Brexit, aka, the UK Becomes a Clown Car of the Highest Order


Why build a wall when you can just repair Hadrian’s Wall (or the Antonine)? Make Rome Great Again!



“Hello, we’re talking about language.” A Bit of Fry & Laurie is a masterpiece.



A few months later:




Unpopular opinion for discussion:

The long-term damage done to Financial services in London as a result of leaving the Single Market are serious, but much lesser than the damage that would be done under the Norway option, which would give the EU27 full control over financial regulation in London.

Is that a fair summary of how the Norway option would operate? How much could the EU states use their control of regulation to advantage themselves at London’s expense?



I don’t think it’s a fair summary in terms of being “much lesser” damages, though of course it kind of depends on how the UK goes about its exit from the single market, but it’s true that a Norway option is far from ideal.

Certainly being a total ruletaker (realistically - EEA states have nominal consultation rights but it’s pretty much a figleaf) would not be ideal, regardless of whether you want an “Anglo-Saxon” style financial sector or a more traditional continental European one. But there are protections against the Eurozone at least acting to the disadvantage of non-Euro states. And a lot of the damage they could do will be greater in a full Brexit scenario — most obviously forcing Euro clearing to be done in a member state and/or be subject to direct ECB supervision.

At the end of the day, the whole point of the Single Market is to create a level playing field, so there’s a limit to the amount that they could do to advantage themselves. It’s just that the direction of regulation would generally be toward the sorts of financial services business models that the EU27 has and wants, rather than what the UK has and wants. For instance, the insurance regulation Solvency II was famously unfavourable towards annuity products when it was first drafted, because in most countries other than the UK annuities aren’t a big thing. It was only after extensive lobbying by the UK that amendments were made to take into account that business model (eg the so-called matching adjustment). If the UK didn’t have that ability to lobby, annuities would have been made uneconomical. There’s no inherent disadvantaging - everyone who wants to do annuities would be penalised alike. It’s just that the UK companies happened to be set up around annuities.



I think it depends which part of the financial services you’re talking about. @Ginger_Yellow makes excellent points generally.

If, like me, you’re cynical, you could think that the reason for the shift was to avoid the new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and other money laundering legislation. If so a rush to the bottom from a regulatory control perspective, as Theresa May threated (to be like Singapore) would be limited.

That could, of course, cause issues for the Hedge Funds and their dodgy clients in terms of freedom to hide ill-gotten gains and have it slosh (even more) around the London market.

Of course, it may be a price worth paying if it protects the manufacturing and farming industries. Even better if it puts a sick look on the face of those Tories which are tied to those industries (and their dodgy clients) who hope to cash in. .



Well, the Brady amendment passed, and Cooper’s amendment failed. That means May will go back to the EU and demand they remove the backstop. If they don’t, I guess we are heading to no-deal without a change in the executive.



Good result on the amendment voting tonight.

No support for foolish second referendum.
No support for forcefully blocking no deal.
Minor symbolic support in avoiding a no deal.
Support for renegotiating backstop.



Yes, the hens have passed a foxes shouldn’t eat us bill. That will work.



I mean it’s not like major societal changing bills shouldn’t have a requirement for more than 51% of the population voting for a non binding referendum that was predicated and propped up by lies and propaganda, and which disproportionately effects the younger generations who voted against it.

I mean, really, a slim majority supported predominantly by a generation that won’t live to suffer the full effects seems like a perfectly reasonable hill to die on.



The warnings are popping up so fast now its not worth linking them. Every industry is making public warnings to the catastrophic effects of No Deal.

The sooner it happens and every one of those racist (and misogynist) bastards who voted for it gets their P45s and queues up for soup the better. Nothing will fix this other than those who caused it receiving their comeuppance.




lol that’s what they voted for. Enjoy the 3 hour commute you wankers.

edit: um referring to Kent in general, not blood teams.



Sounds like more fear mongering to me.



That’s pretty weird.

Mike Stredder, director of blood donation for NHS blood and transport, said six donation sessions would be cancelled in Dover and Folkestone because of the potential return of Operation Stack.
But the Department of Health has now moved to deny that statement, with a source telling Sky News that a proposal to cancel sessions “was not cleared”.




WTF does Brexit have to do with blood donations?!



Traffic jams.



I’m sure that now, with the backstop truly rejected, the EU will very quickly agree to something else. :D



A Brexiter replies. All is fine. We are pounding the EU.




I’ve got to say, this whole inability to negotiate something that’s mutually agreeable must be making an awesome impression on the people the UK will next want to make trade deals with.