Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19493
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
"The biggest winners of Brexit—Dublin, Frankfurt, and Paris—have proved to be at least as effective at pulling business in as the Brexiteers have been at pushing business out."
"But Britain’s job losses are not just about Brexit. While the decision to leave the single market, resurrect tariffs with trade partners, and boot foreign workers has certainly left the U.K. a less desirable place to do business, much of the movement out of the U.K. has been a matter of pro-business reform and repositioning by EU competitors."
UK's technology industry "is feeling the pain of Brexit, as founders leave a United Kingdom that has lost its grip on foreign talent and capital."
An eye-catching van roamed the streets of London with the message: “Dear start-ups, keep calm and move to Berlin.”
"Since then, Silicon Allee, as it’s called, has blossomed as founders of financial tech, health tech, and social media companies have come in waves to one of Europe’s cooler and cheaper cities."
The article describes the strategies various EU nations are using to attract businesses.
Though clearly, the UK is a significant market for EU good and services, none of these strategies involve advocating for favorable trade deals for the UK.
Why would they, really?
Oh no, I guess we will just have to struggle on in terms of financial trading just like other cities outside of the EU such as NYC, Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai etc.
Plus we will no longer have all those EU regulations in place regarding financial services, you know trhe ones that the financial services industry have been protesting about.
The truth is London is not in competition with Franlkfurt or Dublin or even Paris, it is in competition with the cities I have already mentioned above.
According to the Financial Times there will be around 4,600 Financial Services jobs losses as a result of Brexit, whilst in terms of tech companies London is doing very well despite Brexit. The Bank of England estimate is around 5,000 job losses, however being outside of EU regulations and the ECJ could bring massive benefits to the City in terms of free trade.
The Chancellor Philip Hammond even went on record to dismiss all this nonsense, and stated that any losses in thew city were more likely to benefit New York than Frankfurt or Paris, as for Dublin it's a tax haven that's why it does well, however new EU tax centralised legislation could put an end to this, and the Irish are quite concerned themselves.
London will have the same trading position in terms of the EU as other major financial centres, and if the EU goes down the protectionist route, it will have to be prepared to face action from not just London but every other major financial centre on the planet.
The UK government has already told the financial services industry that Britain will seek to develop a distinct regulatory framework from that of the EU after Brexit in an effort to secure a long term competitive advantage for banks, fund managers and insurers.
There is no room whatsoever for preotectionism in terms of the global financial markets and the EU could destroy itself by trying to impose restrictions on free trade and even clearing.
The same is true of tech and many other sectors and the EU has already put measures in place in terms of financial trading to ensure it carries on after Brexit, as part of it's 14 point plan for a managed no deal. A trade deal will most likely be done following Brexit, as it's in the EU members own interest.
"A Sky News analysis Tuesday suggested she could lose by as many as 226 votes -- which would be the largest defeat in House of Commons history, and catastrophic for May."
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19493
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
The big vote is today.
Doesn't look good for the prime minister.
"A Sky News analysis Tuesday suggested she could lose by as many as 226 votes -- which would be the largest defeat in House of Commons history, and catastrophic for May."
We all know that the deal is going to be rejected, however I don't see a vote of no-confidence successing and a second vote would require parliament to pass legislation which is unlikely.
The most likely scenario, is for the EU to backdown nearer to the March 29th deadline, as they realise the implications in relation to jobs and trade in their own countries. The EU has a $100 Billion a year trade surplus with the UK.
A free trade deal could be done following Brexit, however that's up to the EU.
Britain is already preparing for a gard Brexit, and has put plans in place, as have other countries in order to ensure as much frictionless trade as possible.
Jean-Claude Juncker has cleared the decks, ready for Theresa May coming to the EU tomorrow after her defeat in the House of Commons, which is almost certain.
Labour will call for a confidence vote, which they will lose. Theresa has 12 months before her own party can throw her out.
Parliament are determined to avoid a no deal Brexit, although the government is preparing for it.
Theresa May lost the vote by 230. Worse defeat for a government in 100 years. I can't see what the EU can offer to overcome this massive gap, and give the government victory on a Brexit deal.
There is more than the backstop affecting this vote. Many are also unhappy about paying the EU a massive divorce bill, with nothing back in return concerning trade.
Too many Brexit threads so not sure where to post this comment I spotted under a video. I'd like Brits to weigh in if this is true or not:
I’m from London U.K., you would not believe the unbelievable propaganda our paid for lame stream media are churning out. I am a yellow vest protester in London and nothing is ever reported, we demonstrate every Saturday in London, Black cabbies are demonstrating every week nothing reported, in fact last summer 40,000 people marched in London for Brexit nothing on media.
My UK Brexit friend sent me this from his Premier subscription the The Telegraph so not available to the general public online. Written by our Nigel (Farage):
Hours after last week’s so-called ‘Brady Amendment’ passed through the House of Commons, I addressed the EU parliament in Brussels. In the space of three minutes I told those unelected bully boys Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier, both of whom were present, that the British people are sick of them ridiculing Theresa May. I also made clear why I think UK public opinion is edging closer to a no-deal Brexit and sensed the panic in the room when I reminded them that in this scenario they could kiss goodbye to the £39 billion exit fee this country has promised to pay.I was blunt and to the point.
When I made this speech, the BBC ignored it. Instead, its news bulletins broadcast excerpts of a speech given on the same day by the Belgian politician Guy Verhofstadt, the EU parliament representative on Brexit, in which he savaged Britain’s current position in pretty much every way he could think of.
I accept that the BBC was under no obligation to transmit my words to its audience. With that said, I did find it bizarre that the BBC thought it acceptable to tell licence fee payers what Verhofstadt thinks of Brexit. This curious editorial decision has been underlined in recent days because it transpires my speech has to date been viewed on social media more than six million times. That’s a million views per day.
Now consider this. Today, I have been passed some documents by an EU source which prove that the BBC is currently in receipt of a seven-figure sum from the EU. I can reveal that under something called Horizon, the EU framework programme which provides grants for research and development, the BBC is involved in six projects guaranteeing it 1,502,663 euros.
Two of these grants were awarded as recently as 2018. Last May, the EU agreed to pay the BBC 546,575 euros to participate in the sinister sounding ‘Harnessing Data and Technology for Journalism’. This project will run until May 2020. And last October, the EU signed off 549,462 euros for the BBC to take part in a project called Global Under-Resourced Media Translation. This runs until April 2020.
The BBC claims that none of the millions it has received from the EU over the last decade find their way into its editorial budget. Whether that’s true or not (and who would ever know?) is irrelevant. The fact is that the British state broadcaster applies for this EU money and is happy to accept it. I have searched through the latest set of BBC accounts and can find no mention in them of the BBC receiving EU funds. Not a word, in fact. So, that makes the link between the BBC and the EU a secret one in this context.
Yet if this is all so innocent, why doesn’t the BBC just come clean and tell the people about its cosy relationship with the EU? The answer to that question is that the BBC’s chiefs don’t want you – the people who bankroll their sky-high salaries and gold-plated pensions – to know its dirty secret. Why not? Look no further than the example I’ve quoted above, in which a UK politician’s contribution to an EU debate is ignored, and a foreign politician’s critical view of Brexit is trumpeted as loudly as possible. In short, editorial bias.
I cannot be alone in my astonishment that the BBC will continue to receive EU money long after we are set to leave this nightmarish political experiment. Why on earth does it need these funds? Can’t the BBC see the conflict of interests? You have to wonder exactly how the utterly limp, invisible director- general of the BBC, Tony Hall, could possibly justify this, not least because the BBC’s annual budget is more than £3.5 billion per year. Hall won’t say a word about this, of course, though he really ought to.
In a way, there are parallels between the BBC and the EU. Both organisations are shadowy. And both are in trouble. The EU faces a range of threats: from Brexit; from the Italian economy sliding into recession; from the hardline politics of Poland and Hungary to mention just three. At the same time, the greedy, money-grabbing, dishonest BBC is also under attack. Not content with raising its annual licence fee from £150.50 to £154.50 from April, it is now trying to axe free TV licence for those aged 75 and over - just as it is being savaged by streaming services like Netflix. Its future is far from sure.
It’s time the BBC was challenged about its relationship with the EU. At this turning point in British history, MPs need to ask some forensic questions about why it lobbies for this money. Until we all know more about this, it’s safe to say the EU and the BBC deserve each other.
While these relatively small sums of money don’t explain everything, I’m also increasingly angry at the BBC’s coverage of the Brexit debate. Week after week, it would appear that both sides are not getting equal playing time on the broadcaster’s flagship shows. Research by Guido Fawkes shows that since the start of the political season in September 2018, 72% of official panel guests across Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions were Remainers, and only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Remain and Leave. Brexiteers are usually outnumbered four to one, week after week.
The old joke has often been that BBC stands for ‘Brussels Broadcasting Corporation’. On the evidence above, I’d go a step further and say it stands for ‘Biased Brussels Corporation’.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
