Someone obviously forgot to tell HSBC & UBS that then.Originally Posted by Jonny Wilkinson
The passporting rules isn't just what it is all about - whether the current passporting rules will still apply because they are agreed at a member state level rather than EU level is another matter. It is also about being able to move capital from one state to another - which was a fundamental of the single market.
We dont elect PM's do we? If we did then no one told that fat one eyed c*** a few years back.TM wasnt elected and we now live in a dictatorship
Guess where I workyou've got a 50/50 chance of guessing right.
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
A bank?Guess where I work
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Correct but it seems half the country cant seem to grasp that, they think we live in the US
Goldman Sachs said similar as well, I think 20% of the workforce or so.
Some places are already gearing up to send people out as early as April.
UBS. Research analytics. All the banks have been offshoring and nearshoring for the last two years with Poland and the US (unlikely as that might seem) being popular locations. The point is that has nothing to do with closing your trading operations center and nothing to do with brexit. All the press footage about banks and brexit is sabre rattling while lobbying goes on behind the scenes. The banks are getting what they need to stay at present but the press need headlines to scare their readership. :Rolleyes:
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Last edited by Jonny Wilkinson; 19-01-2017 at 09:25.
Yer we hear mainly is how many jobs are going, hardly any coverage on jobs coming in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38659329
Thats nearly 4000 jobs right there.
Not 4000 british jobs. You've never worked for a tech company have you.... mostly foreigners.... wait IMMIGRANTS
They are jobs based in the UK so paying tax etc so good for the economy.
Problem with brexit is that most folk, and the press, have there own agendas and are spinning news to there own ends like crazy.
As of yet no one knows whether the UK will be worse off, how bad or even at all. Everyone saying otherwise is spouting BS from party lines.
So are the thousand banking jobs leaving for Europe
Are you ignoring the Barclays comments tonight in the standard then ? Doesn't sit right with your Europhilia ?
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
Which might have left anyway. Jobs have come and gone well before we had a vote, its just now its easier to justify it
Sadly I'm a little late to the thread party (I'm not really a regular poster though - this is gonna be long enough to make up for it).
So I'm in my late 20s, Londoner, have a Masters. Statistically I should have voted remain but I didn't. My views are below, read or ignore at your leisure - it's pretty long so I don't expect many of you chaps to read.
It's difficult to make a concise post on this topic but to put simply, I despise the EU. It's a corrupt circlejerk and is too far detached from any real democracy. Those proposing "laws" (including regulations and directives and all the other mess) from the EU platform are not elected as the authority to propose these laws is held exclusively by the unelected European Council and then voted on by the elected European Parliament. Members of the council have no accountability. The motives behind such laws being proposed is often masked and in many cases adequate consultation with experts in the fields affected are not consulted. I briefly scanned the previous pages and noted the cucumber rules being discussed which was an obnoxious example of absurdity coming from the EU, but it's not the only one and I'll provide an example of what I find most offensive in regards to pushes from the EU a little further on.
I detest the way that our parliament serving our small little collection of islands requires 650 elected parties and then a chamber of unelected Lords to run the country, while the European parliament, serving an entire continent, has only 751. I do not think this is sufficient to ensure the laws being applied to such a vast number of people has comparatively little representation.
The overarching authority of the European Courts is an absurdity. Much of our law is formed from case law - similar to common practice. A case may have been decided centuries ago and the principles that case established continue to guide the law to this day. This takes pressure off of the legislature and provides flexibility. I am under no illusion, it does not always work well - the case law covering the insanity defence is outdated and has needed reformation for at least 40 years. Despite this, it is a better system than enabling the European Courts, with little understanding of the full complexity of our system, to simply throw out established practice or to even allow for that.
Permitting single EU laws to have universal impact on all EU members is a broken system. A basic hypothetical example is where the EU might impose a requirement that orchards are not to allow humidity levels to go above 80% because they decided this would be good. That might work fine in some climates in the EU but be impossible without significant cost increases in other parts. The lack of subjective application and regional differences in EU law means that inevitably some rules favour certain places.
Mentioned previously was the badly thought out EU laws; a more recent and continuing example of this was the prohibition of vacuums of more than 1600w under the guise of environmentalism. This is such a glaring example of EU stupidity that it has to be mentioned. Sure, "who gives a flying ****" is most peoples response but it's important to outline as it's such a great example of the lack of expertise. If you have a carpet that each week manages to be entrenched with sufficient filth (maybe you regularly have the current labour party cross it) that it requires 2000w of suction to get the dirt out on one sweep, a 1600w vacuum will likely need to go over the same carpet multiple times to clean it. This means, while a 2000w one might get it on one sweep, the 1600w needs two, thus doubling the runtime of the equipment. That uses more power no matter how you look at it. The usual justification for such legislation is to force the introduction of more efficient units that do more with less, in reality however all you do is crush consumer choice and begin to see sub-par products, or regulation dodgers. The car industry has seen it already, recent emissions regulations have created an array of cheats (vw in particular but they're no longer alone with Renault and Mitsubishi also cheating). Meanwhile the supposed economy figures we are fed rarely reflect reality and still aren't far off the most efficient of the 90s cars which weren't burdened with excessive weight, again, due to regulations imposing requirements. Cars have been suffocated by emissions regs since the 70s - don't get me wrong I have an MGB and I know how dirty old engines burn, but regulation should be a light touch to provide incentives to innovate, not the heavy handed sledgehammer of regulation we have now literally crushing innovation and forcing obnoxiously bad things out the back doors of factories.
Now, onto other issues.
I agree that the financial sector is under threat by the exit, but I also think the danger is overexaggerated. Talk of the banking sector moving to Frankfurt are absurd; the City of London has around a fifth of Frankfurt's entire population employed in the financial sector. There isn't any single place within the EU post-brexit that could accommodate these numbers for some considerable time, regardless of how much investment is thrown at it, not to mention the skills shortages where relocation was not possible. I doubt there wont be job losses, but I also doubt that those job losses wouldn't have eventually happened anyway. Time will tell, of all the counter-reasons to brexit, I think the security of the financial sector in the UK is the strongest.
I firmly believe the UK needs to be able to 'bail out' failing companies. In general, I do not like tax funded bailouts - they shit in the face of free market economics. I mostly take the view of if a company fails, another company will take its place and the failure just opens the doors to more efficient organisations, I was even against the bank bailouts both in the US and the EU as it potentially leads to a continuation of reckless behaviour if there's no fear of repercussions. That said, there are also dangers with some industries of allowing the failure. With the Welsh steel; there are huge barriers to entering the steel market. Setting up a steel factory is prohibitively expensive in terms of cost and staffing, as well as requiring fairly specific skills which are often difficult to find. The reason for the failure is in reality Chinese dumping. That dumping wont last forever and when it stops, who knows what the prices will end up being. The idea of becoming dependent following a period of cheap products is worrying. The EU of course doesn't like supporting individual businesses, they're only willing to help when it's whole sectors so, unlike Greece and the banks, no support given. Disgusting really.
The potential fall in housing prices is necessary. The UK and particularly London housing markets have been artificially inflated by demand for a long time, much of that demand coming from investment. The world has thrown money at UK property and has left it in a toxic state; rent is inflated by lack of property, prices are inflated by lack of property, lack of property exists because of investors buying for the gains in value. Some areas of London are seeing 10-20% increases in a year - that's as good as some medium-high risk stock ventures. Some of these investors don't rent out either, they just leave the property empty so they can use it as holiday homes or because of fears that tenants may damage the property / problems with tenants and the landlord responsibilities. Sure, it'll be bad for people affected, but right now it's worse for all the people being affected by the ridiculous property prices.
Now immigration. This is a horrible topic that usually has someone saying "but you're a racist" because, well, people like to react emotionally.
The UK is ****ing tiny. We have very small landmass, limited resources, limited capacity. Immigration without some sort of control is harmful. I do not oppose immigrants with skills who come to the UK to work and help make the UK better, indeed there are many every year and we are in reality dependent on this. I do not however think that someone from Europe should be given a free pass while someone from China, Russia, Vietnam, Brazil, Japan or somewhere else has to jump through a series of hoops. That to me is ridiculous. I also strongly object to the potential for someone from Europe to decide the UK will pay them more benefits so they'll come here which can and does happen. Arguably immigration wasn't a significant issue previously and, looking at the figures, it also looks like we have seen a panic of people flocking to the UK to try to get in before the borders are potentially closed (which brings about the question of what skills are they offering that wouldn't let them in should we have strong, fair borders?). The issue is that certain European nations have naively opened themselves up to the world and that one day everyone who has taken advantage of that will be handed passports. One day all those passports could have come here. That is a problem when we are already seeing the NHS, education, housing, jobs, even things like roads and sewage are struggling to accommodate the existing population. Populations inevitably increase but it's usually a fairly slow process and allows for infrastructure to be established to support them. High immigration just sees jumps in population which leaves no time for the infrastructure to broaden and this is why allowing uncapped immigration is so damaging to the UK. Germany, France, Austria, Spain all have significantly more land than us and can dilute migration jumps far more effectively, we have very limited space and it's very difficult to prevent jumps in migration from causing our infrastructure to start to severely suffer. I don't see another option other than to leave the EU in its current state without putting everything this country has built up at risk of falling down.
Requiring a visa to visit other EU countries is not the end of the world and, in fact, we would probably rapidly make a visa waiver deal with the EU anyway. You can visit Vietnam for 15 days with no visa, I'm sure the EU would have some similar deal with us. I actually like visas. I feel like they provide some assurance that countries are doing a decent job of ensuring people visiting aren't there for malicious purposes.
Okay now all that's covered, I wanted to put down my main reasoning for voting to leave.
The "little Britain" rhetoric that has been vomited out by much of the media is completely incorrect. We're leaving the gates of the EU into the wider world with bigger, growing economies to deal with who actually seem to like the UK (See: America, See: New Zealand amongst others). My fear is the future of the EU; even before Brexit is was volatile to say the least, there has been growing discontent for a long time. The problem is the EUs refusal to change. The EU has a path that it seems to have laid out, admittedly I'm theorising here, but it's growing. It seems to want to form a "United States of Europe" almost. It's inevitable that, with the single currency, eventually it will need to take fiscal control. It has been taking more and more legislature responsibilities for a long time and encroaching on more and more social and economic policy. With the more recent drive for its own military and the rather left-push I'd actually say it's slowly becoming something resembling the Soviet Union. While I'm too young to have really been exposed to the USSR and its collapse (though I was alive in the squashy dumb infant stage) I am somewhat aware of the USSR and its fall - mainly that it fell because Gorbachev decided not to follow the grotesque brutality that allowed the USSR to exist through instilling and maintaining fear. The EU is starting to drive for censorship of dissenting views, it's jailing people for views it deems "hate", it's monitoring the citizens activities extensively. This all worries me a lot as it seems like they're building the foundation of an oppressive regime. It's that future that scares me, especially when the EU could have fixed all its problems with some very simple things:
1. Asylum passports are restricted to the country which handed them out. If the recipient of such a passport wishes to move to another EU country, they would follow the process that any other non-EU migrant would follow.
2. Benefit payments should be paid at the rate of the recipient's 'home' nation.
I'm pretty sure if the EU had done those two things prior to the referendum, the outcome would have been remain and the "populist" rising seen across the EU never would have happened.
As a side note, all politics right now are a complete mess. We have awful political leaders, awful party representatives and I think people in politics are too busy trying to do the minimum possible work than to actually do what's best for the country and citizens. Some of the Orwellian bs the conservatives are shitting on us right now is a travesty, but I suppose it's less awful than Comrade Corbyn's dreams of making the UK into Venezuela...
Apologies again for such a long post, I had to delete my facebook so I have nowhere to put this stuff anymore, thanks for reading.
"I'd rather live in a poorer democracy than a wealthy oligarchy"
Can you give us a summery of that rant please, two lines would fine :-)
tl;dr: eu sux i h8 it
I think you hate the EC, not the EU. Which I do as well but the benefit of one outweights the detriments of the other IMO.
Dont know where youre getting the oppressive EU regime thing from either, Im not aware of anyone being jailed for speaking out and I dont think its some kind of creeping menace, certainly not as far as the UK with its own sovereignty and currency is concerned.
And you can go to Vietnam, but you cant settle or work there. Big difference.
I get the feeling that this would only work if we could pursuade Ernest Borgnine to drive the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth hovercraft.
Rant-tastic reply, 10/10
And you can go to Vietnam, but you cant settle or work there. Big difference.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that my response to this is going to be so... lengthy :c
You can settle and/or work anywhere on the planet providing you're capable of meeting whatever requirements the country has imposed and this is rarely difficult for people who specialise in something (which makes me wonder if many of the people complaining are simply aware that they're not able to offer any skills or services...). Usually those requirements are there to ensure people coming to the country are going to be assets to society and the economy because otherwise countries often see migration depressing wages (one short version of the reason why is that migrants taking low paid jobs are used to worse conditions in their home nation and are prepared to live in a lower standard of living than the domestic population has grown accustom to, thus enabling their labour to undercut the domestic population but there are other factors involved and more lengthy economic issues).
It's not just the EC, the EU elected politicians are overpaid and weak and even with the elected representatives there's still a huge detachment from the average person and their representative. Again, there simply aren't enough of them to represent everyone and the supranational decisions (no 2JZs involved sadly) made by the EU have such broad impact it's impossible for them to serve everyones interests equally, usually meaning someone has to suffer for the gain of others.
As for the oppressive side, that's mainly being handled by individual nations (see: Scotlant and the Nazi dog, Germany's recent series of arrests for hate speech and the UK taking people to court over tweets and even jokes by comedians while the "freedom of expression" defence seems to be ignored) as well as the slow push for the below:
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...te-speech-code and
http://www.politico.eu/article/junck...-on-fake-news/
The problem with these is "hate speech" is ill-defined at the best of times both at national levels within the EU and at international levels. Simultaneously, "fake news" and the growing political desire to block it is a huge problem as again, the definition of "fake news" is flexible. Do theonion and clickhole count as fake news? Is a fresh story broken by a small website fake news until independently verified by a 'legitimate' news source? Does poor reporting or manipulative reporting count as fake news? CNNs coverage of the Milwaukee riots - was that fake news? Buzzfeeds leak of the stuff about trump is totally unverified, is that fake news? Is 50% of Breitbart fake news because of the headlines carrying a clear agenda? In reality the whole "fake news" blocking is a push for censorship and the EU has been at the front of the line when it comes to censorship. (the right to be forgotten was probably their gateway drug, the recent copyright proposals go a long way beyond though)
Regarding sovereignty, no EU member has sovereignty while an EU member. The simple fact is the EU can always overrule decisions made domestically and pass legislation which supersedes any national law. Just as an example of the lack of sovereignty, hypothetically speaking the UK could put a new law to referendum, lets say we wanted to enshrine free speech into UK law in the same way the US has, effectively wiping out many of our existing hate speech laws. The EU can determine that incompatible with existing EU law, pass a law that renders it incompatible or simply leave the European courts to find against the person protected by that law. There are admittedly some questions circling enforcement, particularly as the UK for years has been in violation of the EU saying prisoners here need the right to vote, but should the EU choose to enforce their rule they could do an array of things from fines to trade barriers - you know, the stuff we're worried about them doing for leaving could've happened if we stayed anyway.
Regarding the currency - eventually the EU would force adoption on us (which likely would've pushed us out anyway, unless they waited around 14 years). Lets not forget the EU proposed the FTT which would've completely ****ed over the UK's financial sector and made it unable to compete globally, pushing jobs out to the far east and asia while providing a disincentive to do any banking with the Eurozone, which is showing signs of shrinking anyway.
One of the key things about the EU that seems to come up is that it has granted us the HRA and employment rights. Contrary to popular belief, these wont disappear once we leave for two reasons; 1. they're enshrined in our law and have formed co-dependencies with other laws and 2. because it's a vote loser. #2 is more important, our government and all their impact on our laws and society is ultimately picked by us for better or worse. Those running the EU are barely picked by us, the majority of those in the European Parliament are picked by people in other countries who may have different interests, beliefs and desires to us. Never forget, we are the most outvoted nation within the EU, a trend that existed prior to the promise of a referendum. Though perhaps that is somewhat because of Farage. People aren't all the same, not everyone believes in the same thing and there are huge discrepancies with morals across the globe as well as within the EU nations.
I should probably mention, I object to the whole "tax the rich". I'm actually in favour of flat taxes in terms of two tax bands, a nil-tax band and a fixed percentage which is also part of my objection to the EU which seems to push a redistribution ethic around. Equality of opportunity means everyone should be afforded the bare minimum to survive as a platform to launch their future from, but no more than that. The EU has, along with national governments, created a viral expectation of standards sadly.
Oh and I do genuinely believe the EU, or at least the concept, has a vast array of benefits despite globalisation having somewhat eroded those benefits. The EU in its current state however I think is pretty awful and I don't see them changing, even with us leaving. Especially when migration is actually going to become a far greater issue than anyone seems to be paying attention to with the automation of pretty much all low skilled jobs. Just think of all the migrant uber drivers that will probably be out of work in 12 years due to autonomous vehicles.
Side note, anyone want to make a wager with me on what year the EU will impose some kind of restriction on the use fossil fuel burning vehicles and/or driving your own car not letting a machine do it? I'm guessing 2034...
Sorry for the long second post, maybe I should just reply in PMs...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
