4 ms·

"Do you actually work in the City or in the financial industry?" Well, sorry for the pun, but you obviously don't: "By the way, unlike what many in this threa

"Do you actually work in the City or in the financial industry?" Well, sorry for the pun, but you obviously don't: "By the way, unlike what many in this thread seem to think, being in the EU is of limited value for business protection. France and Germany via their proxies have been trying to pull financial work out of London for years - the EU Commission already tried to illegally ban Eurozone countries from using the UK for certain types of trading and clearing" The EU wanted to have the EURO clearing in countries that have the Euro. The EU supreme court, that is hated so much in the UK, actually ruled that such a demand can not be made since the UK is in the EU (but not in the Euro). Since the UK is leaving the EU now, Euroclearing will move back to the Eurozone with a sunrise period granted by the EU. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/financial-services-city-london-european-union-lch-lse-euro-clearing-ecb-brexit-latest-a8272356.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/financial-services-city... It does not make sense to look only of the cost of something (e.g. EU membership fees) without looking of the benefits gained. Allowance of euro clearing was one of the benefits.

repolfx 8y ago
I do work in both. What sort of "benefit" does the EU's own civil service try to take away? There is no technical reason why euro clearing must happen physically inside the eurozone. And why do you think the Commission tried to pass a law that violates the treaties? It's because they know that the ECJ frequently ignores the treaties and laws, and does whatever is most advantageous to the EU's ideological goals regardless of what's written - see their ruling on cancelling Article 50 for an especially clear example. I'm sure you can see why I might consider a "benefit" that the EU itself has tried so hard to illegally remove not an especially compelling argument. In fact their position is still illegal. EU regs say any jurisdiction that is "equivalent" from a regulations perspective has financial access sufficient to perform clearing, but the Commission has decided that on the day of leaving, despite having still identical regulations, the UK will not be "equivalent". You don't have to be a lawyer to see that if two laws start out identical and neither is changed, then they are still equivalent, but the Commission claims they aren't. This is entirely predictable given their past behaviour, and this time, the court will take their side.
- jayalpha 8y ago
  "There is no technical reason why euro clearing must happen physically inside the eurozone." Yes, there is. Overview concerns and the ability to intervene in times of a crisis. Or how "The Economist" said, in regards to Brexit and Euro Clearing. "Sometimes it is about getting back control" :-) Another think that makes me skeptical about Brexit: The UK had comparably low debt compared with other countries. During the last financial crisis, the debt exploded, also due to the finance heavy economy. Another crisis may be overdue. If there is a no deal situation and the next financial crisis comes, good luck with that. The UK was the "sick man of Europe". Then three things happened. 1. Reforms by Thatcher 2. Oil found in the Northern Sea 3. UK joined the EU (or the precursor of the EU) The oil is running out. And now they are leaving one the the biggest markets. So two out of thee advantages may be gone. Nobody knows the future but call me skeptical about the chances of success. I could give you a similar list of free trade partners.

repolfx 8y ago

I do work in both. What sort of "benefit" does the EU's own civil service try to take away? There is no technical reason why euro clearing must happen physically inside the eurozone. And why do you think the Commission tried to pass a law that violates the treaties? It's because they know that the ECJ frequently ignores the treaties and laws, and does whatever is most advantageous to the EU's ideological goals regardless of what's written - see their ruling on cancelling Article 50 for an especially clear example. I'm sure you can see why I might consider a "benefit" that the EU itself has tried so hard to illegally remove not an especially compelling argument. In fact their position is still illegal. EU regs say any jurisdiction that is "equivalent" from a regulations perspective has financial access sufficient to perform clearing, but the Commission has decided that on the day of leaving, despite having still identical regulations, the UK will not be "equivalent". You don't have to be a lawyer to see that if two laws start out identical and neither is changed, then they are still equivalent, but the Commission claims they aren't. This is entirely predictable given their past behaviour, and this time, the court will take their side.

jayalpha 8y ago
"There is no technical reason why euro clearing must happen physically inside the eurozone." Yes, there is. Overview concerns and the ability to intervene in times of a crisis. Or how "The Economist" said, in regards to Brexit and Euro Clearing. "Sometimes it is about getting back control" :-) Another think that makes me skeptical about Brexit: The UK had comparably low debt compared with other countries. During the last financial crisis, the debt exploded, also due to the finance heavy economy. Another crisis may be overdue. If there is a no deal situation and the next financial crisis comes, good luck with that. The UK was the "sick man of Europe". Then three things happened. 1. Reforms by Thatcher 2. Oil found in the Northern Sea 3. UK joined the EU (or the precursor of the EU) The oil is running out. And now they are leaving one the the biggest markets. So two out of thee advantages may be gone. Nobody knows the future but call me skeptical about the chances of success. I could give you a similar list of free trade partners.