Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,312 profile views
  1. I certainly can: to do nothing is always a decision, an act in itself. It's a decision to procrastinate, even when it taken by omission. And Labour has done nothing since the 2016 referendum, beside voting massively for triggering Article 50 (History with a big H will eventually tell you, how pivotal to Brexit this vote was, in years and decades to come: Labour enabled the Tory s***show of the last 3+ years). Since 2016, under Corbyn, an averred Leaver, Labour has- (i) been too ideologically split over Brexit itself, to adopt a coherent policy of opposition about it (never mind against it) ; and (ii) continued to be too ideologically split, over where its political centre of gravity should lie on the centrist-Marxist axis of policies ; which both go a very long way to explain its eventual trouncing at the ballot boxes in December 2019, far more than any amount of personal character assassination directed at Corbyn ever could. Starmer started taking Labour back toward the centre as soon as he got the reins, with consistently-clear positions in its messaging , besides the obligatory purge of Labour Brexit ultras diluting the message. Labour has now overtaken the Tories in opinion polls, within a matter of a months, after years of trailing (inexcusably so, when you cast your mind over the last 4 years of 'Tory' (UKIP, really) governance). QED.
  2. There is no 'risk' about it: the EU27 have nixed ROOs on Japanese or Turkish automotive components into UK cars irrespective of any deal. That is what 'in any circumstances' mean, in: The commission has made clear that it will not agree third-country cumulation in any circumstances, which we regret, but obviously cannot insist upon," says Lord Frost's letter So it's a loss no matter what happens now. So, after the truck queues and decimated automotive exports, which predicted consequence of Brexit is your government going to turn into a reality next? I'm thinking medicinal or chemical shortages. Now, if the UK should bin the NI Protocol- and GFA-breaching Internal Market Bill, that Parliament voted through last night, the EU27 might listen again. Better hurry.
  3. Where Brexit is concerned, Labour under Starmer now, is no different to Labour under Corbyn then. Whatsoever. The strategy is still exactly the same: keep well back and let the Tories wear everything about Brexit and own all the consequences of their infighting. Starmer acknowledging that the UK has already left (technically, it did, at end January 2020) is just stating the obvious and stripping the notion of a (now redundant) vote about the deal from the last Labour manifesto/message. It doesn't change anything in practice. And continues to abnegate Labour's role as a political opposition, as completely now as over the last 4 years. Whatever happens and befalls the UK in the months to come, will be nearly as much on Labour, as on the Conservatives. Nearly, because they weren't in charge. But still a good bit -at least- , because it was their job to hold May and now Johnson to account...and we're all seeing how that went and how it's going.
  4. It's not in gang masters' interests to smuggle in sick slaves. Eats into their profits big-time, see. So rest assured that they're probably better-tested than your average UK dweller, before boarding the RIBs on the French coast.
  5. It really isn't. But that Kent Access Permit was. I wonder if there are Humberside and Anglesey ones in the works, since Hull and Holyhead are both facing the same issue as Dover (on a reduced scale, mind). Benefits? Don't ask me, ask those who pushed for it.
  6. With respect, RJRB, that was your argument with your 'so does Deutsche Bank' retort. As if Deutsche Bank was operating solely out of Germany/Frankfurt, and not out of the City and a myriad other places. My "argument" was, initially at least, not an argument, but witnessing yet another instance of the City haemorrhaging EU-traded assets because the implementation (ho-hum) of Brexit is tanking the passporting of UK services: topically for the thread, it is an actual consequence, particularly now that Brexit has happened, technically if not (fully-) factually. A consequence long foretold, derided as 'Project Fear' at the time and since, but now realised. Doing that should -maybe- prompt Leavers to reconsider the rest of what they badged 'Project Fear' back in the day, engage grey cells, and start risk-mitigating in anger, given there's now less than 100 days to factual Brexit, and they all still seem to believe in sunlit up,ands and unicorns this late in their game. Hey, I can dream, right? The "argument" then developed along the recent FinCen leak, which -amongst other topics, particularly political corruption- reconfirms the prominent role of the City of London (major banks therein , of all 'nationalities') as a hotbed of money laundering practices, due to its longtime privileged links with BOT tax havens. It's obviously not a good look. But it's not as if this just started to happen in the past year or 3, nor as if I had a particular problem with it: I've been explaining, not criticising. The banks will indeed continue to try and find ways to make profits out of deposits. That is their basic purpose. Always was. The point of the mountain of financial regulation Directives pushed by the EU (with the ECB pushing strongly at the a55) since 2008 was, and continues to be, precisely to mitigate that 'reckless dealing' still further, and level down opportunities to pursue these (risky) schemes. The efficiency of these Directives remains an open question at this time. But you can't blame the EU for trying.
  7. You are mixing the actors (banks), the venues (cities) and the plays (financial services) in the above, whilst glossing -deliberately or not- over the British Overseas Territory character of Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, <etc> that were, and remain, instrumental to money laundering, and all of which were always significantly easier to access from London, than from Paris, Frankfurt, New York, Tokyo <etc>... ...and shall remain so, now that London is escaping the EU's latest anti money laundering legislation, designed to hinder and sever ties still further with tax havens on the EU's black list (established 2015) and which includes -guess which Carribbean BOTs- amongst others. Much less a case of naivety, than pointing some inconvenient truths. But you don't have to be personally embarrassed by them, the situation is hardly your fault or doing - nor, for that matter, the fault or doing of those taken in by the Leave propaganda.
  8. As are HSBC, RBS and a whole host of other UK banks and companies (and banks & companies from other countries -EU27 and not- too, for sure...but the most represented country in the leak is the UK). What the FinCen leak shows, is how much of a money laundering turnplate the UK has long been and still is. It is one of the main smoking guns about the influence which Putin & assorted other kleptocrats' wield in the West, particularly in the UK. $2trillions' worth of influence. Goes a long way to explain why Tory governments have deliberately looked the other way about Russians for years. That doesn't detract from the point you were replying to: it's significantly harder to launder money in the EU-€zone, and never less so than after the EU AML Directive V (2018/843/EU) that came into force on 01 January 2020 , so any assets getting transferred from the UK to <anywhere in EU27, but particularly the €zone, including Frankfurt in Germany> are much more likely to be the squeaky-clean ones. Can't see much point in shifting dodgy assets into a much-more-tightly-regulated financial market, can you? In that context, that FinCen leak could also explain -in part- the UK's do-or-die intent to Brexit before end 2020. Nor does it detract from the earlier, original point: for all the tax-avoiding, money-laundering and other toxic asset-trading wrongdoings of big and not-so-big UK banks over <decades and longer>, a non-trivial amount of economic activity was performed in the UK managing and trading these assets, generating a correspondingly non-trivial added value -at least some of which greasing the wheels of local/domestic commerce, with a portion ending up as revenue to the Exchequer (according to government accounts, long showing the City as a major source of annual tax contributions). Shifting these assets to Frankfurt means their managing and trading will now get done in Frankfurt. Whereby Germany gets to enjoy the added value. There's nothing partisan about that asset shifting, nor was there anything partisan about predicting it as a consequence of Brexit in 2015/2016, nor is there anything partisan in pointing at it happening now: it is (always was) an inevitable consequence of dropping FOM from the EU-UK relationship, because services passporting stems from FOM. Look, Brexit is done, and the chips are falling where they do, both as they were predicted and not. Realistically, the UK is not rejoining any time soon, whether as a Union or individually as bit-States. So now what?
  9. I... ...see Kent should build a wall. And get Essex to pay for it.
  10. How is that going for you lately? Considering the assets are going to Frankfurt, i.e. in the EU, then obviously fully-accountable clean ones. With even a passing knowledge of recent news (recent for many, less so for long-time dot-connectors), never mind the latest financial data trove to be whistleblown, it's easy enough to guess why the others are staying
  11. Ah, so you just saw Mr Gove's letter, then? Well, your government was always going to prepare British industry and the British public for signficantly increased friction at the borders, because your politicians were perfectly aware that, even if they secured the FTA they demanded, that FTA meant signficantly increased friction at the borders. And they were always going to blame (a) the EU; (b) the French (and/or the Germans); (c) the haulage industry; (d) the ferry companies; (e) other industries; (f) the Covid-19 pandemic and (g) malicious fairies, in that order, for the signficantly-increased friction. What, you thought they were going to acknowledge that it was the direct, entirely forseeable and widely forseen outcome of the UK's own, unconstrained policy choices? So, well, JP Morgan is moving £230bns' worth of assets out of the UK to Frankfurt. Not the first, nor the last.
  12. How so? Is the UK going to tarriff imports from the EU27 in 2021 if there's no FTA? That is not the intention conveyed by your government so far. Besides, the UK is still way (way way) short of having the requisite customs processing capacity in place to enforce. It's fine, the French will comfort themselves by looking the other way for a short while, and ship you a few more refugees on RIBs and pedaloes I'm not sure how much French beef gets exported to the UK. Not a whole lot, I expect. I mean, relative to Irish beef (e.g.) So I don't expect to see much carcasses burning outside the Elysée. Unlike the above, it is inevitable (and long advertised) that the EU27 will tarriff UK imports at standard WTO rates in the absence of an FTA. France, Belgium and the Netherlands have the extra customs processing capacity in place already. EU27 tax receipts should either balance out (less UK goods imported, because tarriffed - but extra excise on what still gets imported) or go up (if the EU27 demand sustains). There's little the UK sells, for which EU27 cannot source alternatives. Just ask the Irish, they've shrunk trade with the UK from 16% to 7% in their balance of trade in the last 3 years. Likewise there's little the EU27 sells, for which the UK cannot source alternatives. The difference for the UK is, sourcing cheap US or Argentinian beef kills off British beef farming in fairly short order. A consequence long advertised and expected, even by Leave economists themselves.
  13. The UK "hasn't got anything from the EU" because nothing has changed between the UK and the EU yet (so the UK doesn't want for anything) and bevause the negotiations are still ongoing (so what the UK keeps after 31 December isn't known). Ah, the "massive trade surplus" argument is back. It had been a while. Must be why the EU27 is so far ahead of the UK in preparing for no deal
  14. The US is a garantor of the GFA. So is the EU. The IMB puts the kibosh on the GFA. So there may eventually be an EU-UK deal and a US-UK deal, if Johnson u-turns completely on the IMB (amongst and besides other pending issues; e.g. like the UK confirming its post-WA food etc. standards to the EU if it wants to get 3rd party country status...you know, like *all other* non-EU/EFTA countries had to do, to get that status). Until and unless then, there won't be any deal. tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.