RiskArb

New Members
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RiskArb

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. Absolute tripe from you as usual, there is absolutely zero mandate for a second referendum - it's not going to happen and in your heart of hearts you know it. You need to accept the new reality, quit hoping and start moving on and getting used to life outside the EU comfort blanket. Another referendum assumes that a Remain vote returns us to the status quo before the original referendum, that state no longer exists and other EU countries will enjoy putting the boot in and forcing us to join the Euro, cancelling the rebate etc. in order to rejoin the fold - the time has passed and that ship has sailed. Nothing is going to be achieved during this negotiation, we all know that. The EU is just spinning things out and wasting time until eventually its March 2019 and we all go home and have left the EU, deal or no deal. Come September and the 'Repeal Act' makes its way through the houses, EU primacy will have come to an end - there is no going back.
  2. If I remember correctly I think the amount of non-sterling debt is less than 1% of all outstanding debt but I will check tomorrow. The majority is held by domestic UK investors (the treasury itself owns about 25% of the stock, something to do with quantitative easing which I don't fully understand). The reason the UK government issues very limited debt in foreign currencies is to kick start growth in that particular market and all ancillary services. For example having something to trade in London in RMB might spur Chinese corporates to also issue in RMB and before you know it London will be a hub for RMB fx trading and derivatives clearing. The UK did something similar with an ECU bond issuance to promote the market in ECU and later EUR securities in the early 90s: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/archive/Documents/historicpubs/qb/1992/qb92q2180189.pdf
  3. What is this vote that everybody keeps referring to? There is not going to be a vote on the final deal, the proposed amendment to the Article 50 Bill to try and win a veto for parliament on the final outcome of the Brexit talks was denied by a massive majority. You can read all about it here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/13/article-50-commons-lords-brexit-sturgeon-speech-corbyn-clarifies-his-position-on-second-scottish-independence-referendum-saying-hes-opposed-politics-live
  4. In the first instance the eventual deal could be so abysmally atrocious that it is voted upon and rejected, that leaves a hard Brexit and we leave on WTO terms. Secondly is the case of no deal, how can there be a vote on a deal if there is no deal to discuss? There is a likelihood that talks become deadlocked and eventually breakdown (that is if they can agree the divorce fee and even start the talks) = the hardest of hard Brexits on WTO rules in less than two years time. Also there is absolutely no mandate whatsoever by anybody to revoke A50, you are in denial and clutching at straws.
  5. It's been categorically stated that the UK will not seek to remain a member of the single market. We are not asking for cake to eat, we'll be asking for an FTA, possibly CETA style with the EU - seems an entirely reasonable request. These arguments just seem to go round and round... 'it's not punishment it's Brexit' - yes we know, we've made our bed and now will sleep in it, most leavers/brexiteers have come to terms and can accept that. I can understand that your reality has been turned upside down by the Brexit results but it seems that you are clutching at straws - in denial, of the situation. I have heard it from others, coming up with madcap schemes that will allow part of the UK to be in the EU but not the rest, to allow London to have special status and be in the single market, but not the rest and so on. These are all bonkers, it's not going to happen. It's almost a year on from the referendum and you don't see to have come to terms with the reality that we will ultimately be leaving the EU in the near future, not to mention that this thread now has almost 800 pages. I admire your dedication to the cause but it's over now - go take a bike ride and get some fresh air, it will be good for you mental health and help you to come to terms with the reality.
  6. You are wilfully ignoring my point there
  7. 1 & 3 I can agree with but for 1 only while resident in said country - if not sufficient then apply for citizenship in the host country. 2 is a non-starter, if certain parts of the UK are in the customs union and others not then surely you can see the trouble that will cause? The assumptions of the GFA no longer hold, it will need to be updated. If a sensible FTA can be struck (e.g. like CETA which removes 98% of tariffs on goods) then a soft border with minimal customs checks will suffice. Imagine where that is not reached and a hard border is put in place and customs tariffs apply - the violence will restart and Irelands economy will well and truly be flushed down the toilet. I'm sure they will support the EU for that, solidarity and all. For 4, yes there will need to be a transitional arrangement of some sort, perhaps EFTA. For 5, no thanks.
  8. Yes, just take a look at the announcements from Lloyds the insurer and Hiscox recently, both have said they are bolstering their post-Brexit EU presence and moving staff to Luxembourg. I think it was a grand total of 10 staff each, hardly the exodus we were histerically warned about... There will be drips and drabs leaving but dispersed over several cities, doesn't seem like there is a single city in the EU which can compare to London as a finance centre. About MiFID II I think it will work out such that if you want to do business in the EU then you'll have to be MiFID II compliant with an EU subsidiary but if not then a much less severe/burdensome but still robust regulatory framework will be put in place for international business.
  9. All three of the UK, EU and Irish government have come out and said they oppose a hard border - this is one of the rare points where all parties concerned agree on the same thing unanimously. There will be no hard border, likely some minimal token customs controls. Also likely, freedom of movement for tourists, but if you want to work and reside you'll need to be eligible for a National Insurance number. There is really not much more to it than that...
  10. Only simpletons like you who cannot think through the situation believe it to be an issue - because you want it to be. Norway is next to Sweden, those two countries are not in a customs union. There is no hard border, there are minimal customs controls. Next 'issue' please.
  11. Nope. There is nothing to suggest Article 50 is revocable, it would be politically impossible to u-turn at this juncture - suggesting it will be cancelled is wishful thinking, you're clutching at straws and need to move on from the denial stage. Can't see another referendum this side of the next general election - which will return a larger Conservative majority so I can't see another referendum after it either. I can't remember what has been said about a transitional deal but possibly that is where there will be some wiggle room - if things are taking longer than expected, get the populace ready for transitional arrangements - it's the logical conclusion given both parties want to avoid a cliff edge.
  12. Which is where the transitional agreement will play its role. The next two years will be spent working out what needs to be done to leave and reaching agreement on that with the EU plus an interim transitional arrangement while beginning discussions on the longer term new trading relationship - there is a lot to be done likely take another two years at least. In the meantime if this can be drawn out longer than 4 years while resisting another Scottish referendum, that will take us to after 2021 and the next Scottish Parliamentary elections with the SNP unlikely to hold on to all of their current.
  13. I don't understand her, this point has been debated ad nauseam by Parliament and voted on twice by both houses now. The amendment for a vote at the conclusion of the deal by Parliament was not the result. She wants to use a court to overturn a decision made by Parliament now? That's not how it works... Oh no wait, I do understand now, she's just an attention seeking trouble maker whose claims of sovereignty and holding government to account are baseless as her ulterior motives and true intentions to prevent/delay Brexit and generally be awkward are clear for everybody to see. At the end of the two years after Article 50 we are out, that is the end of the TEU for the UK. Entering any subsequent deal is a new treaty, Government not Parliament retains the prerogative to enter international treaties, that is an established practise.
  14. That is simply not true, single market MEMBERSHIP requires all four freedoms. Freedom of movement is off the table and Theresa May has categorically stated she is not seeking single market membership. Access is a different matter and there are many, many examples where access is available to a third country without accepting any freedom of movement. The issue is regarding the status of existing EU and British migrants across the continent to stay where they are. The sensible thing to do for these people and to minimise disruption is to grant leave to remain to preserve the status quo for those already working and living outside their own country and this is what Theresa May has already offered - a reciprocal arrangement which has been denied by Merkel - it is her alone who is using migrants as a bargaining chip, but don't let your own judgement cloud the reality. As for the Lords amendment to grant leave to remain to exisiting EU citizens in the UK, this sounds more like showing an intention of goodwill and seizing the opportunity to take the moral high ground. However, it is going to look preposterous if this is offered to the EU and their response is that the same will be offered to UK citizens in the EU provided the UK also provide access to 60% of its fisheries.
  15. That's the point I made in my second sentence: "As if the EU has some kind of monopoly on what it means to be European. Are Brits, Russians and Norwegians any less European than the French or Germans?" I am European and people who use weasel words in an attempt to make 'Europe' synonymous with 'EU' are not going to change that. Brexit does not mean the UK is leaving Europe. Case in point, Tony Blair's Open Europe speech, first few words to leave his mouth: "Yes, the British people voted to leave Europe" - no they didn't and too right he knows that, he's painting a picture to scare people into thinking Brexit means isolationism - it doesn't.