Well, on your first point you asked how it could be done, not how expensive it would be, which is a legitimate but separate question.
There is also a difference between the establishment of the rules and enforcement of them. The rule would be that importers and exporters pay whatever tariffs are due under whatever rules regime comes out of the negotiations. The overwhelming majority of businesses would comply with the rules without enforcement, as they already do in all areas of business life. Those that did not would be breaking the law.
Immigrants can already come into the UK on holiday, and some choose to stay and work illegally. Of course, we will still have an open door for certain categories of immigrant post Brexit, and thise who did not qualify would be working here illegally and subject to the law. No Irish citizen would fall into this category so would have nothing to fear.
There is nothing in what I have described which implies a hard border. It would be at most, if you like, a soft border
When I contemplate no border (a soft border, whatever that is, is still a border) I imagine travelling from one London borough to another, or going to Glasgow or Cardiff or Leeds. What you have described seems to require checks, however honest you may think the overwhelming majority may be. As you have said 'breaking the law' which implies enforcement. Ergo a hard border.
Of course there will be enforcement if the law is broken, but not by the creation of a border with customs checks, immigration checks etc. The enforcement would be before and after the event. Obviously this is not ideal and there will be some law breaking but you asked how the agreement with the Irish could be retained while we leave the EU and this is broadly how it would have to be.
I imagine the EU would resist this solution by the way as they are using the Irish question to try to force the UK to accept that it has to stay in the EU in all but name.
You know there's more to borders than making sure the tariff's been paid right?
Who's going to check those goods crossing your "border" in and out of the UK/EU are safe or compliant with the domestic/EU legislation for one? How much is this going to cost?
The whole point of the single market is to ensure that wherever possible goods conform to agreed standards across it, so that once inside the EU there is no further need for such checks. We're going to be outside so will need to reintroduce and resource a far more robust system of border inspection. Or we might just not bother and just let the US or China import any old shite into the UK.
There's no border at present because the UK and Ireland share a common travel area, customs union and single market. If one of those three go then there are two options: 1) Norway Sweden style or 2) Northern Ireland stays in a Customs Union / Single Market People are starting to ask that question in polls over there and the majority choose 2, perhaps with a united Ireland to follow
Meanwhile talks over reconvening Stormont have stalled perhaps collapsed, superficially over the Irish Language.
Two questions for anybody in the know: does the DUP want a return to direct rule? And are the shinners playing the angles so as to build the case so as to stay in the EU with special status?
This is what happens when extremes like the alt-right get to call the shots. I have a feeling that 2018 is going to be a very interesting year.
Agriculture? Ireland is a heavily agrarian economy, so if all goods flow back and forth unhindered except agriculture, then a hard border will be required, am I right in assuming this? Then of course there is the free movement of people to consider.
I did not say it was a complete solution - '...may go some way...'.
It's a start - you have been saying that nothing is on the table - if this goes forward, then we may see a positive outcome.
I have asked for solutions much more than declaring nothing is on the table. Solutions that will have legs in the long term. So far at the very best there are tentative feelers being put out. Why didn't those who voted for brexit even put out those tentative feelers, let alone have a thought through Irish border solution before the brexit vote? I suspect the answer to that is for many it was not something they considered, and for others it has been waved away with the back of the hand in the hope they can blag it.
This has been stated by others on numerous occasions - those who voted Brexit do not get to decide the solution. That is for our defective political class. My only reason for posting was to point out that ... finally ... someone at that level is looking at it.
It's a start - which I thought was what you have been seeking? Surely its better than nothing happening?
On the one hand something is better than nothing, that is until we reach a 'that'll do' situation.
A leaking pipe can be wrapped in tape and rags which can minimise the damage and hold the problem off for a while, but ultimately a leaking pipe doesn't get better by itself. As brexit is repeatedly declared the most significant national event since the second world war, then bodging it is not going to hold.
Yes there is a defective political class, but in terms of those who voted brexit having the solution I diverge from you.
We are told not to re-run the debate, that words of caution were merely 'operation fear', that so far there has been no dreadful (economic) fall out, that those who voted brexit knew what they were voting for and it is arrogant to suggest otherwise, and the vote was to 'take back control'.
In my view it is an abdication of responsibility for any brexiteer to now say 'Brexit? Solution? Not my problem guv, ask the boss'.
I am not talking having an answer to every last detail, but a long and highly politically charged land border, and the risk of the break up of the Union is not a minor detail, even though there were many who guffawed and dismissed the Irish Question as an irrelevant red herring. Even more ironic when one considers the Tory/DUP arrangement
If those who voted brexit point to the sunny uplands of cheaper shoes, clothing and food, and marvellous trade deals with the wider world, then they should also have a credible answer to the border issue.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out ... the EU has thus far, and fully understandably, shown little leeway. I believe that, over the next few months, we will begin to see some movement.
But what do I know - according to some I only voted exit because I wanted a blue passport
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
I see that obnoxious shit Daniel Hannon and his hard Brexit mates are hard at work making sure Brexit works for UK and US corporates and the ordinary UK citizen is fucked over!
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Yes, I know what it means but I cannot see it happening. Imo they are more likely to utilise our feckwittery in leaving to support EU based businesses and attract UK businesses than bend the rules to allow us to pretend nothing's happened.
We left so we had control of our own laws and rules after all, so we will have to live with the consequences of that.
The suggestion is based wholly on the "they need us more than we need them" trope it seems.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Yes, I know what it means but I cannot see it happening. Imo they are more likely to utilise our feckwittery in leaving to support EU based businesses and attract UK businesses than bend the rules to allow us to pretend nothing's happened.
We left so we had control of our own laws and rules after all, so we will have to live with the consequences of that.
The suggestion is based wholly on the "they need us more than we need them" trope it seems.
It absolutely is not. It is based on mutual benefit.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit dividend isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit divident isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
Is that how you vote, to prove a point?
I doubt it,because I certainly don’t.
We all vote to initiate change. You cannot prove a point with a vote.
I see that obnoxious shit Daniel Hannon and his hard Brexit mates are hard at work making sure Brexit works for UK and US corporates and the ordinary UK citizen is fucked over!
Regular readers of this thread and it's predecessors (RIP) will know I've been boring the pants off everyone with the point that the US is going to look to slash and burn it's way through our current system of product/food/consumer regulation so it's good that it's come to light that certain factions are actively working behind the scenes to plan for this. It won't make the front pages unfortunately so we'll blindly continue sleepwalking into it.
"...A spokesperson for the IFT said the plan was an internal document not meant for public consumption. She said it was not a solely “libertarian” campaign, as some of the thinktanks involved were conservative.
“We don’t hope to pressure the government to do anything,” she said. “We hope to provide government with as much information as possible on the potential gains of such a UK-US trade deal.
“Mutual recognition of standards, which we do mention quite a bit, would not require the UK to move away from the precautionary principle at all, or to change its standards, regulations or laws in any way.
“If consumers don’t want to buy products made to different standards to our own, they will see the US flag on the packet and not buy it,” she said.
This bit is up there with some of the most dishonest, contradictory statements made so far about Leaving.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit dividend isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
I've heard Daniel and Moggie mention cheap footwear.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
That is rich coming from a Brexit voter. You are happy to see the country go over a cliff and its economy literally destroyed for a generation just so you can return the UK to a post war fantasy land and blue passports.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Yes, I know what it means but I cannot see it happening. Imo they are more likely to utilise our feckwittery in leaving to support EU based businesses and attract UK businesses than bend the rules to allow us to pretend nothing's happened.
We left so we had control of our own laws and rules after all, so we will have to live with the consequences of that.
The suggestion is based wholly on the "they need us more than we need them" trope it seems.
It absolutely is not. It is based on mutual benefit.
As is the whole single market yet we're turning our back on that.
It's wishful thinking on the part of the UK gov'. The EU has been clear right from the start, we are not able to pick and choose which bits we want unfettered access to without agreeing to accept the bits we don't.
Maybe they were lying/bluffing but if that were the case and we were able to negotiate a special deal for financial services then I'd expect very quickly afterwards other trade sectors and other countries knocking on the EU's door demanding the same or better. I can't see it from their side and it would not tick the "taking back control" box from the Brexit nutters on ours.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
That is rich coming from a Brexit voter. You are happy to see the country go over a cliff and its economy literally destroyed for a generation just so you can return the UK to a post war fantasy land and blue passports.
Yup, my whole life is aimed at obtaining a blue passport.
You really want the country to be in a mess just so you can say, told you so.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit divident isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
Is that how you vote, to prove a point?
I doubt it,because I certainly don’t.
We all vote to initiate change. You cannot prove a point with a vote.
OK. If brexiters voted to initiate change, why are they unable to describe the change they voted for, and how it will work out in practical reality? To vote brexit, but then abdicate responsibility to the politicians, seems to me to almost be the definition of voting to prove a point.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit dividend isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
I've heard Daniel and Moggie mention cheap footwear.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Yes, I know what it means but I cannot see it happening. Imo they are more likely to utilise our feckwittery in leaving to support EU based businesses and attract UK businesses than bend the rules to allow us to pretend nothing's happened.
We left so we had control of our own laws and rules after all, so we will have to live with the consequences of that.
The suggestion is based wholly on the "they need us more than we need them" trope it seems.
It absolutely is not. It is based on mutual benefit.
As is the whole single market yet we're turning our back on that.
It's wishful thinking on the part of the UK gov'. The EU has been clear right from the start, we are not able to pick and choose which bits we want unfettered access to without agreeing to accept the bits we don't.
Maybe they were lying/bluffing but if that were the case and we were able to negotiate a special deal for financial services then I'd expect very quickly afterwards other trade sectors and other countries knocking on the EU's door demanding the same or better. I can't see it from their side and it would not tick the "taking back control" box from the Brexit nutters on ours.
Well, we will know soon enough when the EU respond.
I’ve seen the full paper from the City of London. If I can dig it out over the next couple of days, I will post a link.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit dividend isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
I've heard Daniel and Moggie mention cheap footwear.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit divident isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
Is that how you vote, to prove a point?
I doubt it,because I certainly don’t.
We all vote to initiate change. You cannot prove a point with a vote.
OK. If brexiters voted to initiate change, why are they unable to describe the change they voted for, and how it will work out in practical reality? To vote brexit, but then abdicate responsibility to the politicians, seems to me to almost be the definition of voting to prove a point.
We are going in circles ... again.
Do not accuse me of not describing the change I expect.
I have probably posted more detail than almost anyone, remain or leave, on why I voted as I did, what I expect to see, and how I would change my perspective in certain circumstances.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit divident isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
Is that how you vote, to prove a point?
I doubt it,because I certainly don’t.
We all vote to initiate change. You cannot prove a point with a vote.
OK. If brexiters voted to initiate change, why are they unable to describe the change they voted for, and how it will work out in practical reality? To vote brexit, but then abdicate responsibility to the politicians, seems to me to almost be the definition of voting to prove a point.
We are going in circles ... again.
Do not accuse me of not describing the change I expect.
I have probably posted more detail than almost anyone, remain or leave, on why I voted as I did, what I expect to see, and how I would change my perspective in certain circumstances.
You are right to pull me up because you are one of the braver brexit supporting posters, and indeed you have made some suggestions. However would you not agree that many if not all of your suggestions have floundered when challenged. You mentioned previously a multi-speed EU as a solution, but the UK and the brexit vote ensures it will not be able to exert influence in that direction, you have tentatively tried to address the border issue, but have not been able to face the counter arguments. One of your most interesting earlier posts was about the maths of it all. How many people could the UK physically accommodate given present infrastructure and resources. I think this was one of your stronger lines of argument, but drilling down into the detail it proved fragile. For example if one million retired and aged UK citizens returned to the UK, whilst three million productive EU workers departed it would be a sum gain mathematically, but I actually think it would be a disproportionately extra burden on public resources compared to any gain by not having the children of EU citizens in UK schools.
However I apologise because you do not deserve to be lumped in with some of the brexit people who post here and yet contribute nothing.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Isn't that why a lot of people, maybe all the people who voted brexit voted the way they did, just to prove a point?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit dividend isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
I've heard Daniel and Moggie mention cheap footwear.
Manufactured in Northampton?
In a sweat shop from one of our new trading partners more like. But if our manufacturers and farmers get fcuked over hey ho.
1. No I do not believe my arguments have floundered.
2. I am convinced that, over the next five years, a multi-speed EU will emerge.
3. Did I really give that ‘maths’ argument? I don’t recall it and I very much doubt it. I have never once even mentioned the migration angle because I have no issues with it.
Hopes have been raised that the UK will strike a bespoke deal on financial services with the EU, keeping the vital cross-Channel trade open after Brexit.
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, is poised to launch the plan as the centrepiece of a key speech as soon as next week, proposing a system of mutual recognition in financial regulation – allowing UK and EU firms to trade freely, but crucially enabling Britain to set its own laws.
The aim is to ensure both sides base their financial regulations on the same principles, so even as precise rules diverge after Brexit the laws in each market have similar effects.
If the EU accepts the plan, it should mean both sides will be happy to allow institutions from the other access into their markets.
The proposed system also requires some co-operation between politicians and regulators to ensure there are no surprise changes in the rules. An independent tribunal will be put in place to resolve any disputes.
It contrasts with the current system of trade with non-EU members which focuses on regulatory equivalence – a system which would not allow the UK any regulatory freedom, leaving it with no say on financial rules.
Key figures in Britain’s financial services sector welcomed the plan, which was first reported by The Financial Times.
Miles Celic, chief executive of industry group TheCityUK, said he would be “very pleased” if the plan was adopted.
“The starting point for all our companies is, how do we look after our customers on March 29 next year?” he said, referring to the official day of Brexit.
“Beyond that, it is about how to maintain London as an international financial centre, not just for the benefit of the UK but also for the benefit of Europe and international clients around the world. Mutual regulatory recognition allows for that.”
It also allows Britain to be in charge of its own rules: “Being a rule-taker on an open-ended basis is not a runner,” he said.
Stephen Jones, chief executive of UK Finance, agreed.
“Including an ambitious framework for trade in financial services in any future agreement is in the interests of both sides,” he said.
“Through mutual recognition, closely aligned standards and supervisory cooperation, we can preserve some of the benefits of market access without sacrificing regulatory autonomy.”
It is also a victory for Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has long advocated similar ideas, and warned against the dangers of a breakdown in financial markets between the UK and EU.
He argued the UK and EU both benefit from the current open regime, and that a system of mutual recognition will keep these benefits.
A “system of deference to each others’ comparable regulatory outcomes, supported by commitments to common minimum standards and open supervisory co-operation” and with “a new, independent dispute resolution mechanism” would fit with “the UK Government’s stated aim of a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade relationship with the EU,” he said in a speech in Canary Wharf in April.
But if this is not done, and the flow of finance and trade across borders is stifled, this risks “fewer jobs, lower growth and higher domestic risks".
An interesting suggestion, but I do worry, sometimes, that there is an assumption that the EU27 will automatically agree to the UK position (I do realise that it's partly the result of feeling, having apparently hammered out internal Government differences, that the hard work has been done).
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
This. Why would the EU agree to a bespoke deal not on offer to anyone else when they can utilise the differences in the two regimes to attract investment previously in the UK into the EU.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
It would mean that, despite leaving the EU, our financial institutions can still have access to the EU market and EU financial institutions can access ours.
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
Why would France, Germany agree to that? Both of whom are looking to take advantage of Brexit to build up their Financial Services industries. How much would the UK be prepared to pay for this arrangement?
Because they would benefit by retaining access to our market.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
That is rich coming from a Brexit voter. You are happy to see the country go over a cliff and its economy literally destroyed for a generation just so you can return the UK to a post war fantasy land and blue passports.
The difference between us is that I am prepared to give personal opinions, debate where necessary, and provide backup when there is a relevant link.
All you ever do is say the whole thing is shit, insult people, and continually post links without providing any personal thoughts of your own.
I enjoy debating with the remainers on here because I usually learn things I did not know about and that helps me re-think my stance.
Comments
1) Norway Sweden style or
2) Northern Ireland stays in a Customs Union / Single Market
People are starting to ask that question in polls over there and the majority choose 2, perhaps with a united Ireland to follow
Meanwhile talks over reconvening Stormont have stalled perhaps collapsed, superficially over the Irish Language.
Two questions for anybody in the know: does the DUP want a return to direct rule? And are the shinners playing the angles so as to build the case so as to stay in the EU with special status?
This is what happens when extremes like the alt-right get to call the shots. I have a feeling that 2018 is going to be a very interesting year.
A leaking pipe can be wrapped in tape and rags which can minimise the damage and hold the problem off for a while, but ultimately a leaking pipe doesn't get better by itself. As brexit is repeatedly declared the most significant national event since the second world war, then bodging it is not going to hold.
Yes there is a defective political class, but in terms of those who voted brexit having the solution I diverge from you.
We are told not to re-run the debate, that words of caution were merely 'operation fear', that so far there has been no dreadful (economic) fall out, that those who voted brexit knew what they were voting for and it is arrogant to suggest otherwise, and the vote was to 'take back control'.
In my view it is an abdication of responsibility for any brexiteer to now say 'Brexit? Solution? Not my problem guv, ask the boss'.
I am not talking having an answer to every last detail, but a long and highly politically charged land border, and the risk of the break up of the Union is not a minor detail, even though there were many who guffawed and dismissed the Irish Question as an irrelevant red herring. Even more ironic when one considers the Tory/DUP arrangement
If those who voted brexit point to the sunny uplands of cheaper shoes, clothing and food, and marvellous trade deals with the wider world, then they should also have a credible answer to the border issue.
Also, it seems to indicate a desire to agree sectoral deals.
I'm not entirely convinced that this will meet the approval of the EU27. I have my doubts that they will be prepared to agree a looser variety of regulatory equivalence with full access to the Single Market for financial services.
It's hardly "taking back control" either is it if we are going to have to align our rules with the EU's to maintain our access, even if it is dressed up in language designed to suggest this.
But what do I know - according to some I only voted exit because I wanted a blue passport
In any event, it was unlikely that our financial regulation would ever differ much to the EU, even in the future. The Basel regulations for banks ensure that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/17/revealed-us-uk-rightwing-thinktanks-talks-to-ditch-eu-safety-checks
We left so we had control of our own laws and rules after all, so we will have to live with the consequences of that.
The suggestion is based wholly on the "they need us more than we need them" trope it seems.
No point arguing with you anyway, you are so entrenched in your negativity, I sometimes think you want the country to go to pieces just to prove a point.
How about waiting to see how the EU respond first?
Right now it feels as if brexiters are trying to survive the process like a boxer behind on points trying to avoid a knock out, and then hope to get a miraculous points decision in their favour.
Are there any goodies to come? Is there going to be any upside of all this for the general UK population like a 'brexit dividend'?
The notion of a brexit dividend isn't mentioned any more, just like the notion of 'not showing your hand during negotiations' (whatever happened to that concept?).
Theresa May is the 'just about managing' person at the moment, and as the Europeans keep saying, the clock is ticking.
I doubt it,because I certainly don’t.
We all vote to initiate change. You cannot prove a point with a vote.
"...A spokesperson for the IFT said the plan was an internal document not meant for public consumption. She said it was not a solely “libertarian” campaign, as some of the thinktanks involved were conservative.
“We don’t hope to pressure the government to do anything,” she said. “We hope to provide government with as much information as possible on the potential gains of such a UK-US trade deal.
“Mutual recognition of standards, which we do mention quite a bit, would not require the UK to move away from the precautionary principle at all, or to change its standards, regulations or laws in any way.
“If consumers don’t want to buy products made to different standards to our own, they will see the US flag on the packet and not buy it,” she said.
This bit is up there with some of the most dishonest, contradictory statements made so far about Leaving.
It's wishful thinking on the part of the UK gov'. The EU has been clear right from the start, we are not able to pick and choose which bits we want unfettered access to without agreeing to accept the bits we don't.
Maybe they were lying/bluffing but if that were the case and we were able to negotiate a special deal for financial services then I'd expect very quickly afterwards other trade sectors and other countries knocking on the EU's door demanding the same or better. I can't see it from their side and it would not tick the "taking back control" box from the Brexit nutters on ours.
You really want the country to be in a mess just so you can say, told you so.
Such a pity for you it’s not going to happen.
If brexiters voted to initiate change, why are they unable to describe the change they voted for, and how it will work out in practical reality?
To vote brexit, but then abdicate responsibility to the politicians, seems to me to almost be the definition of voting to prove a point.
I’ve seen the full paper from the City of London. If I can dig it out over the next couple of days, I will post a link.
Do not accuse me of not describing the change I expect.
I have probably posted more detail than almost anyone, remain or leave, on why I voted as I did, what I expect to see, and how I would change my perspective in certain circumstances.
However would you not agree that many if not all of your suggestions have floundered when challenged.
You mentioned previously a multi-speed EU as a solution, but the UK and the brexit vote ensures it will not be able to exert influence in that direction, you have tentatively tried to address the border issue, but have not been able to face the counter arguments.
One of your most interesting earlier posts was about the maths of it all. How many people could the UK physically accommodate given present infrastructure and resources. I think this was one of your stronger lines of argument, but drilling down into the detail it proved fragile. For example if one million retired and aged UK citizens returned to the UK, whilst three million productive EU workers departed it would be a sum gain mathematically, but I actually think it would be a disproportionately extra burden on public resources compared to any gain by not having the children of EU citizens in UK schools.
However I apologise because you do not deserve to be lumped in with some of the brexit people who post here and yet contribute nothing.
1. No I do not believe my arguments have floundered.
2. I am convinced that, over the next five years, a multi-speed EU will emerge.
3. Did I really give that ‘maths’ argument? I don’t recall it and I very much doubt it. I have never once even mentioned the migration angle because I have no issues with it.
4. Thanks.
All you ever do is say the whole thing is shit, insult people, and continually post links without providing any personal thoughts of your own.
I enjoy debating with the remainers on here because I usually learn things I did not know about and that helps me re-think my stance.
From you, I have never learnt a single thing.