[Political Interest]

The UK has not dug its own grave by leaving the EU but it certainly is doing so through its xenophobia and Slavophobia. This will not be good for Britain in the future. All of Europe is watching and seeing how Europeans are being treated in this country.

Slavophobes are generally some of the worst people you can imagine. They are completely vile.

[Hong Wu]

All the people calling for revenge or consequences against the UK might not understand that this will make it easy to portray the fallout as the work of hostile foreigners, which will in turn only make people more interested in rejecting the EU. This was one of the mistakes avoided at the end of WWII but clearly the west has regressed since then.

[Glen]

All the people calling for revenge or consequences against the UK might not understand that this will make it easy to portray the fallout as the work of hostile foreigners, which will in turn only make people more interested in rejecting the EU. This was one of the mistakes avoided at the end of WWII but clearly the west has regressed since then.

In today's news, a Swedish commissioner was acting as though she thinks the EU can and will disempower the UK and intentionally disrupt UK-EU free trade.

I question whether or not the EU has any say at all on matter of free trade within the EEA? The UK has previously moved between trade blocs without difficulty. The UK left EFTA and Commonwealth trade blocs when joining the EU, and those affected blocs did not demand that the UK leave them before the UK begins negotiating with the EU.

The current stance of the EU is the UK might not leave the EU until 2018 and cannot begin negotiating EU trade deals until after it leaves, implying that UK-EU trade could be disrupted until circa 2025. This is very aggressive and unprecedented posturing by the EU, and I question whether their position is within international rule of law?

The UK obviously trades more with some EU members more that others, such that removing UK-EU free trade would impact some EU partners more than other EU partners. WTO requires "equal treatment for all trading partners", and is equal impact effectively the same as equal treatment? Ending UK-EU free trade would have unequal consequences within the EU. One of the biggest losers would be Germany because the UK became Germany's biggest trade partner in 2012.

WTO also states "non-members should not find trade with the group any more restrictive than before the group was set up". The Hanseatic League protected some trade between UK and Germany in 1358, the UK founded EFTA in 1960, and it is the EFTA that manages the 31 state EEA bloc - not the EU, and the EU came to exist in 1993 (EEA existed from 1994). As EFTA manages EEA, and EFTA is independent of the EU, why can the UK not simply continue its EEA treaty ignore the EU? Why is any EU-UK negotiation required to retain free trade with EU member states given that they are each a separate and sovereign signatory of the EEA? Why are suggestions that UK-EU negotiations are needed to retain EEA free trade not in itself a breach of WTO international law?

Link: The EEA Agreement

[Bosnjak]

Germany, Luxemburg and Ireland are happy, they will get the London Banks and their taxes.... I think this is the real reason why Juncker (lux) and Merkel (ger) made no real compromises to stop the Brexit...

[Glen]

Germany, Luxemburg and Ireland are happy, they will get the London Banks and their taxes.... I think this is the real reason why Juncker (lux) and Merkel (ger) made no real compromises to stop the Brexit...

Banks need financial credibility to do business and global industry bodies exist to encourage that credibility. Typical rules state that when banks do business, they need to follow the laws in the strictest country. Global banking perceives the City of London as the benchmark because the UK has stricter rules and a fair legal system. That isn't changing.

See the thread on the LuxLeaks scandal for why credible banks can no longer relocate their HQ to Luxembourg. Frankfurt will remain a gamble until the Dexit question is answered, and emerging EU regulation known as MiFID II will cost the EU banks billions,

For larger firms, it will just be another regulatory burden, but for smaller companies, such as those which are dominant in Germany, the costs may be unbearable and concerns have arisen that competition in the European financial sector will take a severe hit when smaller IFAs are forced to consolidate.

Work has been steadily streaming out of the UK to India to reduce costs, not Frankfurt or Paris. Brexit will not spare London from MiFID II, and there is no sense in thinking that Brexit will help banking in Frankfurt or Paris because MiFID II removes the transaction costs between borders. The banking sector is under pressure in all parts of Europe.

Worldfinance.com , MiFID II

[killim]

Pote explained that EU is run by libertards, hence their fundamentalist dogma that freedom of movement has to go hand in hand with 'free trade'. He did not argue that in the end it has to be this way.

Killim so the burden of proof is still on you to explain yourself, please.

That you are not capable or willing to understand how the price mechanism works does not mean that it is a somewhat ideological construct. So far the price mechanism was and still is the best solutiont for the allocation of resources in an economy (ignoring externalities), thats a hard empirical fact. If you want to get an insight simply build up a two country IS-LM analysis. That has nothing to do with ideology.

In today's news, a Swedish commissioner was acting as though she thinks the EU can and will disempower the UK and intentionally disrupt UK-EU free trade.

Thats not something the EU. Once the UK leaves the EU it automatically falls back onto WTO based trade with the EU, which is -as we are saying for months- going to kill your exports. The loss of the EU-based trade treaties with other countries is just the icing of the cake.

I question whether or not the EU has any say at all on matter of free trade within the EEA? The UK has previously moved between trade blocs without difficulty. The UK left EFTA and Commonwealth trade blocs when joining the EU, and those affected blocs did not demand that the UK leave them before the UK begins negotiating with the EU.

Your current bilateral trate treaties to other countries are not effected. The problem is though that the trade with the EU makes up the vast majority of your exports. Add to that the EU-based bilateral treaties and you are talking easily about >50% of you exports in a country with a gigantic trade deficit and debts >100% of your GDP.

[Glen]

Once the UK leaves the EU it automatically falls back onto WTO based trade with the EU ...

I agree, and what does WTO say about this scenario?

Assume the EU is a trade bloc. In the case of trade blocs, the WTO rules apply to any historic trade agreements: WTO states, "non-members should not find trade with the group any more restrictive than before the group was set up".

The group was set up in 1992, and the UK had extensive trade agreements with other European countries before 1992. WTO rules are that the EU group cannot make trade between UK-DE, UK-FR, UK-ES, UK-IT, UK-* any more restrictive than it was in 1992. It is hard to identify exactly what trade was like in 1992 because it was EEC plus other bilateral agreements. Never the less, WTO can be interpreted as saying that future EU-UK trade cannot contain barriers that are more restrictive than the EEC in 1992, and that means "no tariff barriers".

My interpretation is that if the EU imposes any tariff barrier then the UK is in its rights to seek WTO action. I will consider any counter-argument grounded in international law. I will not entertain unfounded anti-UK media rhetoric.

The EU takes a different view because it considers the EEC to have been superseded by the EU, but WTO clearly states that whatever existed before the EU remains in effect. Furthermore, the UK Government has no mandate to enact Article 50 if doing so means breaking EEC trade agreements because the 1975 UK referendum is an instruction from the people to retain EEC regulations.

[Glen]

Slavophobes are generally some of the worst people you can imagine. They are completely vile.

It is shocking. The BBC now shows non-white Britons distraught because they are being abused by the occasional far-right xenophobe that has misinterpreted Brexit.

No policy in the leave coalition received majority consensus. Some in the leave coalition voted against EU institutions, some voted against trade restrictions (i.e. China), some voted against specific industry treaties (i.e. CAP), some voted against unlimited migration, some voted against any and all change, and a very small minority voted along xenophobic lines. Somehow the far-right believe they are in the majority. It is a facepalm moment in world history.

[Hheydaroff]

Everything depends on what path they will choose.
UK can benefit form this break-up. They want to get along with China, they want to dictate their own rules, they want to import and export whatever they want, they want to control their borders as they want, etc. But, in case their plans do not work, they will lose the free flow of everything, they will lose being the financial center, they will lose the asset values, they will lose the unity of UK.
For EU, it's hell much harder. All rightwing leaders are cheering over the break-up. Greece, Spain, Italy, France wants to get out too. They already fed-up from Euro crisis, immigrants, and not-so-fair regulations and policies. If EU authorities don't pivot in this step, they will definitely lose the faith and contribution to the EU.
I wrote an article about this dillema.
http://fpmagazine.net/dilemma-of-brexit/

[noemon]

As many as one in five businesses surveyed by the Institute of Directors are considering moving some of their operations outside the UK.

It is likely to be harder for London-based businesses to serve European markets after Brexit
Firms are already on the hunt for the 'new London' after the decision for the UK to leave the EU has left many businesses wondering over their future in the capital.

As many as one in five businesses surveyed by the Institute of Directors are considering moving some of their operations outside the UK.

Vodafone, the seventh biggest company on the FTSE 100, has cast doubt over whether it will continue to keep its group headquarters in Paddington if it will no longer have access to the single market. The company said its Vodafone UK headquarters in Newbury were not affected.

“It remains unclear at this point how many of those positive attributes will remain in place once the process of the UK's exit from the European Union has been completed,” a spokesman said.

Goldman Sachs, the US investment bank, is also not ruling out a move.

Richard Gnodde, the co-head of the investment banking division of Goldman Sachs, said that “every outcome is possible” when asked if the bank plans would involve moving some of its employees to Eurozone cities in the wake of the EU referendum.

Many other firms have reiterated their commitment to stay - at least for now.

Jes Staley, the chief executive of Barclays, has said the bank has no plans to move people out of the UK because of Brexit.

Meanwhile Douglas Flint, chairman, told City executives that the referendum result would not trigger another review into whether to move HSBC overseas. A review that concluded in February said that HSBC should stay put.

These companies have good reasons to stay.

London has frequently topped the rankings of the best global cities to do business in. It was named the best city in the world for businesses by the City Moment Index in January for its economic growth and real estate structure.

London was pulling ahead of New York as recently as March, when Deloitte declared that London's 1.71 million skilled jobs showed that it was growing faster than anywhere else in the world.

London is frequently cited as the top global city because it speaks English, the language of business. It is perceived as being soft on regulations governing business, meaning there are fewer barriers. And it is culturally rich, with excellent museums, restaurants, schools and other services that attract businesspeople from abroad.

But it is likely to be harder for London-based businesses to serve European markets after Brexit.

London is likely to lose its dominance in euro-denominated wholesale banking, or banking to mortgage brokers, mid-sized companies and real estate companies in euros. Many Eurozone companies and institutions have long wanted this activity to move to the Eurozone and be overseen by the ECB.

It might also lose its dominance in derivatives, a highly portable financial industry, if clearing houses are moved to Europe. Clearing houses in London stand between the buyers and the sellers of derivatives trades in a global market worth $493 trillion. They have become a vital safeguard to protect traders since the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.

Where would they go?

"The most likely beneficiaries in the EU are Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Dublin," Greg Irwin, chief economist, if a report released by Global Counsel.

"But they cannot replicate overnight the advantages of the London ‘ecosystem’ supporting financial services, including skilled staff, legal services and market infrastructure," he said.

That means its going to take time to find the "new London" as businesses count the cost of the referendum result and start to look to other financial centres overseas.

[Hong Wu]

In today's news, a Swedish commissioner was acting as though she thinks the EU can and will disempower the UK and intentionally disrupt UK-EU free trade.

I question whether or not the EU has any say at all on matter of free trade within the EEA? The UK has previously moved between trade blocs without difficulty. The UK left EFTA and Commonwealth trade blocs when joining the EU, and those affected blocs did not demand that the UK leave them before the UK begins negotiating with the EU.

The current stance of the EU is the UK might not leave the EU until 2018 and cannot begin negotiating EU trade deals until after it leaves, implying that UK-EU trade could be disrupted until circa 2025. This is very aggressive and unprecedented posturing by the EU, and I question whether their position is within international rule of law?

The UK obviously trades more with some EU members more that others, such that removing UK-EU free trade would impact some EU partners more than other EU partners. WTO requires "equal treatment for all trading partners", and is equal impact effectively the same as equal treatment? Ending UK-EU free trade would have unequal consequences within the EU. One of the biggest losers would be Germany because the UK became Germany's biggest trade partner in 2012.

WTO also states "non-members should not find trade with the group any more restrictive than before the group was set up". The Hanseatic League protected some trade between UK and Germany in 1358, the UK founded EFTA in 1960, and it is the EFTA that manages the 31 state EEA bloc - not the EU, and the EU came to exist in 1993 (EEA existed from 1994). As EFTA manages EEA, and EFTA is independent of the EU, why can the UK not simply continue its EEA treaty ignore the EU? Why is any EU-UK negotiation required to retain free trade with EU member states given that they are each a separate and sovereign signatory of the EEA? Why are suggestions that UK-EU negotiations are needed to retain EEA free trade not in itself a breach of WTO international law?

Link: The EEA Agreement

Who knows. TBH I don't really care... my impression of sanctions is that it hurts your country as much as the other country since before you can stop them trading with you, you have to have been mutually making money through the relationship. It's almost like high school-level ostracizing. The domestic citizens hurt by sanctions are also never those who create them, even so the "elites" wonder why no one trusts or likes them, or why their ruling paradigm is decaying. Eurocrats and Progressives learned the language of the normal people very well but the act is wearing thing.

[Baff]

Going to be a busy summer in Cambridge now Noemon.
I was planning for a quiet year until the pound dropped in value. My bookings from Japan just doubled.

@Killim 80% of our exports to the EU are not goods. Services have never been covered by the single market agreement.
The vast bulk of our Europeans exports are not covered by the EU at all. Never have been. This is just a myth promoted by power hungry liars.
Only a small fraction of our European/world exports are governed by EU rules. About 0.5% of UK GDP.

WTO rules are fine. An improvement.
We aren't Norway. No need for EFTA.

The biggest fear to our economy from Brexit is that the EU will go into recession. So work harder please! And start buying UK goods if you wish to have a strong bargaining position with us.

[redcarpet]

The self-elected EU-Commissars

They're not 'self-elected'. They're elected by the EU Parliament

[Atlantis]

The Brexiteers have compared the experts from all over the World, which have warned about the negative impact of Brexit, to Nazis (Michael Gove) and said that the Remainers were promoting "project fear."

Now it turns out that the Brexiteers worked with a hypnotist, a friend of Ukip founder Arron Banks, to stage a horror scenario of their own, which was far more effective:

Over doom-laden music, it began by asking: “Are you concerned about the amount of crime being committed in the UK by foreign criminals?” and “Are you worried about the overcrowding of the UK and the burden on the NHS?” before switching to more upbeat music and asking: “Isn’t it time to take back control?”

McKenna has also said that being absorbed and engrossed in TV broadcasts is equally as hypnotic as a hypnotically induced trance.

This week Banks revealed that a central plank of the leave campaign’s successful strategy emerged from advice taken from the US election strategists Goddard Gunster that “facts don’t work”.

He said: “The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.”

Look into my eyes: Leave.EU campaign consulted TV hypnotist

This degree of hypocrisy and sheer cynicism is beyond believe. You couldn't invent it if you wanted to.

Do these clowns and upper-class toffs don't understand to what utter depravity they have reduced their country? They have made a mockery of democracy and given a great boost to non-democratic countries like China.

Beren is right, the voters want to be lied to. It gives them that warm and oozy feeling they can wallow in.

[Atlantis]

@Killim 80% of our exports to the EU are not goods. Services have never been covered by the single market agreement.
The vast bulk of our Europeans exports are not covered by the EU at all. Never have been. This is just a myth promoted by power hungry liars.
Only a small fraction of our European/world exports are governed by EU rules. About 0.5% of UK GDP.

The great tragedy is that Brexiteers have self-indoctrinated themselves with their own propaganda to the point where they are incapable of correctly interpreting the simplest facts even if you present it to them on a golden platter.

You are right, the strength of the UK economy are services, not goods. WTO rules are for goods not for services. In other words, outside the common market, the UK will not be able to benefit from the common market for services. Many in the City and companies like Vodafone are already preparing to relocate to the continent. The same applies to the booming Internet sales market. In addition to regulatory issues, selling/buying across borders involves commercial and legal risks because individual buyers usually don't have the means to sue in foreign countries. The UK service industries will be hammered.

The merger of the London Stock Exchange and the Frankfurt stock exchange, which was to have its HQ in London, is now off unless the British agree to relocate to Frankfurt.

[redcarpet]

A warning to Gove and Johnson - we won’t forget what you did

Though events are moving fast, it’s crucial to hold on to our fury at the selfishness that caused this crisis

The Guardian

It’s gripping, of course. Game of Thrones meets House of Cards, played out at the tempo of a binge-viewed box-set. Who could resist watching former allies wrestling for the crown, betraying each other, lying, cheating and dissembling, each new twist coming within hours of the last? And this show matters, too. Whoever wins will determine Britain’s relationship with Europe.

And yet it can feel like displacement activity, this story of Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and Theresa May – a distraction diverting us from the betrayal larger than any inflicted by one Tory bigwig on another. Now that the news cycle is measured in seconds, there’s a risk that 23 June might come to feel like history, that we might move on too soon. But there can be no moving on until we have reckoned with what exactly was done to the people of these islands – and by whom.

This week’s antics of Gove and Johnson are a useful reminder. For the way one has treated the other is the way both have treated the country. Some may be tempted to turn Johnson into an object of sympathy – poor Boris, knifed by his pal – but he deserves none. In seven days he has been exposed as an egomaniac whose vanity and ambition was so great he was prepared to lead his country on a path he knew led to disaster, so long as it fed his own appetite for status.

He didn’t believe a word of his own rhetoric, we know that now. His face last Friday morning, ashen with the terror of victory, proved it. That hot mess of a column he served up on Monday confirmed it again: he was trying to back out of the very decision he’d persuaded the country to make.

Very succinct. My emphasis in bold.

[Glen]

They're not 'self-elected'. They're elected by the EU Parliament

The word 'elected' invites comparison with better-known national elections that generate a representational government following campaigning with manifesto and ideology in front of the media, and European Commission appointments are not close to being that.

The EU Parliament needs to ask the European Commission to initiate EU Parliament legislation, which makes the EU Parliament dependent on the European Commission to do its job. European Commission candidates lobby MEPs directly in the corridors of power, negotiating political alliances, and the MEPs cast their votes strategically.

The end result is a group that is technically elected, but its a far cry from what most citizens understand 'elected' to mean.

[redcarpet]

While I get your point, still, they're elected. Just indirectly, as opposed to an electorate at large. To call them 'self-elected' is misleading

[Glen]

While I get your point, still, they're elected. Just indirectly, as opposed to an electorate at large. To call them 'self-elected' is misleading

We will continue to agree that they are elected, but world history is full of vile corrupt leaders that came to power following some form of election. Strategic voting between career politicians and bureaucrats is not what most western populations associate with indirect election.

The next British PM will be indirectly elected following a campaign with media coverage, and the path to being elected to the European Commission is not close to being that.

[Baff]

You are right, the strength of the UK economy are services, not goods. WTO rules are for goods not for services. In other words, outside the common market, the UK will not be able to benefit from the common market for services. Many in the City and companies like Vodafone are already preparing to relocate to the continent. The same applies to the booming Internet sales market. In addition to regulatory issues, selling/buying across borders involves commercial and legal risks because individual buyers usually don't have the means to sue in foreign countries. The UK service industries will be hammered

There is no common market for services in the EU.
There never has been.
We aren't leaving a common market for services because there was never one in the first place.
Our service industries have been trading in EU countries from an independent UK base all along. Nothing is changed by our exit in this regard. Nothing it all.

Everybody has the right to sue in my country. Come to us if you need that.
If you are still willing to trade fairly with me, I will trust your courts in your courts jurisdiction. Or not of course depending on what I see of the results.
If you make helpful laws we may will adopt them ourselves. Business as usual, minus Brussels and Strasbourg.

Cheaper and simpler without them. Sorry palace chumps.

Some companies may indeed relocate their headquarters into the EU in line with EU regulations. Just as the also do in the US etc.
Buit given the chance they will headquarter with us because we are more friendly to them. Tax them less. Insult them less. Arrest them less.

But new businesses will come too. The pound is so cheap. Bargains abound!


PS London Stock Exchange changes hands faster than the only glove in Alaska.
This week it's American, last week it was Brit. Next week it is Frankfurt.

I'll give you a clue. They are all already linked into to each other. The only thing that will be moving is the company registration.