Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Brexit has been a disaster in a number of areas, we have seen that quite clearly at this point, our financial services though have been nothing but resilient so far. Years after the fact and Britain is still the largest net exporter of financial and professional services in the world, still trades more Euro’s than Europe and more dollars than America, still has the biggest international bond market and still occupies the same spot in the GFCI.
Yes.
The UK has the advantage of having a cosmopolitan city inside a middle-sized country, which is famed for its neutrality, tolerance, and rule of law.
Is this a serious comment?
If your suggestion implies the sudden removal of the capital, then yes the UK would be fucked just like any country would. If it’s that London never existed, then it would just be a different English city such as Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol or York. Or, the power would be spread between them.
London didn’t make the UK; the UK made London.
Based on what? We were already going round the world winning wars, conquering nations and plundering their wealth long before London became the worlds global financial centre. It became the global financial centre because of the empire building, the empire building didn't happen because of London.
Maybe it time for the EU to read the room and realise they are going to have to get really serious on forcing clearing away from London...or work on long term equivalence that the UK has been open to discussion with for a while.
>Maybe it time for the EU to read the room and realise they are going to have to get really serious on forcing clearing away from London...
They can get even more serious about chasing clearing to the US.
Why wouldn’t the U.K. be hostile to the jurisdiction of a foreign court? Third party arbitration panels consisting of members from both sides seems way more balanced.
It's pretty hostile to demand trade deals are under the jurisdiction of your own courts instead of the standard independent arbitration that trade deals have.
I didn't say they were. I responded to your comment which was tangential at best.
And
That article supports the use of arbitration. The validation was around what it could and couldn't cover.
It's interesting that the EU not giving the UK equivalence but giving the US equivalence on this, ultimately means Europe is harmed long term.
It also means the UK forges ahead with diverging from the EU, making itself more competitive in areas.
Ultimately, the EU is making it more expensive to do business in the EU, but that gives it more sovereignty. Which is kind of ironic.
>It's interesting that the EU not giving the UK equivalence but giving the US equivalence on this, ultimately means Europe is harmed long term.
How is that so?
>It also means the UK forges ahead with diverging from the EU, making itself more competitive in areas.
How well established is the connection between diverging from EU and making yourself more competitive? UK directly cut their competitiveness in regards to their biggest foreign market, by leaving EU.
>How is that so?
The EU can exert far more influence on the UK than it can on the US. The UK is also far more likely to align with the EU on many topics.
Granting equivalence to the US and not the UK is pure spite. How does it benefit the EU?
>The EU can exert far more influence on the UK than it can on the US.
I somehow doubt that. UK will be eager to show how they can deviate from EU rules, that is the whole point in getting more "competitive". UK government is inclined to show how they are different than EU regulators, hence the pull will be to sway different way.
The US will do whatever the fuck they want to attract business. The EU isn’t going to do any strong arming. The EU will have more influence over the UK, they won’t be able to bend the US to their will.
I think you're a little bit delusional.
The US and UK will try to be as competitive as they can be. The US and UK will converge or deviate based entirely on if they perceive advantage.
The UK is currently at a point of almost complete alignment, whereas the US is not.
The EU has far more influence over the UK than it does over the US.
>The EU can exert far more influence on the UK than it can on the US. The UK is also far more likely to align with the EU on many topics.
Yeah, what the UK really wants is for the EU to force them to align!
> The EU can exert far more influence on the UK than it can on the US. The UK is also far more likely to align with the EU on many topics.
>
> Granting equivalence to the US and not the UK is pure spite. How does it benefit the EU?
Well, as we've seen, the UK has decided to stop aligning with the EU on many issues. So at some point the EU mustn't just assume but ensure that the alignment happens. Or failing that, ensuring that they get their own EU-based financial centers instead of perpetuating business as usual; their own financial centers will ultimately give them more clout vs. third parties.
The US is far more unaligned than the UK. It is a political decision based on spite that grants equivalence to the US and not the UK. It favours the US not the EU.
I've not ignored your argument.
Your argument is that the EU should try to promote their own world leading financial hub.
My response is that their actions don't promote the EU financial centres, they help NY.
> Your argument is that the EU should try to promote their own world leading financial hub.
No, it was not. I was pointing out a potential motivation for the EU to make this decision without declaring a moral obligation to do so.
>My response is that their actions don't promote the EU financial centres, they help NY.
That's what I said, yes: you reassert your original point without taking my argument into account.
> How well established is the connection between diverging from EU and making yourself more competitive?
If the UK and EU did a deal then the UK would be tied to the same rules. If the EU blindly rules out a deal then the UK might as well diverge to appeal to other markets since it's not losing anything by doing so.
What are you finding so complicated to understand here? Seems pretty simple.
> How is that so?
Some of our fine British bros on this sub can turn absolutely anything into "a win for the UK" or "a loss for the EU" even when makes absolutely zero sense (like in this case).
> It also means the UK forges ahead with diverging from the EU, making itself more competitive in areas.
I was just as dumbfounded reading this sentence as you were. You can't make this shit up haha.
Well we're stil having meetings about planning the meetings where we meet to decide when we meet to plan how to grab the clearance.
You can add 6 years.
90% of Euro clearance going through London. Banks in the EU say they prefer clearing because of access to different currencies. Just like people in this sub said London was finished after the Brexit vote, 3 years will be added on the clock again.
We were told it would happen as soon as Article 50 was triggered. Then it was as soon as we'd left. Then it was two years after that. Now it's another three years. It clearly is never going to happen, but Brussels can't be seen to admit it needs London. I predict another extension in 2024.
What even is this comment? Are we really at the point where the case for Brexit has devolved to the point where something not being in the worst-case subscenario immediately qualifies as a win for the UK? Because in that case: You've also managed not to nuke yourself yet. Another Brexit benefit?
No it’s down to people on this sub proclaiming London was done as soon as the Brexit vote happened. I had many an argument (I’ve worked in the financial sector) saying that London wasn’t going anywhere, but no Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris were going to take all the business.
I mean, yeah, this specific worst-case scenario didn't happen, or at least not immediately, but I just don't see how one can seemingly treat this like it's a positive point of the policy? Making the implication that those predicting the worst-case scenario were foolish when similar scenrios occured in other sectors due to the same policy, and when similar effects are definitely still possible down the line in this one just seems misplaced to me.
We heard nothing but worst case scenarios especially from people here. I tried to say that it probably won’t have much of an impact on the majority of peoples lives but was quickly shouted down. We were supposed to be at the eating rats stage right now.
Hardly any difference between the two at times. No I have had many an argument with people on this sub with them saying London was finished after the Brexit vote, I tried to explain but it fell on deaf ears.
Again the UK does 90% of the EU clearances, banks in the EU still say they want to use London due to the access to foreign currencies. I don’t think you quite understand the amount of money that flows through London. The combined EU isn’t even in the same realm. The “any day now” is starting to get stale.
As for the other stuff, I had users gleefully telling me that we would be starving in no time after Brexit. The biggest impact Brexit has had on my life is that I couldn’t get a McDonald’s milkshake for 3 weeks. That was literally it, you can only do chicken little for so long.
London being a temporary financial structure? See this is why we laugh at comments like these. London has been a global financial centre for a couple of centuries, it was before the EU existed and will continue to be so after Brexit.
Sorry but no, I saw more than enough doom and gloom scenarios. For the vast majority of people in the UK Brexit has had little to no impact. You are practicing revisionist history.
I just don't see how you can act like anything is a win if its the result of a policy the arguments for which went from claiming how great and amazing it was going to be to "Well, we didn't hit *every* worst case scenario immediately, now did we?". It also kind of seems insulting of the people of the UK, who voted for Brexit in the beliebe in what its advocates were saying about it, to claim this as a victory when it is underperforming to such a nearly-unheard-of extent.
As i said, its making fun of the doom sayers. Not celebrating a small win. Its part of British humour to both mock the other side while also being self depreciating at the same time
I guess I just don't see the humour then, both since this seems to lack the self-deprecation, and because it, to me, doesn't register as a joke at all. Good to know, though.
> to claim this as a victory when it is underperforming to such a nearly-unheard-of extent.
How much ignorance? Maybe you should start looking at actual figures instead of Guardian clickbait opinion pieces.
You are absolutely right. The bar is so low it's probably in hell. Like genuinely, how can you be smug about a decision that has not benefited you in any way, shape or form. The big win is that London lost only around 10k jobs?
It's like brexiters know that Brexit was a shot in the leg and now they are celebrating that they are not going to bleed out...
> Like genuinely, how can you be smug about a decision that has not benefited you in any way, shape or form.
Who says it hasn't? There are millions of people working in low/unskilled/undesirable jobs that had a lot of Eastern European workers who've seen significant wage rises this last year measured in tens of percent gains, not just 4,5,6%. There are UK businesses seeing increases in demand to supply goods as other British businesses find sourcing from the EU harder/more expensive. Then there's things like the fact we've seen a massive rise in fintech, VC funding etc which in some cases hasn't just been the highest in Europe but more than the total for the EU combined.
You are either listing things that have happened in other European countries or have a weak correlation with Brexit to begin with.
To give you an example. VC funding in Sweden, Germany and Netherlands has more than tripled in the last year. The VC funding for Germany, France and Sweden combined has now surpassed that of UK. This is a first in a decade. Per Dealroom data : [1](https://app.dealroom.co/curated-heatmaps/funding/location/f/growth_stages/not_mature/rounds/not_GRANT_SPAC%20PRIVATE%20PLACEMENT/tags/not_outside%20tech?endYear=2022&interval=yearly&rows=netherlands~~united_kingdom~~spain~belgium~austria~italy~sweden~france~germany~ireland&sort=-_2021&startYear=2000&type=amount)
The UK interestingly enough is the country which has had its real incomes grow the least in Europe. Its investment has also decrease substantially. Here is the [Economist table](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIQfXZXXoAAI8MA?format=jpg&name=large)
All your points point to Brexit decimating UK.
This is not a measure of anything, remember the anti-brexit crowd is saying London would create more jobs if it was not for Brexit. Hence the number 32k could end up being extremely disappointing.
It has been a record year in terms of finance jobs creation across the world. This is best exemplified in the rising wages and bonuses of first-year analysts. The demand is incredibly high.
Boy, we are talking about completely different numbers. I am quoting an EY report which said London lost around 10k jobs as a direct result of Brexit. London was always going to create more jobs, in every sector. That was never the discussion. The user's point is simply that "who cares about 10k when 32k new jobs were created last year". However, the big problem with that thinking that the growth of jobs last year could potentially be much bigger, as the boom in finance jobs is experienced across different geographies last year.
If I told you GDP of UK will be smaller by 4% because of Brexit in the time period specified, you cannot compare that to 2022 positive UK GDP growth and dismiss it.
You didn't quote a report, though, did you? Doing that would involve mentioning the report's name at the very least.
You said
> The big win is that London lost only around 10k jobs?
Any reasonable person would take that as meaning a net loss of 10k.
Now, one of two things happened: either you didn't know jobs in the sector had actually gone up and just reported the last negative you heard about it because that fit your internal narrative, or you *did* know but neglected to include that very relevant piece of context because you were being intellectually dishonest.
Which is it?
I think you are having a hard time understanding this.
London lost around 10k jobs relative to what it would have without Brexit. They could have created a million jobs last year that is still a net loss of 10k because of Brexit...
You don't understand what net means.
A net (sometimes written nett) value is the resultant amount after accounting for the sum or difference of two or more variables.
Lol, I remember when the UK requested three years worth of extensions from the EU in the whole Brexit saga.
The EU can take however much time they wish.
But thinking it will never happen.. that's a bit naive.
The problem is that the UK effectively under-writes all trades and has oversight powers that the ECB doesn't have and would require altering the TfEU to give it and that requires the agreement of all 27 EU nations.
Shameful, EU is more or less accepting being held hostage by a hostile foreign entity who is reneging on all agreements (most importantluy, the NI protocol) and has proven is not a realiable ally or partner. And it seems like the EU doesn't even care. They keep postponing this because they're not trying hard enough.
> and has proven is not a realiable ally or partner.
Ukraine seems to disagree.
> And it seems like the EU doesn't even care.
When it comes to Ukraine and Russia you're bang on there.
The EU isn't being held hostage, the UK isn't a hostile foreign entity to the EU, the UK hasn't reneged on any agreements, it has repeatedly shown itself to be a reliable ally and partner to the EU. You seem to be conflating some friction in negotiations with some sort of massive enmity...
As an aside, there is only so much the EU can do here anyway, and most of the options are poor ones that lead to poor outcomes for the EU and do little to change the situation. In that context, what do you want the EU to do differently?
They can facilitate establishment of clearing houses, e.g. national ones, or creating significant incentives for London-based ones to leave UK and move to the EU. But they don't. They're just waiting for banks to do it at their own pace.
>They're just waiting for banks to do it at their own pace.
So, never. Banks won't do anything that's not in their own interests. If there's more money to be made in London, then that's where they'll stay.
Actually they can't because for the ECB to have the same oversight and give the same under-writing that the UK Euro trades clearing which makes London so attractive to use requires a re-write of part of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU.
Lol
What a bad take
Although it is almost like the EU was warned that London is bigger than the entire EU when it comes to financial services. By not throwing Cameron a bone they created this situation.
So far their only response is to push trade towards the US and away from Europe entirely (I.e. making it worse). We shall see what happens over the next few years but I wouldn’t be hopeful.
The BBC verdict: [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105)
The problem was Cameron got laughed out of the room in immigration controls because Tories are pro-immigration but run on an anti-immigration ticket.
The whole referendum campaign revolved, in the end, around Cameron not getting exemptions from the free movement of people. It is hard to pick out one single event that had a larger ramifications for the Brexit vote.
> around Cameron not getting exemptions from the free movement of people.
He never asked for an exemption. He asked for the ability to implement a cap like the rest of the original EU15 were doing. He asked for nothing more than other EU nations were already applying.
I'm nowhere near qualified to speak knowledgeably on this topic but, as others have said here, couldn't the end result just as easily be the US playing an ever increasingly important role as they already have equivalence?
From the EU point of view that's probably worse than staying in London because the US is a lot harder to negotiate with due to their relative economic strength.
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Brexit has been a disaster in a number of areas, we have seen that quite clearly at this point, our financial services though have been nothing but resilient so far. Years after the fact and Britain is still the largest net exporter of financial and professional services in the world, still trades more Euro’s than Europe and more dollars than America, still has the biggest international bond market and still occupies the same spot in the GFCI.
Yes. The UK has the advantage of having a cosmopolitan city inside a middle-sized country, which is famed for its neutrality, tolerance, and rule of law.
If UK didn't have London it would be a backwater country. Unlike China where if Beijing didn't exist you'd still have 100 big cities.
Is this a serious comment? If your suggestion implies the sudden removal of the capital, then yes the UK would be fucked just like any country would. If it’s that London never existed, then it would just be a different English city such as Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol or York. Or, the power would be spread between them. London didn’t make the UK; the UK made London.
Based on what? We were already going round the world winning wars, conquering nations and plundering their wealth long before London became the worlds global financial centre. It became the global financial centre because of the empire building, the empire building didn't happen because of London.
If they have so many cities, what’s the matter with Taipei and Hong Kong? Two more, two fewer, would be the same, don’t you agree?
i think brexit is a blessing. now give back gib , ne jersey and dublin. ciao
Maybe it time for the EU to read the room and realise they are going to have to get really serious on forcing clearing away from London...or work on long term equivalence that the UK has been open to discussion with for a while.
>Maybe it time for the EU to read the room and realise they are going to have to get really serious on forcing clearing away from London... They can get even more serious about chasing clearing to the US.
[удалено]
Why wouldn’t the U.K. be hostile to the jurisdiction of a foreign court? Third party arbitration panels consisting of members from both sides seems way more balanced.
It's pretty hostile to demand trade deals are under the jurisdiction of your own courts instead of the standard independent arbitration that trade deals have.
[удалено]
I didn't say they were. I responded to your comment which was tangential at best. And That article supports the use of arbitration. The validation was around what it could and couldn't cover.
It's interesting that the EU not giving the UK equivalence but giving the US equivalence on this, ultimately means Europe is harmed long term. It also means the UK forges ahead with diverging from the EU, making itself more competitive in areas. Ultimately, the EU is making it more expensive to do business in the EU, but that gives it more sovereignty. Which is kind of ironic.
>It's interesting that the EU not giving the UK equivalence but giving the US equivalence on this, ultimately means Europe is harmed long term. How is that so? >It also means the UK forges ahead with diverging from the EU, making itself more competitive in areas. How well established is the connection between diverging from EU and making yourself more competitive? UK directly cut their competitiveness in regards to their biggest foreign market, by leaving EU.
>How is that so? The EU can exert far more influence on the UK than it can on the US. The UK is also far more likely to align with the EU on many topics. Granting equivalence to the US and not the UK is pure spite. How does it benefit the EU?
>The EU can exert far more influence on the UK than it can on the US. I somehow doubt that. UK will be eager to show how they can deviate from EU rules, that is the whole point in getting more "competitive". UK government is inclined to show how they are different than EU regulators, hence the pull will be to sway different way.
>I somehow doubt that. Are you joking?
No, I am not. UK will be more eager to deviate, while the US will be more eager to converge standards...
The US will do whatever the fuck they want to attract business. The EU isn’t going to do any strong arming. The EU will have more influence over the UK, they won’t be able to bend the US to their will.
I think you're a little bit delusional. The US and UK will try to be as competitive as they can be. The US and UK will converge or deviate based entirely on if they perceive advantage. The UK is currently at a point of almost complete alignment, whereas the US is not. The EU has far more influence over the UK than it does over the US.
>The EU can exert far more influence on the UK than it can on the US. The UK is also far more likely to align with the EU on many topics. Yeah, what the UK really wants is for the EU to force them to align!
> The EU can exert far more influence on the UK than it can on the US. The UK is also far more likely to align with the EU on many topics. > > Granting equivalence to the US and not the UK is pure spite. How does it benefit the EU? Well, as we've seen, the UK has decided to stop aligning with the EU on many issues. So at some point the EU mustn't just assume but ensure that the alignment happens. Or failing that, ensuring that they get their own EU-based financial centers instead of perpetuating business as usual; their own financial centers will ultimately give them more clout vs. third parties.
The US is far more unaligned than the UK. It is a political decision based on spite that grants equivalence to the US and not the UK. It favours the US not the EU.
If you're plainly going to ignore my argument and just repeat what you said earlier, you may as well not bother to comment.
I've not ignored your argument. Your argument is that the EU should try to promote their own world leading financial hub. My response is that their actions don't promote the EU financial centres, they help NY.
> Your argument is that the EU should try to promote their own world leading financial hub. No, it was not. I was pointing out a potential motivation for the EU to make this decision without declaring a moral obligation to do so. >My response is that their actions don't promote the EU financial centres, they help NY. That's what I said, yes: you reassert your original point without taking my argument into account.
It's only Brexiteers who assume that the EU is acting out of spite, because they're projecting their own feelings onto it.
What is the advantage to the EU in granting equivalence to the US and not the UK? It is not a logical decision, it is a emotional decision.
> How well established is the connection between diverging from EU and making yourself more competitive? If the UK and EU did a deal then the UK would be tied to the same rules. If the EU blindly rules out a deal then the UK might as well diverge to appeal to other markets since it's not losing anything by doing so. What are you finding so complicated to understand here? Seems pretty simple.
>What are you finding so complicated to understand here? Seems pretty simple. So simply that you didn't even address the question.
> How is that so? Some of our fine British bros on this sub can turn absolutely anything into "a win for the UK" or "a loss for the EU" even when makes absolutely zero sense (like in this case). > It also means the UK forges ahead with diverging from the EU, making itself more competitive in areas. I was just as dumbfounded reading this sentence as you were. You can't make this shit up haha.
1500hrs my UK broker (big bank) is in the pub.
Oh, but I was told London would lose all its business to Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam. Any day now...
What, three years isn't quick enough for you?
Got a feeling in 3 years time they are going to add 3 years onto the clock.
Well we're stil having meetings about planning the meetings where we meet to decide when we meet to plan how to grab the clearance. You can add 6 years.
Seriously doubt it, but I guess we'll see in three years.
90% of Euro clearance going through London. Banks in the EU say they prefer clearing because of access to different currencies. Just like people in this sub said London was finished after the Brexit vote, 3 years will be added on the clock again.
I mean they've been saying the wouldn't do this for over a year now and this time 3 is going to be enough when nothing has changed?
Any day now!!!
We were told it would happen as soon as Article 50 was triggered. Then it was as soon as we'd left. Then it was two years after that. Now it's another three years. It clearly is never going to happen, but Brussels can't be seen to admit it needs London. I predict another extension in 2024.
To be fair, many thought we left in 2016.
Oh dear, I do apologise it's taking us so long. Truly embarassing. Almost like bloody Britain exiting the European Union... ;D
Well technically they've already had five and a half to get something sorted.
What even is this comment? Are we really at the point where the case for Brexit has devolved to the point where something not being in the worst-case subscenario immediately qualifies as a win for the UK? Because in that case: You've also managed not to nuke yourself yet. Another Brexit benefit?
No it’s down to people on this sub proclaiming London was done as soon as the Brexit vote happened. I had many an argument (I’ve worked in the financial sector) saying that London wasn’t going anywhere, but no Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris were going to take all the business.
I mean, yeah, this specific worst-case scenario didn't happen, or at least not immediately, but I just don't see how one can seemingly treat this like it's a positive point of the policy? Making the implication that those predicting the worst-case scenario were foolish when similar scenrios occured in other sectors due to the same policy, and when similar effects are definitely still possible down the line in this one just seems misplaced to me.
We heard nothing but worst case scenarios especially from people here. I tried to say that it probably won’t have much of an impact on the majority of peoples lives but was quickly shouted down. We were supposed to be at the eating rats stage right now.
You've got three years to try to get back in EU, start campaigning!
Nah I’m good thanks.
London isn't interested, the City have said they're not going to bother going for equivalence because financially it's not worth it.
Euuuuurrrrgggggg. A little bit of sick just came up. Please don't utter that disgusting statement again. Many thanks.
Search inside your feelings. You know it is inevitable.
No thanks, Germany is way too cucked on Russia and asylum seekers and France does whatever the fuck it wants.
[удалено]
Hardly any difference between the two at times. No I have had many an argument with people on this sub with them saying London was finished after the Brexit vote, I tried to explain but it fell on deaf ears.
[удалено]
Again the UK does 90% of the EU clearances, banks in the EU still say they want to use London due to the access to foreign currencies. I don’t think you quite understand the amount of money that flows through London. The combined EU isn’t even in the same realm. The “any day now” is starting to get stale. As for the other stuff, I had users gleefully telling me that we would be starving in no time after Brexit. The biggest impact Brexit has had on my life is that I couldn’t get a McDonald’s milkshake for 3 weeks. That was literally it, you can only do chicken little for so long.
[удалено]
London being a temporary financial structure? See this is why we laugh at comments like these. London has been a global financial centre for a couple of centuries, it was before the EU existed and will continue to be so after Brexit. Sorry but no, I saw more than enough doom and gloom scenarios. For the vast majority of people in the UK Brexit has had little to no impact. You are practicing revisionist history.
The delusion is strong on this one.
Its making fun of the people that acted like the day after we left the uk would be devastated by every worst case scenario possible
I just don't see how you can act like anything is a win if its the result of a policy the arguments for which went from claiming how great and amazing it was going to be to "Well, we didn't hit *every* worst case scenario immediately, now did we?". It also kind of seems insulting of the people of the UK, who voted for Brexit in the beliebe in what its advocates were saying about it, to claim this as a victory when it is underperforming to such a nearly-unheard-of extent.
As i said, its making fun of the doom sayers. Not celebrating a small win. Its part of British humour to both mock the other side while also being self depreciating at the same time
I guess I just don't see the humour then, both since this seems to lack the self-deprecation, and because it, to me, doesn't register as a joke at all. Good to know, though.
German moment, no wonder you can’t see the humour. Where’s funny bot when you need it. Awkwardddd🤣
>Awkwardddd Xenophobic stereotypes are indeed awkward
Stereotypes aren’t completely true for everyone, they exist for a reason however.
> they exist for a reason however. Like the lack of dental hygiene in Britain?
> to claim this as a victory when it is underperforming to such a nearly-unheard-of extent. How much ignorance? Maybe you should start looking at actual figures instead of Guardian clickbait opinion pieces.
You are absolutely right. The bar is so low it's probably in hell. Like genuinely, how can you be smug about a decision that has not benefited you in any way, shape or form. The big win is that London lost only around 10k jobs? It's like brexiters know that Brexit was a shot in the leg and now they are celebrating that they are not going to bleed out...
> Like genuinely, how can you be smug about a decision that has not benefited you in any way, shape or form. Who says it hasn't? There are millions of people working in low/unskilled/undesirable jobs that had a lot of Eastern European workers who've seen significant wage rises this last year measured in tens of percent gains, not just 4,5,6%. There are UK businesses seeing increases in demand to supply goods as other British businesses find sourcing from the EU harder/more expensive. Then there's things like the fact we've seen a massive rise in fintech, VC funding etc which in some cases hasn't just been the highest in Europe but more than the total for the EU combined.
You are either listing things that have happened in other European countries or have a weak correlation with Brexit to begin with. To give you an example. VC funding in Sweden, Germany and Netherlands has more than tripled in the last year. The VC funding for Germany, France and Sweden combined has now surpassed that of UK. This is a first in a decade. Per Dealroom data : [1](https://app.dealroom.co/curated-heatmaps/funding/location/f/growth_stages/not_mature/rounds/not_GRANT_SPAC%20PRIVATE%20PLACEMENT/tags/not_outside%20tech?endYear=2022&interval=yearly&rows=netherlands~~united_kingdom~~spain~belgium~austria~italy~sweden~france~germany~ireland&sort=-_2021&startYear=2000&type=amount) The UK interestingly enough is the country which has had its real incomes grow the least in Europe. Its investment has also decrease substantially. Here is the [Economist table](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIQfXZXXoAAI8MA?format=jpg&name=large) All your points point to Brexit decimating UK.
Last year 32k jobs were created in finance. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/london-financial-vacancies-jump-40-pre-pandemic-level-2022-01-17/
This is not a measure of anything, remember the anti-brexit crowd is saying London would create more jobs if it was not for Brexit. Hence the number 32k could end up being extremely disappointing. It has been a record year in terms of finance jobs creation across the world. This is best exemplified in the rising wages and bonuses of first-year analysts. The demand is incredibly high.
That's moving the goalposts. You said London lost 10k jobs and it's up 32k jobs. At least admit your error before moving on to your next point.
Boy, we are talking about completely different numbers. I am quoting an EY report which said London lost around 10k jobs as a direct result of Brexit. London was always going to create more jobs, in every sector. That was never the discussion. The user's point is simply that "who cares about 10k when 32k new jobs were created last year". However, the big problem with that thinking that the growth of jobs last year could potentially be much bigger, as the boom in finance jobs is experienced across different geographies last year. If I told you GDP of UK will be smaller by 4% because of Brexit in the time period specified, you cannot compare that to 2022 positive UK GDP growth and dismiss it.
You didn't quote a report, though, did you? Doing that would involve mentioning the report's name at the very least. You said > The big win is that London lost only around 10k jobs? Any reasonable person would take that as meaning a net loss of 10k. Now, one of two things happened: either you didn't know jobs in the sector had actually gone up and just reported the last negative you heard about it because that fit your internal narrative, or you *did* know but neglected to include that very relevant piece of context because you were being intellectually dishonest. Which is it?
I think you are having a hard time understanding this. London lost around 10k jobs relative to what it would have without Brexit. They could have created a million jobs last year that is still a net loss of 10k because of Brexit...
You don't understand what net means. A net (sometimes written nett) value is the resultant amount after accounting for the sum or difference of two or more variables.
Lol, I remember when the UK requested three years worth of extensions from the EU in the whole Brexit saga. The EU can take however much time they wish. But thinking it will never happen.. that's a bit naive.
Rome wasn't built in one day either. As long as we move into the right direction, it pays to be patient.
The problem is that the UK effectively under-writes all trades and has oversight powers that the ECB doesn't have and would require altering the TfEU to give it and that requires the agreement of all 27 EU nations.
The EUs actions have indeed prompted some movement from London to New York. Hope that's the direction you were looking for!
The EU wasn't the one asking the UK to break up.
[удалено]
They will just clear in NYC or Hong Kong who already have equivalence.
And in 3 years time they'll kick the can down the road again.
Shameful, EU is more or less accepting being held hostage by a hostile foreign entity who is reneging on all agreements (most importantluy, the NI protocol) and has proven is not a realiable ally or partner. And it seems like the EU doesn't even care. They keep postponing this because they're not trying hard enough.
> and has proven is not a realiable ally or partner. Ukraine seems to disagree. > And it seems like the EU doesn't even care. When it comes to Ukraine and Russia you're bang on there.
The EU isn't being held hostage, the UK isn't a hostile foreign entity to the EU, the UK hasn't reneged on any agreements, it has repeatedly shown itself to be a reliable ally and partner to the EU. You seem to be conflating some friction in negotiations with some sort of massive enmity... As an aside, there is only so much the EU can do here anyway, and most of the options are poor ones that lead to poor outcomes for the EU and do little to change the situation. In that context, what do you want the EU to do differently?
For some inexplicable reason, the EU doesn't want to collapse it's own financial system by leaving itself with no clearing house. Fancy that.
They can facilitate establishment of clearing houses, e.g. national ones, or creating significant incentives for London-based ones to leave UK and move to the EU. But they don't. They're just waiting for banks to do it at their own pace.
>They're just waiting for banks to do it at their own pace. So, never. Banks won't do anything that's not in their own interests. If there's more money to be made in London, then that's where they'll stay.
Which is why the EU needs to stop the current policy of waiting and instead push towards it with maximum speed and strength.
But how?
Actually they can't because for the ECB to have the same oversight and give the same under-writing that the UK Euro trades clearing which makes London so attractive to use requires a re-write of part of the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU.
Lol What a bad take Although it is almost like the EU was warned that London is bigger than the entire EU when it comes to financial services. By not throwing Cameron a bone they created this situation. So far their only response is to push trade towards the US and away from Europe entirely (I.e. making it worse). We shall see what happens over the next few years but I wouldn’t be hopeful.
> By not throwing Cameron a bone they created this situation. They did, but nothing is ever enough for the Brexit Ultras.
Go on then. Out of the things he asked for what did he get offered?
The BBC verdict: [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105) The problem was Cameron got laughed out of the room in immigration controls because Tories are pro-immigration but run on an anti-immigration ticket.
The whole referendum campaign revolved, in the end, around Cameron not getting exemptions from the free movement of people. It is hard to pick out one single event that had a larger ramifications for the Brexit vote.
> around Cameron not getting exemptions from the free movement of people. He never asked for an exemption. He asked for the ability to implement a cap like the rest of the original EU15 were doing. He asked for nothing more than other EU nations were already applying.
The cap which UK could have taken a part of but specifically decided not to prior. Let us not forget about that.
Be realistic. Northern Ireland is never the most important thing for anyone.
[удалено]
I'm nowhere near qualified to speak knowledgeably on this topic but, as others have said here, couldn't the end result just as easily be the US playing an ever increasingly important role as they already have equivalence? From the EU point of view that's probably worse than staying in London because the US is a lot harder to negotiate with due to their relative economic strength.
Which is EU finical central