Frankfurt Is the Big Winner in Battle for Brexit Bankers(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Frankfurt Is the Big Winner in Battle for Brexit Bankers
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-bankers/
158 comments
> By the way: there are only few "real Frankfurters" like me there (born and raised here with German parents...). Even other Germans mostly moved here from other cities. Within my close colleagues, I am the exception as someone who spent almost his entire life here. What that means: we are pretty open for everyone. We don't care where you are from, we don't prefer doing business with people that speak the local dialect (which might happen in other parts of Germany).
As a German, who moved to Frankfurt, I second that notion. I feel very much at home here. I think you can never truely become a Münchner, you will always be foreign. And in Berlin it is kind of a meme, that you have to start hating the newly arriving Schwaben, as soon as you have been living there for more than 3 months.
Everyone knows about local traditions in cities like Cologne and you think about these things, when moving there, while Frankfurt seems much more approachable. Guests visiting me are often amazed that there are actually quite a few cultural features specific to the region.
Sounding like you come from Frankfurt (on a beginner level) is super easy, too. You just become lazier and stop pronouncing word-endings and use softer consonants.
As a German, who moved to Frankfurt, I second that notion. I feel very much at home here. I think you can never truely become a Münchner, you will always be foreign. And in Berlin it is kind of a meme, that you have to start hating the newly arriving Schwaben, as soon as you have been living there for more than 3 months.
Everyone knows about local traditions in cities like Cologne and you think about these things, when moving there, while Frankfurt seems much more approachable. Guests visiting me are often amazed that there are actually quite a few cultural features specific to the region.
Sounding like you come from Frankfurt (on a beginner level) is super easy, too. You just become lazier and stop pronouncing word-endings and use softer consonants.
Haha :) me and my family speak "Hochdeutsch" even as locals, but I will try to recognize your description.
How's the rent? Ive heard it is the most expensive city to live in Germany.
Munich is more expensive. But Frankfurt's housing prices are rising dramatically recently. My wife and I are currently looking at houses (to buy, we currently rent one...) in the Taunus-mountains (about 10 kilometers away from the luxury homes I mentioned), because only there we can find large enough houses under 500k€ (which, even considering my 6-figure-income, is the maximum I feel comfortable with). Small 120sqm-row-houses, new, in Frankfurt now cost around 800k and everyone I know wonders who are the ones that can afford them and still sleep at night.
> and everyone I know wonders who are the ones that can afford them and still sleep at night.
See OP …
The interesting thing about this is, that Frankfurt is actually doing very much to avoid it. There a mixed-use skyscrapers being built, a whole new district has been created (Europaviertel) recently and a new one is already planned in the North-West.
I think part of the problem is, that Frankfurt is tiny by night and a city of a million people by day. I guess you could build houses for hundreds of thousands of people, prices would sink and people would move in.
See OP …
The interesting thing about this is, that Frankfurt is actually doing very much to avoid it. There a mixed-use skyscrapers being built, a whole new district has been created (Europaviertel) recently and a new one is already planned in the North-West.
I think part of the problem is, that Frankfurt is tiny by night and a city of a million people by day. I guess you could build houses for hundreds of thousands of people, prices would sink and people would move in.
All those new quarters you mentioned are damn expensive... I also talked to the vendors of those mixed-use-skyscrapers and If you want to invest less than about 800.000 for a 3-bedroom-appartment, they have nothing for you. Prices are flying high...
You'll have to move away about 30 kilometers to really see lower prices.
You'll have to move away about 30 kilometers to really see lower prices.
Man, Frankfurt is awesome. So is Munchen and Koln. I'm a bit partial to the latter (actually to the whole of NRW, sorry :P) but that's just me :D. Looking forward to moving somewhere in Germany next year.
Frankfurt/Offenbach/Rüsselsheim feels less international like Berlin, because most immigrants there seem to be the working class from east Europe, while Berlin somehow managed to get all the white collar expats.
Berlin feels more modern and liberal, while Frankfurt feels like... I don't know.. the Bronx ;)
Berlin feels more modern and liberal, while Frankfurt feels like... I don't know.. the Bronx ;)
[deleted]
Londoner here. Been to Frankfurt: it's small, but it's lovely. Only thing holding me back from moving is a mortgage and school-age children.
(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's going to ruin my country.)
(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's going to ruin my country.)
> "(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's going to ruin my country.)"
How is it going to ruin our country?
Let's be realistic. Will there be an economic downturn? Signs point to yes. However, businesses do not pass up the opportunity to make money for long.
Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable.
Imports and exports will be affected whilst markets adjust, and hopefully there'll be a soft Brexit to make this adjustment period quicker, but even with hard Brexit the economy will stabilise and grow in time. Products intended for domestic markets may end up becoming more attractive for investors in the short term whilst this period of uncertainty plays out. There are always ways to make money, and those who keep their cool are much more likely to spot those opportunities than those who panic.
How is it going to ruin our country?
Let's be realistic. Will there be an economic downturn? Signs point to yes. However, businesses do not pass up the opportunity to make money for long.
Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable.
Imports and exports will be affected whilst markets adjust, and hopefully there'll be a soft Brexit to make this adjustment period quicker, but even with hard Brexit the economy will stabilise and grow in time. Products intended for domestic markets may end up becoming more attractive for investors in the short term whilst this period of uncertainty plays out. There are always ways to make money, and those who keep their cool are much more likely to spot those opportunities than those who panic.
>Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable.
So your argument is Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc will continue to do business in Britain because it'll be profitable to do so? Yes that's probably true. On the other hand they are bending to regulation that requires them to conduct EU-related business in an EU member state.
And as you have stated businesses will not turn down potential profit. Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain.
There's no element of panic here, just the fact that brexit means certain jobs have to move in order to continue conducting business with the EU.
The EU are already positioning to move Euro clearing out of London as well. See https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit-uk-f...
So your argument is Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc will continue to do business in Britain because it'll be profitable to do so? Yes that's probably true. On the other hand they are bending to regulation that requires them to conduct EU-related business in an EU member state.
And as you have stated businesses will not turn down potential profit. Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain.
There's no element of panic here, just the fact that brexit means certain jobs have to move in order to continue conducting business with the EU.
The EU are already positioning to move Euro clearing out of London as well. See https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit-uk-f...
> "Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of the business is and that's no longer Britain."
The majority of business wasn't in Britain before Brexit either, but we still had businesses based here. If some companies leave, they're just opening up new opportunities for their competitors. I don't like thinking of people as 'workers' and 'consumers', but let's use those labels for a second. Are you trying to tell me in a nation of over 60 million consumers, with a high volume of skilled and hard working workers, that there aren't business opportunities to be had, regardless of a slow down in exports?
The majority of business wasn't in Britain before Brexit either, but we still had businesses based here. If some companies leave, they're just opening up new opportunities for their competitors. I don't like thinking of people as 'workers' and 'consumers', but let's use those labels for a second. Are you trying to tell me in a nation of over 60 million consumers, with a high volume of skilled and hard working workers, that there aren't business opportunities to be had, regardless of a slow down in exports?
Is there opportunity? Sure. Is there opportunity to replace the salaries and tax revenue of 30,000-100,000 finance and finance-related jobs lost to brexit with equally well paying jobs? I am extremely skeptical such a thing is possible for Britain and until that happens the revenue to Britain's economy and tax coffers are undeniably lost and cannot be recovered. You are once again blithely ignoring the fact that brexit directly resulted in finance companies moving out of Britain. There is no backfill by competitors to be had.
In short brexit with regards to employment in the finance industry is a foot shooting exercise of epic proportions.
In short brexit with regards to employment in the finance industry is a foot shooting exercise of epic proportions.
> "Is there opportunity to replace the salaries and tax revenue of 30,000-100,000 finance and finance-related jobs lost to brexit with equally well paying jobs?"
Two points:
1. I see over-reliance on any one industry as a weakness. The idea would be to find constructive uses for the talents of those in the financial industry elsewhere. There are a diverse range of industries that could benefit from numerically literate people. To give one example, energy management is going to be a growing field as we move towards renewables, both in terms of planning new installations and in balancing the demands on the grid. Is that going to soak up all of the lost jobs? No, but I wouldn't want it to, otherwise we'd have another 'too big to fail' industry, the idea is to spread the talent around.
2. You point at lost tax revenues, but the financial services industry appears to be the worst offender when it comes to tax avoidance. I'd much rather people were employed in jobs where they paid tax, even if their nominal salaries may be lower.
To give some idea of how bad tax avoidance in the UK financial sector is, and how much other companies depend on UK-based financial institutions for their tax avoidance, take a look at the following links:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/benefit-fraud-v-tax-evasion-w...
http://www.taxjustice.net/topics/finance-sector/enablers-and...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hom07yGhg0Q
Also, to nip the whole 'membership of the EU helps clamp down on tax avoidance' line in the bud, the EU have known about schemes like the 'Dutch Sandwich with a Double Irish' for years and haven't put a stop to it, so their record isn't exactly stellar:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google-used-d...
Two points:
1. I see over-reliance on any one industry as a weakness. The idea would be to find constructive uses for the talents of those in the financial industry elsewhere. There are a diverse range of industries that could benefit from numerically literate people. To give one example, energy management is going to be a growing field as we move towards renewables, both in terms of planning new installations and in balancing the demands on the grid. Is that going to soak up all of the lost jobs? No, but I wouldn't want it to, otherwise we'd have another 'too big to fail' industry, the idea is to spread the talent around.
2. You point at lost tax revenues, but the financial services industry appears to be the worst offender when it comes to tax avoidance. I'd much rather people were employed in jobs where they paid tax, even if their nominal salaries may be lower.
To give some idea of how bad tax avoidance in the UK financial sector is, and how much other companies depend on UK-based financial institutions for their tax avoidance, take a look at the following links:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/benefit-fraud-v-tax-evasion-w...
http://www.taxjustice.net/topics/finance-sector/enablers-and...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hom07yGhg0Q
Also, to nip the whole 'membership of the EU helps clamp down on tax avoidance' line in the bud, the EU have known about schemes like the 'Dutch Sandwich with a Double Irish' for years and haven't put a stop to it, so their record isn't exactly stellar:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google-used-d...
You seem to think that Euro-clearing is the only thing that banks do... And you're forgetting the nuclear option.
That is quite an epic underestimation of the possible consequences, both economically and geopolitically. Are you Theresa May ? :)
I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without.
It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles).
That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime.
I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without.
It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles).
That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime.
> "That is quite an epic underestimation of the possible consequences, both economically and geopolitically. Are you Theresa May ? :)"
Yeah, I'm Theresa May, ask me anything. ;-)
> "I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without."
If the only consideration was the economy I'd agree with you, but there's more at play here than just the economy.
> "It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles).
That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime."
Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU?
Yeah, I'm Theresa May, ask me anything. ;-)
> "I'm not sure how the fact that business can find opportunity even in times of great adversity (including times of war) supports in any way your argument that Brexit is not bringing about adversity. It is very much a self-inflicted wrench in the spanner that the (thus-far booming) UK economy could have done without."
If the only consideration was the economy I'd agree with you, but there's more at play here than just the economy.
> "It's stating the obvious to say that things stabilise and life goes on "in time" (that is, over 30-50 years cycles).
That absolutely doesn't demonstrate that there won't have have been much unnecessary suffering, from economic downturn to war in the meantime."
Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU?
> Again, the main arguments against the EU were not about the economy. Clearly you're mostly pro-EU, but do you see any flaws with the current EU?
I am very much pro EU. I also see flaws with the current EU, but to me they can only be solved by more EU not by stepping back. More democracy, less state-involvement to solve legitimacy problems, more financial responsibilities to solve Euro and Southern economic problems.
To me the benefits (stance in the world, peace, freedom of movement) outweigh the costs and problems by such a huge margin. I was born after the cold war and to me the integrity of states or peace always seemed like a solved issue, but as you can see in Ukraine it is not at all.
Compare problems of that scale to working out some bugs in a monetary union, which btw. is even working pretty well, considering that something like this has never worked before.
It is a monumental and exciting project. Some sort of peaceful empire, where every nation and people actually benefits and nobody is forced to participate. We are basically writing history. To me "Then Asia, but Europe lived happy and peaceful ever after.", seems like a perfect ending of the current chapter.
I am very much pro EU. I also see flaws with the current EU, but to me they can only be solved by more EU not by stepping back. More democracy, less state-involvement to solve legitimacy problems, more financial responsibilities to solve Euro and Southern economic problems.
To me the benefits (stance in the world, peace, freedom of movement) outweigh the costs and problems by such a huge margin. I was born after the cold war and to me the integrity of states or peace always seemed like a solved issue, but as you can see in Ukraine it is not at all.
Compare problems of that scale to working out some bugs in a monetary union, which btw. is even working pretty well, considering that something like this has never worked before.
It is a monumental and exciting project. Some sort of peaceful empire, where every nation and people actually benefits and nobody is forced to participate. We are basically writing history. To me "Then Asia, but Europe lived happy and peaceful ever after.", seems like a perfect ending of the current chapter.
> "More democracy, less state-involvement to solve legitimacy problems, more financial responsibilities to solve Euro and Southern economic problems."
That's an interesting mix. It sounds like you're pro-democracy and also pro-centralisation, would you say that's a fair statement?
> ""Then Asia, but Europe lived happy and peaceful ever after.""
Are you implying that Asia is on the path to peace ahead of Europe?
That's an interesting mix. It sounds like you're pro-democracy and also pro-centralisation, would you say that's a fair statement?
> ""Then Asia, but Europe lived happy and peaceful ever after.""
Are you implying that Asia is on the path to peace ahead of Europe?
> That's an interesting mix. It sounds like you're pro-democracy and also pro-centralisation, would you say that's a fair statement?
I am pro-centralisation in the sense, that I see areas where the benefits are obvious: everything regarding unified market, freedom and access for people, military, foreign policy, environmental issues. I also see areas where you have to be careful: privacy, data protection, lack of transparency, lack of control.
What I do have is a mindset, of paying it forward a bit and not having to get instant compensation. I am for example generally okay with the EU building infrastructure in poorer countries. We will get that value back, but it will take its time and it will come in different, hard to be measured forms. That's why I think you should not be to pedantic when measuring your own benefit. It evens out, while the overall value steadily increases the more countries work together. It is not only about whether your piece of the cake is a tiny bit bigger, but also the overall size of the cake increases.
I do see, how such thoughts are harder to have, when you are living in one of the paying countries and personally feeling left behind.
> Are you implying that Asia is on the path to peace ahead of Europe?
No, not at all. I am just saying that Asia is on its way to the top and that the EU cannot count on the US staying world leader. Countries like Germany, France or Great Britain will have no say in world politics whatsoever, while the EU as a whole can be a stable local power big enough to be heard in the world and pursue its interest and have some influence.
I am pro-centralisation in the sense, that I see areas where the benefits are obvious: everything regarding unified market, freedom and access for people, military, foreign policy, environmental issues. I also see areas where you have to be careful: privacy, data protection, lack of transparency, lack of control.
What I do have is a mindset, of paying it forward a bit and not having to get instant compensation. I am for example generally okay with the EU building infrastructure in poorer countries. We will get that value back, but it will take its time and it will come in different, hard to be measured forms. That's why I think you should not be to pedantic when measuring your own benefit. It evens out, while the overall value steadily increases the more countries work together. It is not only about whether your piece of the cake is a tiny bit bigger, but also the overall size of the cake increases.
I do see, how such thoughts are harder to have, when you are living in one of the paying countries and personally feeling left behind.
> Are you implying that Asia is on the path to peace ahead of Europe?
No, not at all. I am just saying that Asia is on its way to the top and that the EU cannot count on the US staying world leader. Countries like Germany, France or Great Britain will have no say in world politics whatsoever, while the EU as a whole can be a stable local power big enough to be heard in the world and pursue its interest and have some influence.
Pro-centralisation and pro-democracy don't exclude each other.
Depends on how it's done, but generally local politics can be more reactive to local needs than centralised politics. As always, there's a balance to be found, but that's generally the case. To give a more concrete example, who do you think has a better sense of the struggles the Greek people currently face, people who live in Greece or people who live in Belgium?
I agree with pretty much everything you just said, but I don't think your conclusions are supported by your argument.
The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off.
Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it.
Now, there's a problem with this analysis, which is that Brexit hasn't happened yet. This cuts both ways: the final state hasn't been reached, but also the economy's a lot more resilient inside the EU than outside, because the lack of tariff and non-tariff barriers helps with the rebalancing you describe.
So, for the future, a good question is: how are our preparations going? Well, the NAO says that they're barely going at all, the repeal bill says we're basically going to have to put up with direct monarchial rule to survive and to date we seem to be capitulating on every point of contention. What's worse is the points we're not capitulating on, because we're an 1/8th of the way through the process and haven't even got the status of EU citizens sorted out.
Even if the negotiations go well, we're talking about ripping up 40 years of settled U.K. law and replacing it with... well, ministers haven't decided yet, but they don't want parliament to have a vote when they do.
So, as I see it there's basically two possible outcomes here: 1) the EU retains most of the benefits of U.K. membership 2) hard Brexit. Die-hard Leavers have long argued that the EU is too complex, and the EU shows no inclination to make it more complex to suit Britain. Either way, we will be worse placed to trade with the rest of the world.
You're right, even in the case of hard Brexit the economy would eventually grow again. Would it grow as fast as it would within the EU? There's no reason to believe so. So we're looking at a huge one off hit and permanent reduced growth.
Sorry, this is quite long and probably not as clear as I'd hoped. I've also probably missed a fair number of important points. I haven't even touched on the _non_economic problems with leaving the EU. But I think it's clear that, while there are always ways to make money, Brexit is likely to be a negative sum game.
The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off.
Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it.
Now, there's a problem with this analysis, which is that Brexit hasn't happened yet. This cuts both ways: the final state hasn't been reached, but also the economy's a lot more resilient inside the EU than outside, because the lack of tariff and non-tariff barriers helps with the rebalancing you describe.
So, for the future, a good question is: how are our preparations going? Well, the NAO says that they're barely going at all, the repeal bill says we're basically going to have to put up with direct monarchial rule to survive and to date we seem to be capitulating on every point of contention. What's worse is the points we're not capitulating on, because we're an 1/8th of the way through the process and haven't even got the status of EU citizens sorted out.
Even if the negotiations go well, we're talking about ripping up 40 years of settled U.K. law and replacing it with... well, ministers haven't decided yet, but they don't want parliament to have a vote when they do.
So, as I see it there's basically two possible outcomes here: 1) the EU retains most of the benefits of U.K. membership 2) hard Brexit. Die-hard Leavers have long argued that the EU is too complex, and the EU shows no inclination to make it more complex to suit Britain. Either way, we will be worse placed to trade with the rest of the world.
You're right, even in the case of hard Brexit the economy would eventually grow again. Would it grow as fast as it would within the EU? There's no reason to believe so. So we're looking at a huge one off hit and permanent reduced growth.
Sorry, this is quite long and probably not as clear as I'd hoped. I've also probably missed a fair number of important points. I haven't even touched on the _non_economic problems with leaving the EU. But I think it's clear that, while there are always ways to make money, Brexit is likely to be a negative sum game.
Thank you for your considered reply. I did read all of it, but I'd like to focus on the following first:
> "The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off.
Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it."
The following distinctions are slightly crude, but hopefully they serve a purpose. There's a difference between the productive economy and the speculative economy. The productive economy is based around changes in the material world. The speculative economy is based around opinions. Stock markets are effectively opinion poll trackers (opinions either baked into mathematical models or in the heads of traders).
It's no surprise that the pound dropped after the Brexit result, because we're looking at a period of uncertainty, which makes predictions harder and traders more risk averse.
However, in the productive economy in the same time period, there hasn't been an 80% drop in the output of the real economy. The jobs market is still strong, people still produce roughly the same level of goods and services as they did a year ago, etc...
What I predict will happen after the period of uncertainty ends is that opinions will catch up to reality and traders will realise their models of economic output were out, leading to a readjustment in the stock markets.
The problem is, as people have gotten so hysterical about Brexit, the period of uncertainty will probably last longer than it should, and this loss of confidence can have an impact on the productive economy over time. That's my main concern over Brexit, that it'll be the reaction to it that causes a longer economic downturn than is necessary. My only hope with this is linked to more people becoming adept at seeing through the mechanisms of the UK's toxic media institutions.
> "The problem is that you're implicitly assuming that Britain will be no worse off and then concluding that businesses will spot that so that we're no worse off.
Let's be realistic: the pound is worth 80% (give or take) what it was before the referendum. That isn't felt in your pocket immediately, but the effects works their way through the economy. Sure, purchasing power parity and the economy rebalancing will ameliorate that, but it's in no ways going to eliminate it."
The following distinctions are slightly crude, but hopefully they serve a purpose. There's a difference between the productive economy and the speculative economy. The productive economy is based around changes in the material world. The speculative economy is based around opinions. Stock markets are effectively opinion poll trackers (opinions either baked into mathematical models or in the heads of traders).
It's no surprise that the pound dropped after the Brexit result, because we're looking at a period of uncertainty, which makes predictions harder and traders more risk averse.
However, in the productive economy in the same time period, there hasn't been an 80% drop in the output of the real economy. The jobs market is still strong, people still produce roughly the same level of goods and services as they did a year ago, etc...
What I predict will happen after the period of uncertainty ends is that opinions will catch up to reality and traders will realise their models of economic output were out, leading to a readjustment in the stock markets.
The problem is, as people have gotten so hysterical about Brexit, the period of uncertainty will probably last longer than it should, and this loss of confidence can have an impact on the productive economy over time. That's my main concern over Brexit, that it'll be the reaction to it that causes a longer economic downturn than is necessary. My only hope with this is linked to more people becoming adept at seeing through the mechanisms of the UK's toxic media institutions.
> What that means: we are pretty open for everyone. We don't care where you are from, we don't prefer doing business with people that speak the local dialect (which might happen in other parts of Germany).
Unless you are from Eastern Germany or overall from Eastern Europe. The stories I hear from friends how welcome they feel in Frankfurt once they mention their origin. All top people US companies are fighting for...
Unless you are from Eastern Germany or overall from Eastern Europe. The stories I hear from friends how welcome they feel in Frankfurt once they mention their origin. All top people US companies are fighting for...
Seems a bit too early to declare the winner: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/dublin-firs...
No matter how you look at it, the UK loses. And most people don't give a fuck, they think Brexit is over.
>No matter how you look at it, the UK loses.
Only short term, and only if we just look at first order effects.
In fact, it's too early to tell. Let's check back in 10 years.
Only short term, and only if we just look at first order effects.
In fact, it's too early to tell. Let's check back in 10 years.
What makes you think 10 years is not short term? Last crisis, that we're still recovering and suffering consequences (arguably Brexit is one) from, started 9 years ago.
What makes you think the UK can "win" anything in 10 years if it goes down the Brexit path? or 20 years for that matter, feel free to move the goal posts around. I'm curious.
What makes you think the UK can "win" anything in 10 years if it goes down the Brexit path? or 20 years for that matter, feel free to move the goal posts around. I'm curious.
> "Last crisis, that we're still recovering and suffering consequences"
The last crisis was extended by the actions of the government. Quantative easing to boost the wealth of the private banking sector + austerity in the public sector.
You can't save your way out of a recession, but if you are going to spend your way out of it, the money should end up with people who are willing to spend it in productive ways.
As for Brexit, what's your main economic concern? Imports? Exports? The domestic market?
The last crisis was extended by the actions of the government. Quantative easing to boost the wealth of the private banking sector + austerity in the public sector.
You can't save your way out of a recession, but if you are going to spend your way out of it, the money should end up with people who are willing to spend it in productive ways.
As for Brexit, what's your main economic concern? Imports? Exports? The domestic market?
every company is already leaving.
IT has the blue collars (cheap engineers, sales, support, it) in Ireland and they are staying no matter what (zero tax ftw) while all the expensive ppl who refuses Ireland relocation were in london.
but if London is not EU, now it makes everything too complicated. France already started to glob startups. Germany got two big fortune 500 and Switzerland another.
it's a matter of time until they all move. and take all the service cascade with them.
so if you're afraid of crisis getting worse by fleeing investment, there you have it.
IT has the blue collars (cheap engineers, sales, support, it) in Ireland and they are staying no matter what (zero tax ftw) while all the expensive ppl who refuses Ireland relocation were in london.
but if London is not EU, now it makes everything too complicated. France already started to glob startups. Germany got two big fortune 500 and Switzerland another.
it's a matter of time until they all move. and take all the service cascade with them.
so if you're afraid of crisis getting worse by fleeing investment, there you have it.
> "IT has the blue collars (cheap engineers, sales, support, it) in Ireland"
That was the case before Brexit, was it not? Companies like Google and Facebook had their European headquarters in Ireland before the Brexit referendum was announced.
> "Germany got two big fortune 500 and Switzerland another."
Interesting that you bring up an example linked to Switzerland, which isn't in the EU (it's not even part of the EEA). Despite that, it does have access to the European single market, something that some European bureaucrats are classing as 'impossible' for the UK post-Brexit. Let's wait and see.
> "it's a matter of time until they all move."
That's what's known as hyperbole. The UK has a large skilled/educated workforce with a strong work ethic. If incentives are made to mitigate against downsides of being out of the EU then I don't see every company leaving, and the ones that do leave will leave behind employees that they helped to train, ready for a competitor to make the most of.
That was the case before Brexit, was it not? Companies like Google and Facebook had their European headquarters in Ireland before the Brexit referendum was announced.
> "Germany got two big fortune 500 and Switzerland another."
Interesting that you bring up an example linked to Switzerland, which isn't in the EU (it's not even part of the EEA). Despite that, it does have access to the European single market, something that some European bureaucrats are classing as 'impossible' for the UK post-Brexit. Let's wait and see.
> "it's a matter of time until they all move."
That's what's known as hyperbole. The UK has a large skilled/educated workforce with a strong work ethic. If incentives are made to mitigate against downsides of being out of the EU then I don't see every company leaving, and the ones that do leave will leave behind employees that they helped to train, ready for a competitor to make the most of.
> Interesting that you bring up an example linked to Switzerland, which isn't in the EU (it's not even part of the EEA). Despite that, it does have access to the European single market, something that some European bureaucrats are classing as 'impossible' for the UK post-Brexit. Let's wait and see.
This is how Switzerland has access to the European single market :
- It pays into the EU budget
- It has freedom of movement for EU citizens
- It implements many EU regulations, without having a say in them.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/07/20/how-much-do-non-eu-...
This has been hammered on and on during the campaign : the UK cannot possibly end up with a better deal than what it currently has as a full EU member (with a number of tailor-made opt-outs bordering on unfair to other members, to boot)
The issue is not with "some European bureaucrats", it is with some British people having difficulty coming to terms with reality at the moment.
This is how Switzerland has access to the European single market :
- It pays into the EU budget
- It has freedom of movement for EU citizens
- It implements many EU regulations, without having a say in them.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/07/20/how-much-do-non-eu-...
This has been hammered on and on during the campaign : the UK cannot possibly end up with a better deal than what it currently has as a full EU member (with a number of tailor-made opt-outs bordering on unfair to other members, to boot)
The issue is not with "some European bureaucrats", it is with some British people having difficulty coming to terms with reality at the moment.
Addressing your three main points:
- It pays into the EU budget
According to the article you linked to, Switzerland pays far less than the UK for access to the common market. Time will tell what agreements are reached here.
- It has freedom of movement for EU citizens
Which I have no problem with. Oh, did you think that people who voted for Brexit were racist? Surprise!
- It implements many EU regulations, without having a say in them.
Again, from the article you linked to, it states that Switzerland has around 100 bilateral agreements with the EU in order to get access to the single market. Having a multitude of agreements allow a certain level of control over which EU policies to take on and which ones to avoid. Can read more about those agreements here:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/count...
I do recognise that the bi-lateral deals with Switzerland took years to get ironed out, and I'm not expecting a quicker turnaround for the UK. What I predict is that we'll go for some form of soft Brexit where the divorce from the EU can happen gradually, which would be better for both sides.
- It pays into the EU budget
According to the article you linked to, Switzerland pays far less than the UK for access to the common market. Time will tell what agreements are reached here.
- It has freedom of movement for EU citizens
Which I have no problem with. Oh, did you think that people who voted for Brexit were racist? Surprise!
- It implements many EU regulations, without having a say in them.
Again, from the article you linked to, it states that Switzerland has around 100 bilateral agreements with the EU in order to get access to the single market. Having a multitude of agreements allow a certain level of control over which EU policies to take on and which ones to avoid. Can read more about those agreements here:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/count...
I do recognise that the bi-lateral deals with Switzerland took years to get ironed out, and I'm not expecting a quicker turnaround for the UK. What I predict is that we'll go for some form of soft Brexit where the divorce from the EU can happen gradually, which would be better for both sides.
Yeah I give it ~40 years. Things are highly likely to normalize by then either way, whether England is an irrelevant island or a global leader in something.
If you got 40 years to give away to some assholes who don't care about you, be my guest.
If you got 40 years to give away to some assholes who don't care about you, be my guest.
This exactly. This is the vote of a generation, with consequences to be felt throughout their children's lives.
The Brits said the same in 1776 about one of its colonies.
Just stop with the history. Just fucking stop.
England isn't a global superpower, it doesn't have colonies, it doesn't have the population to compete with superpowers, its overseas territories are a money drain, and there's nothing of value being made in the UK that isn't being made in the US, China or the EU.
The recession will be hard. It was a stupid decision made by stupid people.
Hopefully things will normalize in 4 decades.
England isn't a global superpower, it doesn't have colonies, it doesn't have the population to compete with superpowers, its overseas territories are a money drain, and there's nothing of value being made in the UK that isn't being made in the US, China or the EU.
The recession will be hard. It was a stupid decision made by stupid people.
Hopefully things will normalize in 4 decades.
You failed to get the analogy.
You can't really stop history, but people like you would rather be ignorant of it, it seems.
You can't really stop history, but people like you would rather be ignorant of it, it seems.
Well what is the analogy? If you're saying the UK is in a position analogous to that of a "colony" of the EU then it is your reading of history that is bizarre.
prodmerc is right and for the UK this is worse: somehow people in the UK still seem to think they own the world. I live in Spain but I am from the Netherlands, both world powers of the past and I do not see that misplaced air of grandeur there.
Yeah, I didn't get it either.
Just think how annoying it would be if Italy kept going on about being the Roman Empire.
I'm tired of all the "England this, England that". Yes, there's an amazing history, but you can't repeat it. Look at the world today for God's sake.
I'm tired of all the "England this, England that". Yes, there's an amazing history, but you can't repeat it. Look at the world today for God's sake.
You are being downvoted, but I am from Spain, which you can consider it was the superpower before England, and looking at what Spain is right now, you are right on the money.
England/UK won't become the superpower they were before, just like Spain won't either. Yes, they'll be okay, they have survived through worse, but that's it.
England/UK won't become the superpower they were before, just like Spain won't either. Yes, they'll be okay, they have survived through worse, but that's it.
But Spain is part of the leading regional power and in a military union with the current superpower, while England decided to leave and try on its own. Even from a "wanting-to-be-a-superpower"-perspective, Brexit is wrong.
Looking at history can also tell you that the world as it is today wont be such forever -- or even 10 years down the line.
Yes, I just can't see how the UK will rise up and "become great again". That's my problem, all I see is an ex-empire clinging to the past. The history is lovely, the Royal Navy was unmatched for a while - nothing lasts forever though.
And with people like May, with their imbecilic policies and ideas, leading it? Please...
Furthermore, I like the idea of a united Europe, and I'd hate if the UK would allocate resources to undermine that (if Russia can, the UK certainly can).
And with people like May, with their imbecilic policies and ideas, leading it? Please...
Furthermore, I like the idea of a united Europe, and I'd hate if the UK would allocate resources to undermine that (if Russia can, the UK certainly can).
> "I like the idea of a united Europe"
I like the idea of greater cooperation across Europe, but I'm not willing to unite under the EU, at least not in its current form. Unity is not universally good, it's important to know what you're uniting under.
With that in mind, what do you want to gain from a united Europe?
I like the idea of greater cooperation across Europe, but I'm not willing to unite under the EU, at least not in its current form. Unity is not universally good, it's important to know what you're uniting under.
With that in mind, what do you want to gain from a united Europe?
The unthinkability of war between its members (a millenial problem, solved for 70 years now), for starters ?
Addressing inherently regional/global issues like environmental ones at the appropriate level ?
Having the clout of a 300 million people market in trade negotiations with China/India/the US ?
Gigantic economies of scale through common legislative work and a single set of consumer/safety regulations for companies to follow across a huge addressable market ?
"greater (bilateral) cooperation" just won't give you that. Creating a higher entity is the only way that makes sense past a certain level of complexity.
The "not in its current form" argument in EU discussions is a classic one (a similar rhetorical device to "I'm not racist but..")
The truth is that while no organisation is perfect (is Westminster perfect?), and with the assumption (a difficult one to make these days) that you are actually aware of how the EU works, there are a very few other forms than the current one the EU could have ended up in.
Addressing inherently regional/global issues like environmental ones at the appropriate level ?
Having the clout of a 300 million people market in trade negotiations with China/India/the US ?
Gigantic economies of scale through common legislative work and a single set of consumer/safety regulations for companies to follow across a huge addressable market ?
"greater (bilateral) cooperation" just won't give you that. Creating a higher entity is the only way that makes sense past a certain level of complexity.
The "not in its current form" argument in EU discussions is a classic one (a similar rhetorical device to "I'm not racist but..")
The truth is that while no organisation is perfect (is Westminster perfect?), and with the assumption (a difficult one to make these days) that you are actually aware of how the EU works, there are a very few other forms than the current one the EU could have ended up in.
> "The unthinkability of war between its members"
A problem solved by NATO and the OSCE. The EU is far from the only organisation with widespread European membership. Here are three of the most important non-EU organisations that affect policy in Europe:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_an...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
It's worth remembering that the EU only really found it's current form in 1992. There were earlier agreements that formed the basis of the EU, but it changed considerably after the Maastricht Treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty
> "The "not in its current form" argument in EU discussions is a classic one (a similar rhetorical device to "I'm not racist but..")"
Only for the lazy. I simply don't agree with how the EU is run. I'd much rather stay as a member of the Council of Europe than any group that dictates fiscal policy. You can see how well that's worked out for the Greeks, burdened with debts they can't pay for the benefit of European bankers (the bailouts were a bait and switch move, the Greeks got a small percentage of the total funds). The EU will become increasingly focused around the Eurozone, and policies that suit the Eurozone. We may lose some financial benefits from leaving the EU now, but it'd be far harder to leave as time went on, and more power was centralised in Brussels.
A problem solved by NATO and the OSCE. The EU is far from the only organisation with widespread European membership. Here are three of the most important non-EU organisations that affect policy in Europe:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_an...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
It's worth remembering that the EU only really found it's current form in 1992. There were earlier agreements that formed the basis of the EU, but it changed considerably after the Maastricht Treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty
> "The "not in its current form" argument in EU discussions is a classic one (a similar rhetorical device to "I'm not racist but..")"
Only for the lazy. I simply don't agree with how the EU is run. I'd much rather stay as a member of the Council of Europe than any group that dictates fiscal policy. You can see how well that's worked out for the Greeks, burdened with debts they can't pay for the benefit of European bankers (the bailouts were a bait and switch move, the Greeks got a small percentage of the total funds). The EU will become increasingly focused around the Eurozone, and policies that suit the Eurozone. We may lose some financial benefits from leaving the EU now, but it'd be far harder to leave as time went on, and more power was centralised in Brussels.
After WWI, there was the League of Nations, to avoid the next war. WWII helped to realize, that stronger ties were needed.
Council of Europe with Ukraine and Russia in it. Are you joking? Ask someone from Ukraine or the Baltics, how they feel about the safety of territorial integrity.
I would say, better be safe than sorry in this case.
Council of Europe with Ukraine and Russia in it. Are you joking? Ask someone from Ukraine or the Baltics, how they feel about the safety of territorial integrity.
I would say, better be safe than sorry in this case.
Not trying to contradict your argument, but I was thinking the same... What does UK produce uniquely, and so far I have come up with airplane engines.
Not uniquely. Made in similar level in the US and the EU, and China is putting a lot of effort in getting there too.
Plenty of sources, but first ones to come were "Global Top 4 Aircraft Engine Manufacturers - Strategic Factor Analysis Summary (SFAS) Framework Analysis - 2015 Pratt & Whitney, GE Aviation, Rolls-Royce, Safran".
Don't get me wrong, Uk is top notch there with Rolls Royce, and they're not a manufacturer aircraft maker would want to ignore being for price nor performance, but it's not something we would lose or need to rebuild if the UK were to suddenly fall into a vortex or something.
Plenty of sources, but first ones to come were "Global Top 4 Aircraft Engine Manufacturers - Strategic Factor Analysis Summary (SFAS) Framework Analysis - 2015 Pratt & Whitney, GE Aviation, Rolls-Royce, Safran".
Don't get me wrong, Uk is top notch there with Rolls Royce, and they're not a manufacturer aircraft maker would want to ignore being for price nor performance, but it's not something we would lose or need to rebuild if the UK were to suddenly fall into a vortex or something.
You could easily make that more broad, i.e. what does country X produce that others do not?
As for the article, speaking as someone from the UK, as far as I'm concerned the UK did a deal with the devil back in the 80s, focusing on the fake prosperity of the financial services industry (gambling on markets is ultimately a waste of effort) in place of growth in the productive economy (manufacturing industries were neglected for decades). If Brexit means the government is forced to diversify and not rely so heavily on financial services it could be a very good thing for the UK. There will certainly be challenges in changing the economy if we leave the European single market (I can't see hard Brexit happening anyway, there's very likely to be some form of compromise), but I'll not be crying over lost banker jobs, they can be someone else's problem now.
As for the article, speaking as someone from the UK, as far as I'm concerned the UK did a deal with the devil back in the 80s, focusing on the fake prosperity of the financial services industry (gambling on markets is ultimately a waste of effort) in place of growth in the productive economy (manufacturing industries were neglected for decades). If Brexit means the government is forced to diversify and not rely so heavily on financial services it could be a very good thing for the UK. There will certainly be challenges in changing the economy if we leave the European single market (I can't see hard Brexit happening anyway, there's very likely to be some form of compromise), but I'll not be crying over lost banker jobs, they can be someone else's problem now.
As someone close enough to London to be exposed to the ridiculous salaries on offer in all areas of finance, I couldn't agree more.
I think it's sad that people with a PhDs in physics/mathematics seem more likely to end up spending his/her time optimizing my car insurance premium than solving real problems.
I think it's sad that people with a PhDs in physics/mathematics seem more likely to end up spending his/her time optimizing my car insurance premium than solving real problems.
I have no special sympathy for bankers, but the matter of the fact is that London and the South East are the engine of the country, largely subsidising the rest, and finance is the engine of London.
It's all good and fun to say bankers jobs will be somebody else's problem, but you are offering to replace that money with what, exactly ?
The UK used to be the laughing stock and sick man of Europe in the late 70s, had IMF loans like Greece today. It really doesn't take that much more than a wound like Brexit to fall back again into misery over a couple of decades.
It's all good and fun to say bankers jobs will be somebody else's problem, but you are offering to replace that money with what, exactly ?
The UK used to be the laughing stock and sick man of Europe in the late 70s, had IMF loans like Greece today. It really doesn't take that much more than a wound like Brexit to fall back again into misery over a couple of decades.
> "I have no special sympathy for bankers, but the matter of the fact is that London and the South East are the engine of the country, largely subsidising the rest, and finance is the engine of London."
But that's the problem, over-reliance on a single industry.
The thing is, it wasn't seen as a weakness by politicians whilst the money was rolling in. However, many people outside London recognised it as a weakness as their industries were being neglected whilst the UK transitioned towards becoming a service economy.
I'm not suggesting their won't be a downturn from bankers leaving, but I am suggesting it's a necessary one to break the myth that the service economy approach is the only one worth pursuing. The UK will need to become more self-reliant to return to stability, and that will ultimately be a good thing.
But that's the problem, over-reliance on a single industry.
The thing is, it wasn't seen as a weakness by politicians whilst the money was rolling in. However, many people outside London recognised it as a weakness as their industries were being neglected whilst the UK transitioned towards becoming a service economy.
I'm not suggesting their won't be a downturn from bankers leaving, but I am suggesting it's a necessary one to break the myth that the service economy approach is the only one worth pursuing. The UK will need to become more self-reliant to return to stability, and that will ultimately be a good thing.
https://www.arm.com/ would this count as unique?
Raspberry Pi's are the second thing that comes to mind.
ARM is owned by SoftBank, for what it's worth.
ARM is owned by SoftBank, for what it's worth.
Do the hoi polloi care that the pariahs of the world are leaving and taking their lifestyles with them? These are the people who cause housing bubbles, their subsequent crashes, construction booms and crashes (Spain) Deutsche Bank holding Greek economy hostage, etc.
I get it, they are a necessary ungood thing for the economies, but should the hoi polloi cry for them?
But that's Bloomberg caring about the capitalists who would arbitrage your job in a heartbeat.
I get it, they are a necessary ungood thing for the economies, but should the hoi polloi cry for them?
But that's Bloomberg caring about the capitalists who would arbitrage your job in a heartbeat.
Banking is a pox on both our houses, but it's probably still preferable to have them in your city. Some of the money suck out off the real economy does end up with local business, after all. Like tailors, coke dealers, and prostitutes.
Many of my friends work in the classical music scene in London, which is one of the foremost in the world. With the banks is going a lot of the money for this sort of thing, and not just the big ticket stuff - the community outreach programmes and local festivals are usually first against the wall. It's a tragedy that will take years if not decades to recover from, but given how fucked everything else is too it's not getting much press.
Yes, of course. Sorry for the cheap cliché about bankers, when they, both as customers and through their firms' support do indeed support many worthy causes. I hope the cultural scene in London won't be hit too hard–they must have been among the strongest supporters of continued EU membership, considering how international it is.
Maybe rent prices at least drop a bit to compensate. Or Britain&The EU find a way out of this misery once the consequences sink in.
Maybe rent prices at least drop a bit to compensate. Or Britain&The EU find a way out of this misery once the consequences sink in.
So, that was a scene that was on life support by banks.
Either the society has to decide it wants classical music as a protected cultural good (and e.g. put it in government grants and subsidies) or the masses should (and e.g. pay for concerts and stuff).
Apart from those things, I don't see it as any great tragedy for something that's neither of them to lose its bank-derived financing.
Either the society has to decide it wants classical music as a protected cultural good (and e.g. put it in government grants and subsidies) or the masses should (and e.g. pay for concerts and stuff).
Apart from those things, I don't see it as any great tragedy for something that's neither of them to lose its bank-derived financing.
In your logic "life support by banks" = "pay for concerts and stuff". The dimension you are missing is spatial, in that this would now happen elsewhere from London, and the "externality" of non-banker Londerners being able to experience this, is the negative effect referred to by the OP.
>In your logic "life support by banks" = "pay for concerts and stuff".
No, in my logic there are two distinct things: the public paying for concerts (and the public not caring) vs the public caring and supporting them itself.
In the first case, it's just the banks buying some prestige by playing to supposed upper middle class preferences, and get some free publicity plus some tax exceptions for those sponsorships.
>The dimension you are missing is spatial, in that this would now happen elsewhere from London, and the "externality" of non-banker Londerners being able to experience this, is the negative effect referred to by the OP.
So? If the Londoners didn't care for those events enough to support them themselves in the first place, why would they have a problem now that foreigners, and not themselves, will get to "experience" those?
No, in my logic there are two distinct things: the public paying for concerts (and the public not caring) vs the public caring and supporting them itself.
In the first case, it's just the banks buying some prestige by playing to supposed upper middle class preferences, and get some free publicity plus some tax exceptions for those sponsorships.
>The dimension you are missing is spatial, in that this would now happen elsewhere from London, and the "externality" of non-banker Londerners being able to experience this, is the negative effect referred to by the OP.
So? If the Londoners didn't care for those events enough to support them themselves in the first place, why would they have a problem now that foreigners, and not themselves, will get to "experience" those?
Banks do it, because high-paid workers want to live in a culturally rich city. That's also why cities invest in operas, it raises tax income. Same in Frankfurt. Cities, banks and the general public have the same interests here. Once the banks leave, the general public and the city loses.
No Classical music makes money, it does not support itself anywhere. It is a charitable cause.
Housing bubbles are caused by people getting loans they can't support, and the incentives aligned so that the people approving the loans don't care whether the borrower is able to pay it or not.
It's a good example of a problem that government regulation should solve. A market doesn't always regulate itself.
not to mention yesterday France invited trump to its bastile day parade (think 4th of July in the usa) and even ended it with both flags on display. which was a shocking first.
if that wasn't a middle finger to German (whose chancellor was in France visiting refugees, and wasn't even invited to the parade) I don't know what it is.
if that wasn't a middle finger to German (whose chancellor was in France visiting refugees, and wasn't even invited to the parade) I don't know what it is.
It wasn't a middle finger to the German, Merkel-Macron relations are excellent.
It was certainly an attempt to position France as the first port of call for the US in Europe, taking the opportunity of current German unease at dealing with Trump (can't blame them), and well, total political shambles in the UK.
It was certainly an attempt to position France as the first port of call for the US in Europe, taking the opportunity of current German unease at dealing with Trump (can't blame them), and well, total political shambles in the UK.
I don't think this is entirely true. Paris and Amsterdam are fighting for banks as well; in Paris all government-related stuff can be now done in English as well; in Frankfurt for some reason (German pride?) everyone is forced to use German and frankly learning German is highly non-trivial and a time-sink. As for Japanese banks, it makes sense; both because Frankfurt has a significant Japanese minority due to previous business choices and the mentality is similar as well.
Macron -being a former Rothschild investment banker- could tremendously help firms and individuals in relocating to Paris.
They just removed entirely the tax on standing capital (only real estate will remain taxed), and more could be following. To me, the government is taking Brexit very seriously and is intent on making the most out of it; including producing new legislation to attract businesses relocating out of London.
Bankers not only have Paris fighting to have them, but the whole government as well.
They just removed entirely the tax on standing capital (only real estate will remain taxed), and more could be following. To me, the government is taking Brexit very seriously and is intent on making the most out of it; including producing new legislation to attract businesses relocating out of London.
Bankers not only have Paris fighting to have them, but the whole government as well.
as long as the EU regulated bits split off into different parts of the EU (Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam), there's little threat to the long-term future of London's financial sector
however, if they all end up in one place, that would be a significant long-term threat
however, if they all end up in one place, that would be a significant long-term threat
Got me curious on the German/Japanese mentality being similar, could you elaborate please?
Suppression of emotions, following rules to the letter, indifference/coldness to each other, "Weltschmerz" visible on faces, protestant work ethic (=stick at work doing nothing to show bosses you are working) etc. Other parts of Germany feel slightly different though (Bavarians seem much happier), it might be just Frankfurt.
Japan is sort of the Germany of Asia. Both are very detail-oriented people, well known for craftsmanship, significant amount of global exports, their trains are always on time, etc.
> trains are always on time
If I would not hold the German black belt in suppressing my emotions I would have laughed uncontrollably.
(Though compared to the trains in the U.K...)
If I would not hold the German black belt in suppressing my emotions I would have laughed uncontrollably.
(Though compared to the trains in the U.K...)
That's interesting, just in my experience, Germans are way more likely to speak English than the French, even if they know it. I always thought it was their pride or something heh. Learning either is a daunting task...
Sure, in Frankfurt you can speak English almost with everyone. But never in government offices; all paperwork must be done in German. One headhunter from Frankfurt was recently complaining about it to me, pointing out the fact that Paris made sure bankers can do all paperwork in English whereas Frankfurt doesn't care. And obviously his own well-being depends on attracting people to Frankfurt.
I am French and extremely surprised to hear that the French administration will let you do paperwork in English. Then again, I haven't lived here for some years.
I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of local government agency in Paris was helping expats with paperwork, but the idea that all French civil servants and forms will suddenly start speaking English seems outlandish :)
I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of local government agency in Paris was helping expats with paperwork, but the idea that all French civil servants and forms will suddenly start speaking English seems outlandish :)
Having been to Frankfurt a couple months ago, I totally get it. It's definitely a big banking city, and the logical choice to move to from London. I was also in Madrid a couple months ago, and it didn't seem like quite as good of a match as a big financial city.
I am curious what makes you think it is a banking city? Banking is pretty much electronic these days, so location shouldn't matter.
Finance as a profession has not really embraced remote work (yet?), so I'm not sure why you think the fact that parts of the system are electronic matters. The workers are still collocated in big financial cities, which used to be London, but seems like it'll be Frankfurt now. As for why it's a banking city, well, it just feels like it. There's big buildings associated with banks everywhere, and it has that new building/office park financial sector feel. Plus there's literally a huge monument to the Euro.
I work in software like most of us, software being absolutely electronic, but my company hasn't really embraced remote work either, so hence I'm in NYC.
I work in software like most of us, software being absolutely electronic, but my company hasn't really embraced remote work either, so hence I'm in NYC.
"Banking city" does not mean there's plenty of bank branches around :-)
Companies in the same industry tend to gravitate around each other so they can cluster talent, lobby governments and "build synergies" (sorry for the buzzword), among other reasons. The City of London is that kind of cluster.
Companies in the same industry tend to gravitate around each other so they can cluster talent, lobby governments and "build synergies" (sorry for the buzzword), among other reasons. The City of London is that kind of cluster.
Maybe because a number of Spain's biggest banks including BBVA, Santander and Caixa aren't headquartered in Madrid?
When you are number two and number one gets killed by stupid politics.
Frankfurt may or may not be number one, Frankfurt still profits enormously by Brexit.
Frankfurt may or may not be number one, Frankfurt still profits enormously by Brexit.
I'm not convinced that making finance more expensive produces any winners.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Big finance is seen as a systemic risk, and you could say that the EU is just doing its job in wanting to maintain some level of control over such big and important of an industry. Many of the banks wouldn't have probably left anyway (many still might not) if it had looked like the EU and the UK would come to a sensible arrangement, but lately it seems like the UK politicians in charge of Brexit are shooting themselves in the foot constantly (the latest example being B. Johnson and his "they can go whistle" remark).
> the latest example being B. Johnson and his "they can go whistle" remark
This. No matter how you voted, strategy on the UK side has been a complete clusterfuck.
This. No matter how you voted, strategy on the UK side has been a complete clusterfuck.
It's about leverage in the power sense, rather than financial. If systemically important banks are outside the EU's jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction lets them fail, it could hurt EU member states more than the foreign jurisdiction. Thus banks that are systemically important to the EU must not be outside the EU's supervision, one way or another - in direct opposition to May's obsession with sovereignty.
The UK's sovereignty will need to be traded away to get any alternative free trade deals in any case, but UK politicians have been too cowardly to make that case to the public, so the fact that nothing is really going to change much on the red tape front hasn't sunk in yet. You can't trade without agreement on standards, and to get multiple parties to agree, you need one of those nasty globalist organisations involved.
The UK's sovereignty will need to be traded away to get any alternative free trade deals in any case, but UK politicians have been too cowardly to make that case to the public, so the fact that nothing is really going to change much on the red tape front hasn't sunk in yet. You can't trade without agreement on standards, and to get multiple parties to agree, you need one of those nasty globalist organisations involved.
Wacky. If that is the case, California's GDP could surpass England's.
The exit really is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The exit really is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Sorry to nitpick, but considering that England is not the United Kingdom, it already is ($ 2.44 trillion for California vs. $ 2 trillion for England in 2015). California also is 4 times as big as England and has only 14 million fewer inhabitants. California is massive.
It may sounds naive, but why is the physical location of a bank still relevant today?
In this case, there are two factors:
- The European Central Bank (may) insist on certain services only being offered by banks in their jurisdiction, to avoid becoming dependent on companies they can't regulate
- The EU's core principle are the "Four Freedoms": those of capital, services, products, and labour. They won't allow Britain to pick-and-choose only the first three.
- The European Central Bank (may) insist on certain services only being offered by banks in their jurisdiction, to avoid becoming dependent on companies they can't regulate
- The EU's core principle are the "Four Freedoms": those of capital, services, products, and labour. They won't allow Britain to pick-and-choose only the first three.
>The EU's core principle are the "Four Freedoms": those of capital, services, products, and labour.
So basically all the kinds of freedoms for commerce and employers, and none for the people ("freedom of labour" being an euphemism for "lesser job protections").
So basically all the kinds of freedoms for commerce and employers, and none for the people ("freedom of labour" being an euphemism for "lesser job protections").
They say, don't feed the troll. But I will answer you.
Likely the EU will have much higher labor protections that the UK.
"freedom of labour" actually means you are free to move and work or open a business as an EU citizen within the EU.
>They say, don't feed the troll.
They say it, but which part of my comment made you think I don't believe what I say (which is the necessary condition for it being a "troll")? Not to mention, that whether you disagree or not, it is a very common criticism against EUs policies, driven by big capital?
>Likely the EU will have much higher labor protections that the UK.
Maybe, maybe not, can't speak for the UK.
What I do know for certain is that EU regulations have unmade decades old worker protections and labor rights in mine (and other) EU countries.
That said, here's what a UK person writes: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/eu-doe...
They say it, but which part of my comment made you think I don't believe what I say (which is the necessary condition for it being a "troll")? Not to mention, that whether you disagree or not, it is a very common criticism against EUs policies, driven by big capital?
>Likely the EU will have much higher labor protections that the UK.
Maybe, maybe not, can't speak for the UK.
What I do know for certain is that EU regulations have unmade decades old worker protections and labor rights in mine (and other) EU countries.
That said, here's what a UK person writes: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/eu-doe...
I don't know the Newstatesman but it sounds like a very biased magazine.
"This same economics is being inflicted on Britain – cuts and austerity. Living standards have fallen, wages reduced as a proportion of total economic output (GDP) and in real terms, and inequality and poverty increasing. " This actually may be true. And indeed. It could be partly be caused by the EU. Have a look at the UK's debt: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/19/article-0-1AE4486F...
The UK had serious problems. Then, under Thatcher, the UK rose again and had comparably low debt. Some say this is due to Thatcher. I would have said this at one point, now I say that it was because of oil found in the Northern Sea. The UK's debt exploded after 2007, also, because the UK had a huge, potential unhealthy financial sector.
So if you say that the EU is causing the problems in the UK this may be in fact true, since it allowed "The City" to live unreasonably from grains from the Financial Industry while some parts of the UK did very badly. I can not exclude the possibility that loosing a huge chunk of the financial industry and do a re-balancing may actually a good thing for the average Joe who does not live in "The City". London voted "stay" by the way.
"This same economics is being inflicted on Britain – cuts and austerity. Living standards have fallen, wages reduced as a proportion of total economic output (GDP) and in real terms, and inequality and poverty increasing. " This actually may be true. And indeed. It could be partly be caused by the EU. Have a look at the UK's debt: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/19/article-0-1AE4486F...
The UK had serious problems. Then, under Thatcher, the UK rose again and had comparably low debt. Some say this is due to Thatcher. I would have said this at one point, now I say that it was because of oil found in the Northern Sea. The UK's debt exploded after 2007, also, because the UK had a huge, potential unhealthy financial sector.
So if you say that the EU is causing the problems in the UK this may be in fact true, since it allowed "The City" to live unreasonably from grains from the Financial Industry while some parts of the UK did very badly. I can not exclude the possibility that loosing a huge chunk of the financial industry and do a re-balancing may actually a good thing for the average Joe who does not live in "The City". London voted "stay" by the way.
Always an entertaining thing to say, never true though. UK labour protection exceeds that stipulated by EU regulation. And it is likely to continue to do so.
The UK has not historically been at the forefront in terms of labour protection, and the EU did nudge it in that direction.
Au contraire – "freedom of labour" actually ended up being something of a euphemism for freedom of movement, sold in in such economic terms to make it palatable to conservatives (and to fit the theme).
"Freedom of movement" as in "let's bring in cheaper foreign workers and lesser wages and the collective working bargaining powers of workers in each country".
The same freedom of movement that SV companies celebrate when they bring in foreign IT workers with H1B Visas, and then pay them less.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/fixing-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-h-1b_us_5890d86ce4...
The same freedom of movement that SV companies celebrate when they bring in foreign IT workers with H1B Visas, and then pay them less.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/fixing-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-h-1b_us_5890d86ce4...
As in "if you can import your cheaply sourced products I can export my labour"
or as in "if you manufacture abroad, let me compete with that with moving my talent somewhere else"
or as in "freedom to sell my labour anywhere in the EU"
or as in "you can bring factories to my poorer country, but I can move to your richer country and also benefit"
or as in "part of the 4 freedoms that actually balance each other - they're not a set of 4 freedoms because of identitarian reasons, they exist because they're practical and work well together"
I am a migrant working in the UK and it's quite offensive that you would suggest FoM only lowers wages (HINT: It doesn't, look up the LSE's study about it), suggesting I'm here because I'm cheaper.
or as in "if you manufacture abroad, let me compete with that with moving my talent somewhere else"
or as in "freedom to sell my labour anywhere in the EU"
or as in "you can bring factories to my poorer country, but I can move to your richer country and also benefit"
or as in "part of the 4 freedoms that actually balance each other - they're not a set of 4 freedoms because of identitarian reasons, they exist because they're practical and work well together"
I am a migrant working in the UK and it's quite offensive that you would suggest FoM only lowers wages (HINT: It doesn't, look up the LSE's study about it), suggesting I'm here because I'm cheaper.
>(HINT: It doesn't, look up the LSE's study about it)
Hint, besides a brief stint in the 60s-early 70s, the LSE has for many decades be an establishment institution. It's not going to rock any boats with its research. It's like expecting the bankers to be critical of the banking system. Using immigration to bring cheap labour in has been going on since at least the industrial revolution.
>suggesting I'm here because I'm cheaper
I'm not suggesting anything about you in particular. Well skilled professionals do migrate and command equal or bigger than local average wages too. In pointing out what is the case in general, not for outliers.
Hint, besides a brief stint in the 60s-early 70s, the LSE has for many decades be an establishment institution. It's not going to rock any boats with its research. It's like expecting the bankers to be critical of the banking system. Using immigration to bring cheap labour in has been going on since at least the industrial revolution.
>suggesting I'm here because I'm cheaper
I'm not suggesting anything about you in particular. Well skilled professionals do migrate and command equal or bigger than local average wages too. In pointing out what is the case in general, not for outliers.
Taxes and regulations.
workforce
Well, I dunno, just a decade ago most people in Eastern Europe weren't using credit cards and loans. These days, everyone does, they were "enlightened". Maybe banks profit on developing countries and it makes sense to stay where the future profits are...
Same reason as SV is relevant for tech.
You know what - I think there are a great deal of legal and technical factors in play.
But forgive me in also indulging in the idea that a physical location can also bring a sense of atmosphere or prestige - belonging - that is important in any human activity, and can add a relevance which is not immediately obvious.
Which is not to say that such an atmosphere can't dissolve quite quickly.
But forgive me in also indulging in the idea that a physical location can also bring a sense of atmosphere or prestige - belonging - that is important in any human activity, and can add a relevance which is not immediately obvious.
Which is not to say that such an atmosphere can't dissolve quite quickly.
on one hand the EU is criticising Trump for threatening to institute trade barriers, whilst it is simultaneously threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK (unless it pays vast sums of money, and then it's only to begin talking about a free trade agreement)
can anyone explain why the EU is viewed as some sort of kind, progressive organisation, when in reality acts like a bitter, protectionist bully?
can anyone explain why the EU is viewed as some sort of kind, progressive organisation, when in reality acts like a bitter, protectionist bully?
Touchée. I give you a point here. But there is the Idea of of the four freedoms for Europe. This may be a good thing or not (I think it is). But If you are part of Europe, you either take all or none. And if some Brexiters are claiming "look, we can get the same deal that Japan is getting this year" then they are delusional. The reason why Japan can get such a deal is because Japan is not a geographic part of Europe.
There are things that I don't like about the EU. Especially:
* Bureaucracy
* They spent 40% of their budget for agriculture subsidies.
* Now we have open boarders for immigrants from very violent and tribal societies. (You can downvote me for this if you like).
But here are many positive things. Freedom of movement. You can work, retire or open a business in any EU country that you want. Open skies - very cheap airfares (which will hurt the UK a lot).
What happens just this year is mind blowing.
* Free trade agreement with Japan
* Potential free trade agreement with Mercosur countries
* No roaming charges for cell phones anymore
* PSD2 for Fintech (Banks have to grant access to bank accounts for fintechs)
* Money Wires are very cheap or free within the EU. They can still take a day or two. Starting November Banks must offer "instant EU money wires". I think the time is less than a minute. Less than a bitcoin transaction takes to process.
* Military Headquarter in the EU, beginning of an EU army
Don't write the EU off. Nobody knows the future but for me the Brexit seems like madness.
There are things that I don't like about the EU. Especially:
* Bureaucracy
* They spent 40% of their budget for agriculture subsidies.
* Now we have open boarders for immigrants from very violent and tribal societies. (You can downvote me for this if you like).
But here are many positive things. Freedom of movement. You can work, retire or open a business in any EU country that you want. Open skies - very cheap airfares (which will hurt the UK a lot).
What happens just this year is mind blowing.
* Free trade agreement with Japan
* Potential free trade agreement with Mercosur countries
* No roaming charges for cell phones anymore
* PSD2 for Fintech (Banks have to grant access to bank accounts for fintechs)
* Money Wires are very cheap or free within the EU. They can still take a day or two. Starting November Banks must offer "instant EU money wires". I think the time is less than a minute. Less than a bitcoin transaction takes to process.
* Military Headquarter in the EU, beginning of an EU army
Don't write the EU off. Nobody knows the future but for me the Brexit seems like madness.
I am surprised that you left the ruin of Greece off your list of things that you don't like about the EU.
Well, I think it was the Greeks who ruined Greece (with the help of Goldman Sachs). Greece should never have joined the Euro (thanks Goldman Sachs). It is also a very corrupt country for EU standards. The good thing is: It is a small country. I think things will improve in the long run.
But since you mentioned Greece. What about Puerto Rico? Illinois?
But since you mentioned Greece. What about Puerto Rico? Illinois?
So it was fine for Italy to join?
[deleted]
Regarding EU bureaucracy, isn't it clear that some is required?
Otherwise how do you replace, for example, 28 different national systems for classifying bananas with a single classification without a certain amount of bureaucracy? You either hive massive multilateral discussions among 28 national bureaucracies or you get rid of the individual national burocrats and delegate this function to Brussels.
I love the bananna thing btw - it's a long time favourite of EU haters as an example of EU overreach. Europhobic UK newspapers have milked it for years - out-of-control bureaucrats making up useles regulations and creating red-tape. But they never mention that it replaced was 28 individual national banana classifcations.
Otherwise how do you replace, for example, 28 different national systems for classifying bananas with a single classification without a certain amount of bureaucracy? You either hive massive multilateral discussions among 28 national bureaucracies or you get rid of the individual national burocrats and delegate this function to Brussels.
I love the bananna thing btw - it's a long time favourite of EU haters as an example of EU overreach. Europhobic UK newspapers have milked it for years - out-of-control bureaucrats making up useles regulations and creating red-tape. But they never mention that it replaced was 28 individual national banana classifcations.
Note that the "banana regulation" is actually no longer in force, because "EU bureaucrats" got tired hearing it dragged out in every single debate.
The result is that the content of the regulation have become the de-facto standard in the industry that everyone is following voluntarily.
The result is that the content of the regulation have become the de-facto standard in the industry that everyone is following voluntarily.
> The result is that the content of the regulation have become the de-facto standard in the industry that everyone is following voluntarily.
It was even the other way round. Lobbyists of merchants wanted cheaper transport costs and solved it on a EU level.
It was even the other way round. Lobbyists of merchants wanted cheaper transport costs and solved it on a EU level.
It was both ways around. The wanted it, got it, then continued using it after it was no longer official.
Exactly this.
And the UK is going to learn about it the hard way (if it goes ahead with Brexit, less likely by the day). The Euratom debacle is already showing that.
And the UK is going to learn about it the hard way (if it goes ahead with Brexit, less likely by the day). The Euratom debacle is already showing that.
But I'll ignore the tone and rhetorical nature of your question and try to explain.
The UK decided to leave the EU which means leaving the single market. I'm guessing you do not appreciate the vast difference between being part of a single market and having a trade deal.
Regardless of the existence of NAFTA for example, a company based in Mexico city will not have all the same rights and access to the US market as one based in the US.
However being a member of the EU means, for example a Danish company can load up a van with its produce, drive to London and deliver them to a customer without any paperwork or customs checks along the way. It has all the rights of a company based in another UK city.
This can only work if there are shared standards across the EU and if there is an authority (ultimately the European Court of Justice) to ensure these rights are available to all. It also requires common standards for goods and services.
The UK simply cannot expect to maintain this level of access to the EU market unless it is willing to accept the ECJ and all the EU laws and regulations.
Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist (given that 17 of the 20 most globalised countries in the world in terms of trade are members).
The UK decided to leave the EU which means leaving the single market. I'm guessing you do not appreciate the vast difference between being part of a single market and having a trade deal.
Regardless of the existence of NAFTA for example, a company based in Mexico city will not have all the same rights and access to the US market as one based in the US.
However being a member of the EU means, for example a Danish company can load up a van with its produce, drive to London and deliver them to a customer without any paperwork or customs checks along the way. It has all the rights of a company based in another UK city.
This can only work if there are shared standards across the EU and if there is an authority (ultimately the European Court of Justice) to ensure these rights are available to all. It also requires common standards for goods and services.
The UK simply cannot expect to maintain this level of access to the EU market unless it is willing to accept the ECJ and all the EU laws and regulations.
Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist (given that 17 of the 20 most globalised countries in the world in terms of trade are members).
> Btw, only someone with no historical perspective whatsoever would question the progressive credentials of the EU (given the recent history of some of its members: communist rule, military and fascist dictatorship, sectarian division) or accuse it of being protectionist
I would challenge you to explain how the Common External Tariff combined with the Common Agricultural Policy are not protectionist (tariffs average 18%)!
outside of the CAP: there are plenty of other examples of heavy protectionism in the CET. sugar and coffee are two easy examples.
sugar has a heavy import tariff: to give the domestic EU sugar beet industry an huge advantage over the cane sugar business in the developing world
coffee is more insidious: processed coffee has a heavy import tariff, whilst unprocessed coffee has no tariff at all, this prevents producers in developing countries from developing the profitable part of the industry, forcing them to sell the raw produce at low prices to the EU
there are plenty of other examples, the net effect of being that if you are a developing nation: the EU is not an easy destination for your goods
I would challenge you to explain how the Common External Tariff combined with the Common Agricultural Policy are not protectionist (tariffs average 18%)!
outside of the CAP: there are plenty of other examples of heavy protectionism in the CET. sugar and coffee are two easy examples.
sugar has a heavy import tariff: to give the domestic EU sugar beet industry an huge advantage over the cane sugar business in the developing world
coffee is more insidious: processed coffee has a heavy import tariff, whilst unprocessed coffee has no tariff at all, this prevents producers in developing countries from developing the profitable part of the industry, forcing them to sell the raw produce at low prices to the EU
there are plenty of other examples, the net effect of being that if you are a developing nation: the EU is not an easy destination for your goods
I would challenge you to explain what is exceptionally protectionist about EU agricultural policy compared to say the US, Japan or any other large economy.
CAP is a product of its time (sixties and seventies) but has been and continues to be reformed beyond recognition. All the export subsidies, quotas, price floors and other market distortions are gone or are in the process of being phased out.
As for sugar tariffs, it has been used as a tool for development policy with developing countries having zero-tariff access to EU markets. The processed Coffee tariff is not "heavy" - certainly less than 10% from what I recall.
CAP is a product of its time (sixties and seventies) but has been and continues to be reformed beyond recognition. All the export subsidies, quotas, price floors and other market distortions are gone or are in the process of being phased out.
As for sugar tariffs, it has been used as a tool for development policy with developing countries having zero-tariff access to EU markets. The processed Coffee tariff is not "heavy" - certainly less than 10% from what I recall.
I didn't say "compared to other large economies", I said it was protectionist in itself, which it is
yes, the CAP was a product of its time, but it's still there, it still makes up a huge 39% of the budget[1] (down from 79%, true), and the external tariffs on agriculture average out to a whopping 18%
if this isn't protectionism, what is?
[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cap...
yes, the CAP was a product of its time, but it's still there, it still makes up a huge 39% of the budget[1] (down from 79%, true), and the external tariffs on agriculture average out to a whopping 18%
if this isn't protectionism, what is?
[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cap...
Different trade barriers. The EU already has very few tariffs, most of them strategic. The weighted mean applied tariff rate for EU member states is 1.57% [1].
The tricky aspect of free trade agreements is the non-tariff barriers [2]; those relate mostly to regulations, including labor protection, health, the environment, money laundering, and such.
They are very difficult to negotiate, because a lot of them are not about economics, but about things that people genuinely care about. For example, one of the major sticking points with TTIP was food quality (the chlorinated chicken debate). As a result, trade agreements that want to reduce regulatory barriers take years to negotiate.
Within the EU, this problem is addressed by having an actual, full-blown bicameral legislature and a court of justice to protect the interests of the member states and their citizens. But the UK doesn't even like the ECJ, so this is not going to be easy.
As far as the negotiations go, the British government has nobody but itself to blame. It doesn't even seem to be prepared for negotiations (and one has to wonder what it wasted the past year on); it has consistently and aggressively talked trash about the EU (in order to appeal to UKIP voters?), has issued threats (such as turning the UK into a European Singapore), and so forth. It should not be surprising that the reaction hasn't exactly been amicable.
[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?vie...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-tariff_barriers_to_trade
The tricky aspect of free trade agreements is the non-tariff barriers [2]; those relate mostly to regulations, including labor protection, health, the environment, money laundering, and such.
They are very difficult to negotiate, because a lot of them are not about economics, but about things that people genuinely care about. For example, one of the major sticking points with TTIP was food quality (the chlorinated chicken debate). As a result, trade agreements that want to reduce regulatory barriers take years to negotiate.
Within the EU, this problem is addressed by having an actual, full-blown bicameral legislature and a court of justice to protect the interests of the member states and their citizens. But the UK doesn't even like the ECJ, so this is not going to be easy.
As far as the negotiations go, the British government has nobody but itself to blame. It doesn't even seem to be prepared for negotiations (and one has to wonder what it wasted the past year on); it has consistently and aggressively talked trash about the EU (in order to appeal to UKIP voters?), has issued threats (such as turning the UK into a European Singapore), and so forth. It should not be surprising that the reaction hasn't exactly been amicable.
[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS?vie...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-tariff_barriers_to_trade
Give me a fucking break mate.
If tomorrow the UK says: "Fuck, we screwed up, let's stay in the EU" then the EU will put all their resources behind making that happen. No barriers at all: 4 freedoms and hopefully Schengen, too.
Where do you get the idea that is the EU the one leaving the UK for racist reasons, thus wanting to erect barriers against workers from other countries?
If tomorrow the UK says: "Fuck, we screwed up, let's stay in the EU" then the EU will put all their resources behind making that happen. No barriers at all: 4 freedoms and hopefully Schengen, too.
Where do you get the idea that is the EU the one leaving the UK for racist reasons, thus wanting to erect barriers against workers from other countries?
The EU's position is consistent with its founding idea of a free market tied to shared values and the rights of its people. Asking for a better deal is like asking Apple for 30% off on an iPhone because "their margin is 35%, so it should still be a good deal for them"–it's just not gonna happen.
It's not like these consequences weren't mentioned before. And I won't bother repeating the arguments about Britain's existing financial obligations which you chose to pretend to be ignorant of.
It's not like these consequences weren't mentioned before. And I won't bother repeating the arguments about Britain's existing financial obligations which you chose to pretend to be ignorant of.
I'm an EU citizen, and am entirely satisfied with how the EU is handling brexit. The UK has been getting special treatment for long enough. At some point you have to decide whether you want to play ball, and the UK decided not to. Too bad.
>threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK (unless it pays vast sums of money, and then it's only to begin talking about a free trade agreement
Like the kind of money that other EEA members are paying to access to common market?
>threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK (unless it pays vast sums of money, and then it's only to begin talking about a free trade agreement
Like the kind of money that other EEA members are paying to access to common market?
Oh puhleese. The EU very much wanted the UK to stay in the union. The UK is the one that decided to leave. No way they should get to have the benefits of membership without the responsibilities. And your characterizing this as just "EU putting up trade barriers to the UK" is laughable.
it is not asking for the "benefits of membership", the UK Government is asking for a free trade agreement along the lines of that agreed with Canada
They had a great free trade agreement - when they were in the European Union.
that is not in question, but full membership is now politically unacceptable to the UK electorate
the UK Government wants to keep barriers to trade as low as possible, it is seeking a free trade agreement
the EU is currently ratifying the Canadian FTA, and last week announced agreement with Japan had been reached that would reduce barriers by 99%[1]... whilst simultaneously threatening the UK with increased barriers to trade
[1]: https://www.ft.com/content/c874d02a-60ba-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26...
the UK Government wants to keep barriers to trade as low as possible, it is seeking a free trade agreement
the EU is currently ratifying the Canadian FTA, and last week announced agreement with Japan had been reached that would reduce barriers by 99%[1]... whilst simultaneously threatening the UK with increased barriers to trade
[1]: https://www.ft.com/content/c874d02a-60ba-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26...
> that is not in question, but full membership is now politically unacceptable to the UK electorate
> the UK Government wants to keep barriers to trade as low as possible, it is seeking a free trade agreement
UK electorate cannot have both
> the UK Government wants to keep barriers to trade as low as possible, it is seeking a free trade agreement
UK electorate cannot have both
Im not going to read that huge list of links, but from what I understand CETA doesn't cover e.g. eggs, poultry... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/15/brexit-canada-...
And doesn't cover finantial services, thing that is very important for the UK
An agreement that was negotiated for a long, long time? Not two years
And what the UK wants is not a free trade agreement, they want the same acces that they have now.
And what the UK wants is not a free trade agreement, they want the same acces that they have now.
yes, it took a while to negotiate
the UK wants an "ambitious free trade agreement", not membership of the single market, if you don't believe me see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negot...
the UK wants an "ambitious free trade agreement", not membership of the single market, if you don't believe me see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negot...
So we do not seek membership of the single market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.A much more limited arrangement than the single market.
Why not?
A free trade agreement does not require being in the EU. So of course they want one. The EU saying no is there way of punishing the UK, and discouraging any other nations from leaving. Hmmm. Freedom of choice indeed.
"A free trade agreement does not require being in the EU." which is only offered to NON European countries. Please see the deal that Switzerland and Norway got. Deals that the UK does not want.
"there way of punishing the UK" Look, If you are going to have a divorce and tell your wife: "Look, we are going to have a divorce but I don't want to pay alimony and we are going to stay fuck buddies and the cottage in Italy that you inherited from your parents, I am still going to use this."
Then all this sounds like an excellent idea but if your wife says "I pass" this does not mean that your wife is going to "punish you". She is just passing on the deal.
"there way of punishing the UK" Look, If you are going to have a divorce and tell your wife: "Look, we are going to have a divorce but I don't want to pay alimony and we are going to stay fuck buddies and the cottage in Italy that you inherited from your parents, I am still going to use this."
Then all this sounds like an excellent idea but if your wife says "I pass" this does not mean that your wife is going to "punish you". She is just passing on the deal.
So the EU will offer will only free trade deals to those not in the European continent, that sounds even worse, sounds like trying to force people into their cartel.
Take it or leave it. But now, you can get a free trade deal even if you are in the European continent. But then all four freedoms apply. No cherry picking. Use your brain!
Did they? Where was the subsidy for shipping across the channel?
They'll get it, eventually.
I gotta ask the opposite, why does the UK want such an FTA so much?
Could it be, gasp, that they realized they're actually fucked without one?
I gotta ask the opposite, why does the UK want such an FTA so much?
Could it be, gasp, that they realized they're actually fucked without one?
> whilst it is simultaneously threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK
The one leaving the EU is Uk. And you cannot have the cake and eat it.
Uk position until now is ditching all the obligations and keep the the benefits.
UE is not threateting to institute economic barriers, they are saying that if UK is not an EU member they should be treated like so
The one leaving the EU is Uk. And you cannot have the cake and eat it.
Uk position until now is ditching all the obligations and keep the the benefits.
UE is not threateting to institute economic barriers, they are saying that if UK is not an EU member they should be treated like so
And the uk is asking to be treated like Canada or Japan, which have free trade agreements. We would like some of that cake please, it was fun at the EU party, but we don't think it's working out for us (nor for some others, but they are too scared to say) and we would like to get on with doing things independently thanks.
If you want to live in beautiful luxury, you are also at the right spot! The Taunus mountains north-west of the city house a myriad of bankers and CEOs in beautiful and expensive villas, combine perfect schools with healthy nature and nice views on the city. You'll have to buy something more sporty than a Porsche to get some looks, as Porsche is the standard family car there (or High-End BMWs or Mercedes)... If, besides work, you want to enjoy culture, this city serves you plenty. Museums, Opera, Theaters, Rock concerts: here, you have them all.
So to those you wonder if Frankfurt is really the place to go, I say: I love the world, I like many other places, but if I could, I would take my Frankfurt anywhere I go.