4 ms·

Doesn't cover services, aka 80% of UK gdp!?

mhh__ 6y ago
That sounds like Remoaner talk, we wouldn't want that now would we. Edit: I'm curious if downvoters think I'm not being sarcastic?
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  The most frustrating thing about this will be leavers acting like they won. They achieved exactly what everyone said would happen: a mix of no trade for vital sectors (FS) and trade for pointless ones (fishing!?) only under EU rules that we now have zero say in. So frustrating. Indont think anyone would vote for this over just remaining if they actually understood it. /FrustratedBrit
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    I read that for some sectors (Finance in particular) this is also (apparently, IANAL) a golden opportunity to move the books rather than the operations to europe. For every 1 employee on a British-registered fishing boat, there are roughly 91 in the financial sector. If it isn't obvious, we need to get the Royal Navy involved (We've paid for the F-35s, we might as well use them!)
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      This whole thing has been "the tail wagging the dog". If I even get started I'll lose what little hair I have left...
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Sorry you were down voted, I enjoyed our chat :)
cameronh90 6y ago
Services don't have tariffs anyway, and the EU single market was pretty poor when it comes to services. It has improved a bit over the last decade - and it was a focus for the future - but the situation as it stands is there isn't much of a single services market to do a deal with anyway.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Financial services don't have tarrifs because they're totally banned in many cases. You can't offer banking services or insurance in the EU unless your regulated by an EU member or covered under a trade agreement. But a bank etc in one member country can offer them in all other member countries, that's called passporting. Right now, if you want to IPO a Germany company, your friendly Goldman Sachs banker in London can do the whole thing over email. But from 00:01CET 01/01/21, that banker will need to move to the EU, establish residency, get approval to open GoldmansEU, open it (including getting the correct training and certification and moving a tonne of money there), setup to pay taxes and abide by local and EU regs, and then call the client back. He'll sack his UK staff or try and take them. He'll stop paying UK taxes. He'll stop funding the UKs Museums and Operas and Lamboghini dealerships. Financial services for the world's largest, most developed market has been a massive boon for the UK. Its funded everything else we've done. Passporting was the core economic thing we wanted in a trade deal. Fishing and farming and manufacturing are all worth less than just banking. And we didn't get it. But we can continue to sell some cod as long as we abide by Brussels decisions so I guess I need to retrain...
  - Brakenshire 6y ago
    Surely Goldman Sachs already have an office in Frankfurt. It's interesting to me what would fall foul of the new limitations. If the call is taken from someone in Frankfurt and they forward it on to someone in London, does that count? How about if they work in a team together? Or if the Frankfurt banker asks advice from someone in London. It seems difficult to draw a line there. I'm not really clear whether it's just about having a local subsidiary for compliance purposes, or whether it literally means no assistance at all, or what.

That sounds like Remoaner talk, we wouldn't want that now would we. Edit: I'm curious if downvoters think I'm not being sarcastic?

LatteLazy 6y ago
The most frustrating thing about this will be leavers acting like they won. They achieved exactly what everyone said would happen: a mix of no trade for vital sectors (FS) and trade for pointless ones (fishing!?) only under EU rules that we now have zero say in. So frustrating. Indont think anyone would vote for this over just remaining if they actually understood it. /FrustratedBrit
- mhh__ 6y ago
  I read that for some sectors (Finance in particular) this is also (apparently, IANAL) a golden opportunity to move the books rather than the operations to europe. For every 1 employee on a British-registered fishing boat, there are roughly 91 in the financial sector. If it isn't obvious, we need to get the Royal Navy involved (We've paid for the F-35s, we might as well use them!)
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    This whole thing has been "the tail wagging the dog". If I even get started I'll lose what little hair I have left...
LatteLazy 6y ago
Sorry you were down voted, I enjoyed our chat :)

cameronh90 6y ago

Services don't have tariffs anyway, and the EU single market was pretty poor when it comes to services. It has improved a bit over the last decade - and it was a focus for the future - but the situation as it stands is there isn't much of a single services market to do a deal with anyway.

LatteLazy 6y ago
Financial services don't have tarrifs because they're totally banned in many cases. You can't offer banking services or insurance in the EU unless your regulated by an EU member or covered under a trade agreement. But a bank etc in one member country can offer them in all other member countries, that's called passporting. Right now, if you want to IPO a Germany company, your friendly Goldman Sachs banker in London can do the whole thing over email. But from 00:01CET 01/01/21, that banker will need to move to the EU, establish residency, get approval to open GoldmansEU, open it (including getting the correct training and certification and moving a tonne of money there), setup to pay taxes and abide by local and EU regs, and then call the client back. He'll sack his UK staff or try and take them. He'll stop paying UK taxes. He'll stop funding the UKs Museums and Operas and Lamboghini dealerships. Financial services for the world's largest, most developed market has been a massive boon for the UK. Its funded everything else we've done. Passporting was the core economic thing we wanted in a trade deal. Fishing and farming and manufacturing are all worth less than just banking. And we didn't get it. But we can continue to sell some cod as long as we abide by Brussels decisions so I guess I need to retrain...
- Brakenshire 6y ago
  Surely Goldman Sachs already have an office in Frankfurt. It's interesting to me what would fall foul of the new limitations. If the call is taken from someone in Frankfurt and they forward it on to someone in London, does that count? How about if they work in a team together? Or if the Frankfurt banker asks advice from someone in London. It seems difficult to draw a line there. I'm not really clear whether it's just about having a local subsidiary for compliance purposes, or whether it literally means no assistance at all, or what.