a vassal or serf relationship to a collapsing European political project is not tolerable. So she misunderstands the nature of the beast that she has been talking to. There is no deal to do. There never was, there never will be.//
//The written legalistic text.
Yes, the Acquis Communautaire as it’s called. And that Acquis Communautaire is a special sort of document, because it has a one-way ratchet attached to it. Every piece of legislation that moves from national authority into the authority of the EU is banked and it never comes back. It’s like going into a black hole, a sort of political black hole. So, the only thing that the EU was ever going to offer in a . . . in inverted commas, ‘negotiation’ is subordination to the EU’s methods of operating, which mean staying within the EU but as a rule-taker, having lost any power over our own sovereign control. So the exact opposite of what the 17.4 million people voted for, the exact opposite. And as was pointed out by Dominic Raab in his resignation letter – which will go down in history I think as a significant document – something which no democratic state, certainly not the oldest democratic state, and let us not forget the world’s second most important geopolitical power – which is what we are – and fifth largest economy, the most important European state bar none, to bow the neck and to agree to a vassal or serf relationship to a collapsing European political project is not tolerable. So she misunderstands the nature of the beast that she has been talking to. There is no deal to do. There never was, there never will be.//
Agree absolutely with the previous two posts (although they make the same point but in different ways).
The EU had no intention of allowing the UK to retain any of the benefits of membership having left (properly). The UK had no right to expect them to. The entire "negotiating" scam has been simply an exercise to devise a way for the UK to retain its membership by retaining the responsibility to comply with the most significant requirements of that membership. The EU has done a superb job and our politicians have acquiesced entirely because that's really what they want.
Had they been sincere in their stated aim to deliver Brexit they would have made clear from the outset that no such outcome was acceptable. But it obviously was. The argument over whose fault it is is largely academic.
The EU had no intention of allowing the UK to retain any of the benefits of membership having left (properly). The UK had no right to expect them to. The entire "negotiating" scam has been simply an exercise to devise a way for the UK to retain its membership by retaining the responsibility to comply with the most significant requirements of that membership. The EU has done a superb job and our politicians have acquiesced entirely because that's really what they want.
Had they been sincere in their stated aim to deliver Brexit they would have made clear from the outset that no such outcome was acceptable. But it obviously was. The argument over whose fault it is is largely academic.
Exactly how many times do I have to tell you that I don't like this deal either, and that I had literally nothing to do with it, before you start listening, Naomi?
Stop blaming me for what you voted for, and stop blaming me for the actions of the government that I voted against, delivering a deal that is not even remotely close to what I wanted, in a manner that I objected to throughout? In that, at least, I have been rather more consistent than you give me credit for.
I have no role in this, at all. Do us all a favour and stop blaming me, or Remainers by proxy. Leavers were the ones who wanted this, and Leavers were the ones who should have stepped up to deliver it, but they did not. Not one iota of this mess is any responsibility of mine.
Stop blaming me for what you voted for, and stop blaming me for the actions of the government that I voted against, delivering a deal that is not even remotely close to what I wanted, in a manner that I objected to throughout? In that, at least, I have been rather more consistent than you give me credit for.
I have no role in this, at all. Do us all a favour and stop blaming me, or Remainers by proxy. Leavers were the ones who wanted this, and Leavers were the ones who should have stepped up to deliver it, but they did not. Not one iota of this mess is any responsibility of mine.
judge: "The entire "negotiating" scam has been simply an exercise to devise a way for the UK to retain its membership by retaining the responsibility to comply with the most significant requirements of that membership. " - bang on, jim we voted to leave the remain have ofuscated to stay if they can or in all but name if they cannot. As I have said before we have vegans organising a BBQ, never going to work is it?
//A ‘deal’ was not the Leavers’ project and it never has been.//
Actually, as I keep pointing out, that's completely wrong. It might not have been what you personally had in mind, but plenty of leavers - including the oldest campaign to withdraw from the EC/EU in Britain - did indeed subscribe to a plan that involved a major deal with the EU and have done for some time:
http://
Actually, as I keep pointing out, that's completely wrong. It might not have been what you personally had in mind, but plenty of leavers - including the oldest campaign to withdraw from the EC/EU in Britain - did indeed subscribe to a plan that involved a major deal with the EU and have done for some time:
http://
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.
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.
Latest Posts
Will She Be Staying In A Hotel With...
News11 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 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.