Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[dances with sheeple]

14 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Yes, there were benefits. Those benefits are still there but the EU won't let a third country be their banker (so to speak) for the same reason the US or China would not.

This is a very simple thing to understand.

Obviously you don`t understand it though? The EU is a collection of different countries with different languages, history and culture cobbled together under a political/currency union, not really the same as the two countries you mention? And as London banking is obviously good at what it does (and it has time-zone and language advantages) and has done it for a long time, long before the EU was cobbled together like a granny project quilt, what is to say countries under the EU banner won`t decide they prefer the London banking service to another EU based centre? Sure there will be "rules" against this, but as various countries have recently gone their own way on border rules what is to stop them doing it with banking rules? Do you think the EU wants to risk another exit from the Hotel Federal State?

[dances with sheeple]

15 hours ago, slawek said:

They are now offset by

a) security concerns, having its financial center in a third country which is not very friendly is a risk to the EU

b) EU countries are no longer bound by the EU internal market rules with regard to the UK. They can now introduce barriers to gain a market share from the UK, which will benefit them economically as jobs and money will flow to the EU countries.    

a) The EU is a collection of countries, it isn`t a country.

 

b) Good luck with that.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

31 minutes ago, smash said:

Thats an interesting one, although not as exciting as subject/object tension as appropriate here. So, just to clarify, you think that the decision of the UK Gov is based on a need to deny diplomatic immunity to EU officials?

I have no clue.

I just believe that giving organisations or countries diplomatic immunity merits some serious consideration (as before see previous and ongoing cases for examples), and to do so isn't petulant or childish.

The argument that we should do something just because everyone else does it, well that's a complete logical fail. We could make the foreign office a lot cheaper to staff by following that policy though, so maybe it's not all bad.

I have no idea what the proposed roles of these potential diplomats are and why it is felt that they need immunity in order for them to do their jobs (I think it is an interesting question as to why ANY diplomat might require immunity in order to do their job, and whether this is just an archaic throwback). Those are things I think should be taken into consideration.

There's clearly a different risk/cost posed to the public from small numbers of immune diplomats as opposed to larger numbers, so again, in the assessment you'd hope this is taken into account also, and all of this balanced against the good they might do in working with us in the best interests of both countries/organisations.

[dances with sheeple]

Don`t get me wrong, I would love to see the collapse of London banking and their debt ponzi, but I love seeing the EU "elites" humiliated even more! Their arrogance and ego is beyond compare and watching the Grand Project disintegrate will be fantastic popcorn fodder!

[Confusion of VIs]

30 minutes ago, dances with sheeple said:

Obviously you don`t understand it though? The EU is a collection of different countries with different languages, history and culture cobbled together under a political/currency union, not really the same as the two countries you mention? And as London banking is obviously good at what it does (and it has time-zone and language advantages) and has done it for a long time, long before the EU was cobbled together like a granny project quilt, what is to say countries under the EU banner won`t decide they prefer the London banking service to another EU based centre? Sure there will be "rules" against this, but as various countries have recently gone their own way on border rules what is to stop them doing it with banking rules? Do you think the EU wants to risk another exit from the Hotel Federal State?

The EU states are united in their desire to repatriate financial services.

There is some divergence about how best to go about it but the current softly softly approach, relying on new frictions to gradually achieve the move, is the best outcome that the UK could have hoped for.  

Edited January 27, 2021 by Confusion of VIs

[kzb]

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Your original claim was

Many are saying they will indeed be an even bigger global player without the dead hand of EU regulations.  I don't pretend to know much about this world myself but this is what many are saying, so there is an alternative view to yours.

You then claimed that Baliey supported this view, giving the following link as evidence of this 

Brexit job exodus 'substantially less' than predicted, BoE governor says | Business News | Sky News

Nowhere in this article does he say anything that comes even remotely near supporting your claim. 

A fair summary of his interview would be he said "things have not turned out as badly as some said they would". 

As some people said we would end up eating grass, this is pretty much the same as saying nothing and was no doubt his way of avoiding being drawn into criticising Brexit.

I was responding to the Richard Madeley accusation.   However I admit AB may not be giving a good case in that report.

Try this.

http://www.thecityforbritain.org.uk/

Notice I am not saying anything about whether I agree with it, just answering the claim that there are not many saying financial services could be better off not going for equivalence.  Clearly there are some.

[rollover]

8 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

Sorry Rollover, I had not seen this phrase used by others.  I was just saying it as I see it.

I am still hopeful that the EU will not restrict private corporation exports of Covid-19 vaccines to fulfil contracts.  But If it does, then I am afraid EU-bashers will have a lot more ammo. 
 

Even if they do not, the threat to do so from Jens Spahn, the German health minister, was, as I said, not a good look.  

Double standard, isn't it?

AstraZeneca will cut deliveries of the COVID-19 vaccine to the European Union by 60% (31m) in the first quarter of the year. The drug firm had been set to deliver about 80 million.

But the change in expected volumes did not affect the UK.

[dugsbody]

7 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

Obviously you don`t understand it though? The EU is a collection of different countries with different languages, history and culture cobbled together under a political/currency union, not really the same as the two countries you mention? And as London banking is obviously good at what it does (and it has time-zone and language advantages) and has done it for a long time, long before the EU was cobbled together like a granny project quilt, what is to say countries under the EU banner won`t decide they prefer the London banking service to another EU based centre? Sure there will be "rules" against this, but as various countries have recently gone their own way on border rules what is to stop them doing it with banking rules? Do you think the EU wants to risk another exit from the Hotel Federal State?

Well, that is certainly "an opinion". How about we test it in the usual manner, which is to watch what happens in reality. 

I predicted that the EU would grant London certain statuses as suited the EU member states short term. This has happened with clearing. But not with passporting and equivalence. I also mentioned that every reasonable sized finance org in London would set up EU entities to work around this. This has happened. 

My further prediction is that (*) the EU will continue down this path and start to turn the squeeze on the EU entities if they are considered shell entities to force more of a physical presence in the EU. I predict London will attempt to lure back liquidity in certain trading activities to London by bending the spirit of the regulations to do so. I predict the EU will move to cut this off. I predict that long term, London will not hold the grip it does today on EU finance activities.

And I predict this all using a simple logical reason:

The EU member states believe in the EU, unlike the UK, and they will never let a third country be their banker. I've repeated this often enough.

Now, lets wait and see who is correct.

(*) Finance was offered to the UK as a trade for closer union between the UK and EU. It could still be offered if the UK decides to change its stance. But I doubt that will happen. I just have to put this clause here because I know how dishonest brexiters are.

[dugsbody]

10 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Maybe because the UK doesn't want to confer diplomatic rights on people without serious consideration, especially since they can have grave consequences for UK people who might suffer as a consequence of their actions, as well as seriously affect the relationships between the countries involved ?

And maybe because once those rights are established it is very hard to rescind them ?

Personally I would hope the UK only gives diplomatic immunity to people who it is absolutely necessary to. The less people that have it the better IMO.

 

No, that is not it and you know it. It is for the reasons I stated. 

[14stFlyer]

56 minutes ago, rollover said:

Double standard, isn't it?

AstraZeneca will cut deliveries of the COVID-19 vaccine to the European Union by 60% (31m) in the first quarter of the year. The drug firm had been set to deliver about 80 million.

But the change in expected volumes did not affect the UK.

Not at all. 

Let’s say I enter into a contract to supply natural gas to an industrial user, though a pipeline that that end user also contributes financially to.  
i then enter into another agreement to create another line to supply a different user from a different stock of gas reserve in a different geographical area. 
if the second pipeline encounters issues and is not completed on time, then there is no way I would legally be able to “steal” supply from the first user to make up a short fall for the second. The second end user might only expect to receive gas through the first pipeline when there was capacity available beyond the initial contract volumes. 
I assume that exactly the same commercial constraints would be in place for different lines of drugs or in this case vaccines. in which case the EU can only expect access to vaccines from the U.K. assisted production when the U.K.s initial contracts are fulfilled. 
 

[dugsbody]

8 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I have no clue.

I just believe that giving organisations or countries diplomatic immunity merits some serious consideration (as before see previous and ongoing cases for examples), and to do so isn't petulant or childish.

The argument that we should do something just because everyone else does it, well that's a complete logical fail. We could make the foreign office a lot cheaper to staff by following that policy though, so maybe it's not all bad.

I have no idea what the proposed roles of these potential diplomats are and why it is felt that they need immunity in order for them to do their jobs (I think it is an interesting question as to why ANY diplomat might require immunity in order to do their job, and whether this is just an archaic throwback). Those are things I think should be taken into consideration.

There's clearly a different risk/cost posed to the public from small numbers of immune diplomats as opposed to larger numbers, so again, in the assessment you'd hope this is taken into account also, and all of this balanced against the good they might do in working with us in the best interests of both countries/organisations.

When I hear this stuff I always imagine a candidate sitting in front of me at an interview and I think:

1) This person is lying through his teeth

or

2) He really cannot join dots together

Either way, not someone I could imagine working with. 

(To be clear, all of us on this thread know why the UK is alone amongst 143 nations in taking the stance it is taking, and it has nothing to do with anything you said above)

[rollover]

5 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Not at all. 

Let’s say I enter into a contract to supply natural gas to an industrial user, though a pipeline that that end user also contributes financially to.  
i then enter into another agreement to create another line to supply a different user from a different stock of gas reserve in a different geographical area. 
if the second pipeline encounters issues and is not completed on time, then there is no way I would legally be able to “steal” supply from the first user to make up a short fall for the second. The second end user might only expect to receive gas through the first pipeline when there was capacity available beyond the initial contract volumes. 
I assume that exactly the same commercial constraints would be in place for different lines of drugs or in this case vaccines. in which case the EU can only expect access to vaccines from the U.K. assisted production when the U.K.s initial contracts are fulfilled. 
 

Look, I understand where you're coming from, but I can't agree with your one sided opinion.

 

Mrs von der Leyen said, “Europe invested billions to help develop the world's first Covid-19 vaccines to create a truly global common good." She added: “And now, the companies must deliver. They must honour their obligations."

Vaccines originally supposed to build up the EU vaccine stock and to be delivered to the EU after market authorisation have actually ended up in Britain,” said an EU diplomat. "We see that doses are being delivered elsewhere and we know we’ve signed an agreement with AstraZeneca in August, that member states placed their orders around October."

The French MEP Veronique Trillet-Lenoir said AstraZeneca could have given EU supplies to non-EU countries paying a higher price. “Other countries - including the UK but maybe also the US - are paying a higher price. It is their choice but should not enter into the firm’s decisions.”

Yahoo

[dugsbody]

12 minutes ago, rollover said:

Look, I understand where you're coming from, but I can't agree with your one sided opinion.

 

Mrs von der Leyen said, “Europe invested billions to help develop the world's first Covid-19 vaccines to create a truly global common good." She added: “And now, the companies must deliver. They must honour their obligations."

Vaccines originally supposed to build up the EU vaccine stock and to be delivered to the EU after market authorisation have actually ended up in Britain,” said an EU diplomat. "We see that doses are being delivered elsewhere and we know we’ve signed an agreement with AstraZeneca in August, that member states placed their orders around October."

The French MEP Veronique Trillet-Lenoir said AstraZeneca could have given EU supplies to non-EU countries paying a higher price. “Other countries - including the UK but maybe also the US - are paying a higher price. It is their choice but should not enter into the firm’s decisions.”

Yahoo

I'm a bit on the fence with this. I am sure there will be more detail uncovered in due course. If it is straight forward that AZ has simply had problems with production and it turns out the UK is legally "first in line", then the EU really has no case here and should look to contingencies. 

However, my trust in the UK government is so low at the moment that I remain open to the possibility that this is an underhanded deal and designed as an anti-EU measure. If that is the case then the UK government have the lives of EU citizen on their hands. 

But, best we wait and see.

[14stFlyer]

12 minutes ago, rollover said:

The French MEP Veronique Trillet-Lenoir said AstraZeneca could have given EU supplies to non-EU countries paying a higher price

Yes, but they haven’t, or have you seen evidence that I cannot find?  Unless she is referring to Pfizer vaccine already produced and waiting that was provided to U.K. because it was first to approve for use?  In which case their issue is with Pfizer. If so then why are they rubbishing AstraZeneca in the press and trying to force them into breaking commercial contracts?  
All I can see here is late commitment by the EU, an unfortunate delay to AstraZeneca supply in Europe, and an attempt by EU politicians to pass off the blame on to others. 

[rollover]

2 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

I'm a bit on the fence with this. I am sure there will be more detail uncovered in due course. If it is straight forward that AZ has simply had problems with production and it turns out the UK is legally "first in line", then the EU really has no case here and should look to contingencies. 

However, my trust in the UK government is so low at the moment that I remain open to the possibility that this is an underhanded deal and designed as an anti-EU measure. If that is the case then the UK government have the lives of EU citizen on their hands. 

But, best we wait and see.

The problem is:

Europe invested billions to help develop the world's first COVID-19 vaccines.

But later on, because of few millions difference, other players leapfrog the EU.

[slawek]

8 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

a) The EU is a collection of countries, it isn`t a country.

 

b) Good luck with that.

a) Whether the EU is a country or a collection of countries is irrelevant, having a financial center in a third country is a risk in both cases

b) It has already happened. Almost 10k jobs, 1-1.5t assets, trading in EU shares, dealing with the EU clients have moved to the EU. It is only a beginning. And the EU won't allow some fudges with thinly staffed entities as ICAP has learned

https://www.reuters.com/article/tp-icap-eu-regulator/uk-broker-tp-icap-to-stop-serving-some-eu-clients-blames-covid-19-idUSL8N2K015O  

[A.steve]

On 25/01/2021 at 14:55, thecrashingisles said:

You said that you think the UK remaining outside the EU should be an "absolute constraint" on political discourse.

No. I think that the UK having left the EU, as a consequence of a clear referendum result, is a matter of fact.

I think that any sensible political discourse must recognise this reality.

Discourse is defined "written or spoken communication or debate."  I'm not interested in debating whether or not the UK should have left the EU. The time for that debate has passed.  If you want to engage me in discourse, you will need to make the debate relevant... and you will need to have accepted the current reality.  If you want to make the case that the UK should join the EU - be my guest... just don't expect me to take it seriously.

[14stFlyer]

8 minutes ago, rollover said:

Europe invested billions to help develop the world's first COVID-19 vaccines.

So have the U.K.  £15 billion I think. 

 

9 minutes ago, rollover said:

But later on, because of few millions difference, other players leapfrog the EU.

This is the bit you need to find evidence for.   I, like dugs, am extremely cynical with respect to our government’s moral compass and its actions. However, I need to see evidence that they (or indeed another government) have been underhand here, otherwise we are just looking at poor planning and slow action within EU decision makers as the reason for why the EU is where it is. 

[slawek]

10 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Yes, but they haven’t, or have you seen evidence that I cannot find?  Unless she is referring to Pfizer vaccine already produced and waiting that was provided to U.K. because it was first to approve for use?  In which case their issue is with Pfizer. If so then why are they rubbishing AstraZeneca in the press and trying to force them into breaking commercial contracts?  
All I can see here is late commitment by the EU, an unfortunate delay to AstraZeneca supply in Europe, and an attempt by EU politicians to pass off the blame on to others. 

We don't know that. We have no evidence that they haven't. AstraZeneca can't explain what happened.

As far as I know the EU wants to start monitoring the exports to see if AstraZeneca is not playing games.

In my opinion the EU and other countries should grant anyone a licence to produce those vaccines. We won't get out of this hole without the whole world being vaccinated and that won't happen soon with the current limited supply. We need tens of billions of doses but it looks like we can produce at the moments a few hundred millions per year.          

[rollover]

6 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

Yes, but they haven’t, or have you seen evidence that I cannot find?  Unless she is referring to Pfizer vaccine already produced and waiting that was provided to U.K. because it was first to approve for use?  In which case their issue is with Pfizer. If so then why are they rubbishing AstraZeneca in the press and trying to force them into breaking commercial contracts?  
All I can see here is late commitment by the EU, an unfortunate delay to AstraZeneca supply in Europe, and an attempt by EU politicians to pass off the blame on to others. 

You intentionally misinterpreting what happens and presenting your opinions as facts.

 

Europe invested billions to help develop the world's first Covid-19 vaccines.

But now the EU is told sorry, thank you for your billions, but you will get only 40% because other customers, who come later, pay little bit more. Sorry.

 

 

[jonb2]

12 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

So you're basically saying that because we trade with someone, their representatives on our soil should have immunity from our laws.

Sorry, guess we'll have to differ on that one. To me that is subjective rather than objective though.

Agreed.

I can't wait to see the land used for the American embassy (largest in London) given up for housing the homeless, an incubator for black artists and vertical agriculture.

The only people that should be allowed to have diplomats here are those regimes we sell weapons to, after all, who's going to act as a conduit for the brown paper packages full of currency flinging back and forth?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-arms-sales-double-human-rights-abusers-china-saudi-arabia-israel-yemen-a8452101.html

[14stFlyer]

1 hour ago, rollover said:

You intentionally misinterpreting what happens and presenting your opinions as facts

I am certainly not doing this intentionally. 
 

 

1 hour ago, rollover said:

But now the EU is told sorry, thank you for your billions, but you will get only 40% because other customers, who come later, pay little bit more. Sorry

I have seen no evidence that this is happening. As far as I am aware, the EU supply chain will be used for EU only vaccines until the contract is complete. Only then will vaccines get sent to other countries, regardless of how much they are paying. You (or in fact the EU) need to show evidence that this is happening to make this claim.  Otherwise; nothing to see here apart from politicians showing their anger to hide their mistakes. Same old, same old, regardless of whether it is in the U.K. or in other countries. 
 

 

[jonb2]

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

I'm a bit on the fence with this. I am sure there will be more detail uncovered in due course. If it is straight forward that AZ has simply had problems with production and it turns out the UK is legally "first in line", then the EU really has no case here and should look to contingencies. 

However, my trust in the UK government is so low at the moment that I remain open to the possibility that this is an underhanded deal and designed as an anti-EU measure. If that is the case then the UK government have the lives of EU citizen on their hands. 

But, best we wait and see.

Yep, I am convinced this is at the heart of it Dugsbody.

After all, the majority of the media have been telling us the EU is the enemy for years. The grating sound of "our friends and partners in the EU" belies a useful hatred of the other.

Good luck with your ROW negotiations Bojo.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1386537/kamala-harris-news-boris-johnson-tensions-inauguration-joe-biden-brexit-spt

Looking forward to years and years of saying "I told you so". In fact I think I might have some big placards made (here, not in France and Poland) with the slogan.

Feck business.

[Peter Hun]

11 hours ago, dances with sheeple said:

a) The EU is a collection of countries, it isn`t a country.

They decided they now (after getting shot of the UK) are and the rest of the world is ok with it. We can refuse to accept that and not trade with them. But we won't - we will do as we are told.

[MancTom]

2 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

Not at all. 

Let’s say I enter into a contract to supply natural gas to an industrial user, though a pipeline that that end user also contributes financially to.  
i then enter into another agreement to create another line to supply a different user from a different stock of gas reserve in a different geographical area. 
if the second pipeline encounters issues and is not completed on time, then there is no way I would legally be able to “steal” supply from the first user to make up a short fall for the second. The second end user might only expect to receive gas through the first pipeline when there was capacity available beyond the initial contract volumes. 
I assume that exactly the same commercial constraints would be in place for different lines of drugs or in this case vaccines. in which case the EU can only expect access to vaccines from the U.K. assisted production when the U.K.s initial contracts are fulfilled. 
 

This is exactly how the AZ CEO has explained it. We signed the contract first and they guaranteed supply to us from the UK factory. EU signed up 3 months later and was told "best effort" to get it running by March, not a guarantee. So legally AZ cannot just take vaccine manufactured in the UK and give it to the EU.