$1T is leaving Britain because of Brexit
cnn.com
cnn.com
Edit: typo and to clarify I am not an UK or EU citizen, only outside observer of the train wreck.
How many of them don't have one yet?
Also, every bank based in the EU will have to open a regulated branch in UK in order to operate in this large market.
> The number of people that supported leave and lacked understanding of all the ties of the businesses that operate in the UK but sell in the EU was amazing.
Perhaps they're just not trying to see only the drawbacks and ignore successful non-members in Europe like Switzerland and Norway.
Being the banking capital of the EU is a huge contributing factor to that position, btw.
How is its trade balance doing lately? Not so good.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/balance-of-trade
> Being the banking capital of the EU is a huge contributing factor to that position, btw.
I'm not sure what economic indicators you are talking about. Certainly none that reflects the actual well-being of the population.
The trade balance tho is not typically a good indicator of economic health, at least not how it's typically pitched: https://mises.org/wire/nonproblem-trade-deficit
We'll be left with a first-past-the-post MP, and an unelected (sometimes hereditary!) House of Lords.
Traditionally money laundring was always much less of a problem in Switzerland than supporting tax evasion.
With the automatic exchange of information[2] this will pretty much be a non issue in the future.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hyde_Park
[2] https://www.efd.admin.ch/efd/en/home/themen/wirtschaft--waeh...
https://www.focus-economics.com/blog/the-largest-economies-i...
Mostly because of India's growth. So what? It's GDP we're talking about, a largely meaningless indicator nowadays.
UK is #27 in GDP (PPP) per capita rankings. India is #122.
Is it better to live in an economy with large GDP or better purchasing power? Is India somehow better off than the UK once it overtakes it by GDP due to population growth?
That's how you get Saudi Arabia at $55k PPP GDP per capita, ranking above Sweden, Germany, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, UK - you know, just most of the nicest countries on earth.
Back in reality, their GDP per capita is actually $21,000 and ranks them near Greece and below Portugal.
It's also how you get Puerto Rico ranking above Czech, Portugal, Estonia, Israel and nearly outranking Italy, New Zealand, South Korea and Spain. What a joke. Nobody actually went top to bottom through Puerto Rico's situation on the ground before calculating that.
Half of Russia lives very nearly in third world poverty, with incomes bordering on third world levels. By PPP GDP per capita they get ranked next to Portugal instead, which says absolutely nothing about the actual conditions on the ground for the bottom 1/3 or 1/2 of Russia.
Iraq gets ranked above China, Brazil and Colombia per capita PPP GDP. And just below Mexico and Argentina. Again, a joke.
You get Equatorial Guinea ranking on PPP per capita above Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia and Portugal; just a bit below New Zealand, Spain and Italy. In reality it's a country with a GDP per capita of just $14,000 and a third world life expectancy of ~58 years. Another farcical PPP adjustment invented out of thin air with zero considerations for reality on the ground.
UK is currently not willing to do any of the sort. So no, Britain will not get the benefits Norway or Switzerland enjoy...
The UK is proposing to leave the single market (in the best case)
No, May wants to stay in the single market, the EU is refusing that option.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/single-market...
This stubbornness on behalf of the EU will damage both sides economically and thus be corrected at some point when the current EU administration is replaced by a more reasonable one.
If you can't have your cake and eat it too, it's not the baker's fault...
The problem is that the baker expects payment and it seems that the UK is just not willing to cough up for the cake.
Of course you can, it's a matter of negotiations. UK has/had plenty of exemptions as EU member and Switzerland for example is not part of Schengen but in the single market.
It amazes me how people here think that the EU is somehow the entity that makes up all the rules. It's not, deals are bilateral.
The UK government is far more consistent than the EU currently. Name one important issue where the EU has reached a satisfactory agreement and results. Migration? Social security? EU army? Nope.
But just like the tone of your comment, the EU position on Brexit is governed by arrogance, ideological motives and fear of a chain reaction, not reason. Therefore the result will likely be bad for both sides.
Whenever someone asks for one single thing, they don't mean it. I predict anything I name will either not be important enough or you will not consider anything less than complete unanimity across the continent to be satisfactory.
But fine, I'll play. Abolition of mobile roaming charges across the EU.
So, ignoring your attempt at preventing the obvious answer with your introductory rhetoric, you honestly believe that roaming charges were a significant issue for the EU? Why didn't you mention banning curved cucumbers instead?
standardization of pallet sizes
classification of fruits and vegetables in classes so they can be more easily traded between member states.]
standardization of higher education between member states, so education is actually compatible between member states.
The pallets were standardized in a process that began in 1961, initiated by the UIC. It had nothing to do with the EU, except that its big bureaucratic machine introduced some more regulations.
The ability to travel, reside, work anywhere I desire in the EU as a right that I can rely on instead of having to ask for permission. The fact that I could marry another EU citizen from another country without having to ask for permission. That we have no extra paperwork related to that, even with a child. I still remember passport checks at the border.
Last but not least: 75 years of peace in Europe. Making the arch enemies of France and Germany friends.
Not all is good about the EU, it suffers from large deficiencies, but it has also brought great successes.
This was a founding principle of the EU and has been weakened recently as I'm sure you know. Also, in most countries you have to register and are only allowed to stay 6 months without work. Marrying people from other countries in Europe is not a problem and not an achievement of the EU.
> Last but not least: 75 years of peace in Europe. Making the arch enemies of France and Germany friends.
Here you lost me completely. This kind of revisionism is a real issue for the remain people. It was mostly EU countries who bombed Belgrade in 1999(!). 75 years of peace in Europe is a myth (there were plenty of other conflicts, including the current one in Ukraine!) and where it was peaceful it had nothing to do with the EU. The EU was formed in 1992, for heaven's sake.
I'm sorry for being brutally honest, but "75 years of peace in Europe" is one of these typical pro-EU talking points always brought up by badly informed people who embarrass themselves with it.
And guess what? Nothing will happen. At worst I'll show my tax statement from Germany and tax authorities will fuck off.
Now I moved to US.... Where I have to ask permission to fucking leave this shithole of a country.
Good for you, but I "can" sneak into any country of the world and remain there illegally like you. It doesn't mean I'm entitled to and neither are you.
> And guess what? Nothing will happen. At worst I'll show my tax statement from Germany and tax authorities will fuck off.
You are dreaming. Look at the legislation and don't argue with slacking bureaucracy.
> Now I moved to US.... Where I have to ask permission to fucking leave this shithole of a country.
Did anyone force you to? I perfectly understand "leave" voters who want to prevent this kind of migration: people who come for economic reasons but show no respect for the country and its laws.
Fun fact - nowhere have I been illegally. And yep, But sure... You define illegally however you wish.
> You are dreaming.
Yep... I've done that twice. That's my dreaming.
> Did anyone force you to?
I was lied to. You know Americans love to claim that USA is the greatest. It's not. And I made slightly more in Europe, than do now.
Free roaming within the EU
Standardization of chargers for phones
Free movement (including right to work and study) within most EU member states, plus I)celand, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein
Passenger rights for air travellers
75 years of peace
UK's position upon entering the EEC was actually so strong that its application prompted 3 other countries to apply for membership.
UK isn't at the helm of the British Empire as well.
Since the EU is much larger and has to protect her own interest, there is not much to negotiate. In fact, the deal offered is already pretty good for the UK. The last response of "no further negotiations" from the EU made this pretty clear.
Uhh, you have that exactly wrong. Switzerland is not part of the single market, but sure as hell part of the Schengen accord.[1]
Source? apart from the link provided my last trip to to Prague. I never needed to provide any id in either direction. And id checks, upon entering or exiting the Schengen area, are pretty damn strict.
That labour thing is unrestricted migration. I'm 100% sure that migration is the red line.
So... Yeah! May is proposing to leave EU Single Market.
That's a bit of a misrepresentation, because those "successful non-members" are members of the single market, which is currently something that the UK is actively trying to leave.
Don't underestimate what's happening here – it would have been possible to execute Brexit in a relatively controlled manner, but that wasn't done, and now the UK is rapidly heading towards a pretty unpleasant outcome.
Switzerland is a single market participant through bilateral treaties, like Norway and Iceland are through EEA. While they aren't "members" of the single market, I think we'd usually consider those four EFTA countries plus the 28 EU states to make up the "single market", though I accept there is no clear terminology in some ways!
Still though, such a relationship is equally not the plan of the current UK government, and customs union membership is not a prerequisite for single market 'membership' as such.
The UK is trying to leave the EU and stay in the single market. The EU is trying to deny the UK access to the single market.
Might also be interesting to have the view of an actual Norwegian on the Norway option, and how Britain is managing the process generally. She's not the only person on the continent who regards British politicians as malcontented fools who, at this point, deserve whatever they get:
Nobody is talking about it anymore because the EU refused point blank to even contemplate it and stated very loudly and clearly they'd rather die than ever allow such "cherry picking". Note the terminology - the quality of EU governance is very low and the lack of imposed trading barriers is the primary incentive (an artificial incentive!) that countries see for putting up with it.
So that idea got dropped. In fact at this point it's clear that there's no way to retain any form of cooperation with EU countries at all, on anything, without accepting ALL the EU's terms, which are unacceptable as they amount to not leaving at all.
This is a bad approach for the EU to take. Its supporters like to pretend this position is some sort of natural law or inevitability, but it's not. The EU could easily disconnect trade deals and customs unions from the other aspects of its project, but chooses not to, because they know that most people outside France and Germany would not accept transfers of all powers to Brussels without some serious incentives to do so.
First off, you can disregard any statements made by Leave campaigners during the referendum campaign. The same people who are now advocating a “cut all ties” approach were the ones who were saying things like “nobody is talking about leaving the single market”. Looking for ideological consistency is a dead end.
Second, the UK and campaigners should have been well aware of what would be required if the UK wished to retain single-market membership. Those are foundational principles of the EU. There’s no ambiguity there. Anybody who advocated a position that wasn’t reconcilable with those principles was either ignorant or lying.
Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take. The UK could end up in an EEA-style relationship, being single market participants but with more freedom in some areas. Or the UK could have a more distant relationship and remain within the European customs union. Or a border could have been instituted in the Irish Sea. Or a generally more distant relationship could have been negotiated in good faith. These scenarios were obvious and known, made clear by the EU, and it’s a monumental failure of governance that the UK failed to understand their negotiating position.
The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement.
I’ll tell you what the actual problem is - Brexit is a project with no real shape or form, into which people can pour their own fantasies. It is totally legitimate for a country to decide it no longer wishes to be a member, but to disentangle a close relationship like that requires clarity about what you want to achieve and why you want to do it, as well as honesty about what is possible and what it will cost. Honesty and clarity are both in short supply.
Third, you are deliberately misrepresenting the nature and state of the EU and it’s negotiating position. There are a clear number of different forms the UK’s relationship with the EU could take
That's a very odd claim to make because the EU itself is extremely clear that you're wrong. Here are some excerpts from recent news articles about Theresa May's withdrawal agreement, which the EU is now unanimous in claiming is the only option available at all, that there are no "different forms the UK's relationship could take". Who should I believe? Them or you?
- Germany's Europe minister Michael Roth said:"No deal better than the one on the table can be reached."
- Luxembourg's Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn said .... ""This deal that is now on the table is the best there is. There is no better deal for this"
- Brussels said Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement was ‘the best and the only deal possible’ and had been ‘approved, established, achieved’.
These statements appear to contradict you.
The EU has little incentive to change its underlying principles to reflect the demands of the UK, and expecting them to do so is obviously fantasy mismanagement.
Indeed your own position appears to contradict itself. On one hand, there are many possible options with varying degrees of commitment available. On the other, the EU will never abandon its principles. Which, lest we forget, they've said repeatedly means "no cherry picking" i.e. no options.
Honesty is in short supply.
Hmmmm ...
(I would reply but of course, Hacker News has now rate limited me because I got downvoted. This debate will have to play out some other time).
I won’t quite the rest, but I think you have misunderstood the EU’s position on this.
Yes, as I said there are different forms the relationship could take. I described some of them. What there isn’t - as various EU bods you quote point out – is any other deal available at this point. It’s done. If the UK had engaged in this process honestly, from the start, then other deals could have been achieved. Remember this graphic published by Barbier? http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/BRITAIN-EU/0100603...
I don’t think I’m being at all inconsistent or dishonest here. I’m happy to change my views if I’m wrong. But I haven’t heard a convincing argument that the current situation is the fault of anybody but a comically incompetent UK government.
Again, I don't see how your position matches the reality of what is being said by the people in power. So I think I'm not the one who's misunderstood their position.
The EU folk you are quoting are clear that this is the only deal that is available, and that is correct – but those statements are in the context of the red lines established by the UK, and the point in the negotiations that we are now at.
First, please refer to the graphic I linked to. It outlines how the conditions established for an EU exit deal by the UK limited the options that were available. These choices were almost entirely on the UK, and they are obvious to anybody with even a passing familiarity with the various bodies and constructs involved. The UK decided what conditions it was not willing to accept – free movement, ECJ jurisdiction; shared trade policy etc. – and the deal which has been achieved is the best deal possible given those constraints.
Second, realise that we are now at the end of the negotiation process. There is no appetite for renegotiating a deal under these circumstances. The UK and EU have negotiated for two years; if a different approach had been taken at the beginning of those negotiations, a different deal would have been possible. That is now no longer the case.
Both my statement that "a better was possible", and the EU's statements that "no better deal is now possible" are true.
You very obviously don't read Mr. Johnson's Telegraph columns</snark>
I agree. The EU was always very clear where their read lines were and never deviated from that. The PM on the other hand made very clear what the UKs red lines are. And does are simply incompatible with what's acceptable for the EU.
An ex-member undermining the fundamental principles of the single market is just not on the table.
Citing foreign ministers of member states just proves how ignorant you are on EU itself.
Again - single market isn't just trade. Read what four freedoms are, aka single market. The options for UK are clear: - if you want to leave customs union, you leave barrier free trading - if you want to restrict labour movement, you leave freedom of goods, services and capital movement
UK's real options, with Brexiteers in mind, is CETA++...
The position of UK and leavers was that of a deranged husband in divorce - demanding sex, without so much as an inkling of fidelity.
This quality of debate is exactly the sort of thing that led to the Remain campaign losing so badly. I see the slogans and the insults but where are the arguments?
You know... Cherry pick which of the four core principles of EU UK wanted to participate in.
So... Maybe your Brexit mind wishes to ignore the fact of the matter, but just because you ignorantly assign a different meaning to single market - doesn't make your recollection any less of a falsehood.
UK government has been trying to reframe this into an FTA, which it isn't.
There's also Good Friday Agreement... that is an international treaty.
Norway and Switzerland are subject to almost all the EU regulations but unlike the UK have no say, much less veto, in the making or enforcement of those rules. Is that situation really what Brexiteers wanted?
https://www.dw.com/en/switzerland-ignores-eu-deadline-for-tr...
This is a much stronger position to be in and the UK is a much larger "adversary" in tough negotiations (and has always been even within the EU).
There’s no reason the UK cannot negotiate their levels of access to the EU market like the Swiss or the Norwegians do, but the EU won’t grant full access without full freedom of movement. In fact, all of this is what’s happening now. How strong the UK negotiation position is can currently be observed.
There's a lot of scaremongering going around. The "no deal" scenario is terrifying for the EU as well, especially if the Britons don't pay the 39b and shut down their market.
Unfortunately, the current EU administration has a track record of self-inflicted wounds (e.g. Russia sanctions), so this is the most likely scenario now.
The Swiss are literally waiting for UK to leave EU, to see what they can demand. And they also want to restrict immigration...
Guess who's going to find it harder to negotiate as a result? UK, for trying to get an ultra special deal...
Let me clarify that. The populace very narrowly said yes to a referendum, which was supposed to restrict immigration[1].
Parliament implented it in a way, which was pretty toothless towards EU citizens who want to move and work to Switzerland, letting the Swiss Popular Party (SVP) going balistic.
Herein lies the rub: The population accepted the bilaterals with ~60% yes (if I recall correctly, I could be slightly off), but the immigration initiative with just slightly > 50%.
The problem is that you can't have it both ways. In essence the country would have to cancel the bilateral contracts in order to restrict immigration to EU citizens.
The current tensions are derived from a couple issues :
The EU wants a frame agreement so that that not every piss squiek new regulation needs to be negotiated, which is understandable
One of the sticky issues, though, is the regulation on EU companies (mostly contractors), which need to pre-announce work done in Switzerland 8 days in advance. The reason for that is to avoid sallary dumping, which makes sense, since salaries can be significantly larger in Switzerland and their minimums are negotiated in binding contracts between unions and employers.
The EU thinks those requirements are too restrictive and the unions in Switzerland fight tooth and nail against softening those requirements. Befor yelling unions! I have to say their position is understandable. The risk of hit and run contractors working for 1/3rd of the negotiated sallaries is just too big.
My prediction is that middle ground will be found eventually after the EU plays some hardball.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiat...
edit : some clarifications and spellos
nitpicking but these are unlikely to be branches but rather subsidiaries. London banks will still be able to have branches in the EU to clear EUR payments and access the ECB but are unlikely to be able to do any regulated activity (selling financial products, taking deposits or writing mortgages) out of these branches.
EC already warned the banks, that shell branches will not be tolerated... As complex operations cannot be overseen by people residing outside of EU jurisdictions(that's a warning about being a shady dealer, while hiding away from EU)
There's so much defeatism within the UK and anti-Brexit propaganda flying around from vested interests. It's all so tiresome.
> Brexit is a self inflicted shot to the head.
Money isn't the only thing in life.
Disclaimer - I'm not trying to be hateful.
That seems like a completely nonsense, garbage statement. Brexit is primarily about money and economics, from what I can tell on the outside looking in.
So what was your purpose in writing that?
I interpret his comment as pointing out a value to intangibles that are sometimes overlooked when viewing the country through a broad economic lens.
Instead of levelling the playing field, I expect the brexit will just create an even bigger divide between the wealthy and the poor.
But doesn't mass immigration also hurt those at the bottom? It's not the well off that are facing competition for jobs, housing etc. is it?
Housing competition is fundamentally local - everyone in the world wants London property, regardless of living there. Nobody wants houses in Stoke on Trent.
That's a pretty bold assertion, not what a quick google reflects
My guess is that neither can find anything with a quick google search and are just hoping that this thread dies.
Refusing to provide citations makes it seem like you have something to hide, regardless of the others' intention.
What does this actually mean specifically? What policy changes do you want that you think you can't have within the EU?
> sovereign nation once again
The UK is sovereign. It's just made some international agreements to align with other countries. If you think the EU is bad for this, wait until you see things like TTIP: all of the legislative override, ability to sue the state in foreign courts etc, and none of the democracy.
> The UK is sovereign. It's just made some international agreements to align with other countries. If you think the EU is bad for this, wait until you see things like TTIP: all of the legislative override, ability to sue the state in foreign courts etc, and none of the democracy.
One wonders how those poor impoverished nations outside of the big trading blocs survive!
How aware are you of the current UK visa tier system? What kinds of people do you think are currently immigrating that would not be eligible under a points based system?
>One wonders how those poor impoverished nations outside of the big trading blocs survive!
Generally they are poor and impoverished, yes. Or they have a deal with the EU and US. Or are tiny exceptions like Singapore.
This idea that the UK is inevitably doomed outside of the EU is such a canard - fact is, it cannot be known either way until it happens.
You're literally ignoring the fact, that most congestion in London and S/E England is due to internal migration. You're blaming EU migrants for your discomfort, the ones that are most likely to work for a bit and go back to their countries.
As a Canadian (and I imagine citizen of pretty much any non-european commonwealth country) I had to chuckle a bit. After being treated like a resource-extraction milking machine historically and then maintaining this pseudo-ceremonial allegiance to a royal head of state it seems funny for someone from the mothership to bemoan a loss of sovereignty and self-determination.
No ill-will intended, just struck me as humorous in what is in all other regards a very humorless situation...
I went to the beach with the dog on New Year's day - there were thousands of other people, the roads were clogged, and it spoiled the experience. Buying in the countryside is often not an option depending on your career, because many jobs are only available in the South East, hence you are forced to live in a hyper-competitive area, fighting it out with millions of others for your tiny slice of England.
I'm just trying to explain that my reasons for wanting lower immigration have nothing to do with xenophobia, and everything to do with the realities of life in the SE UK. Injecting millions more people is going to make it a massive miserable conurbation, in my view.
I see Brexit as the losers in the globalization push taking their revenge on the winners.
I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to. I think it would be nice to move freely between the NAFTA nations.
As in - if Carrier moved their A/C to Mexico, then some people could move with it... reducing the impact on the community.
We’re not in Shengen. You can’t just stroll across.
This trope about discarding democracy is tired too. A democracy isn’t “choose once and keep forever”. We are free to change our minds. Or are you surprised that we have general elections every so often?
Imagine the contempt with which calls for a second referendum would be treated if it were remain that had won. Not to mention, we were told that the vote would settle the issue for a generation. Oh whoops, apparently only if we voted remain!
How did you miss this?
Brexit is about having fewer immigrants in the country.
My driving instructor was very honest with me, even if I was a foreigner. He said 50% of his students are foreigners. But he still voted for Brexit even if he knows it will make him worse off financially. He just wants fewer immigrants in the country.
It's worth noting that, we as a country fail to integrate those people. It's not their fault.
It's worth double-noting, that those people are not the people we're removing ourselves from. We're actually removing ourselves from those who are culturally similar enough to integrate independently.
Immigration is /going/ to happen, it's a net positive for the country, in fact it's required to sustain the country. You've just ensured that it's the "brown people" who get imported.
--
Please bear in mind, I have no ill-will to anyone from those countries, but when people argue against immigration it's almost always because of the polish (which was hugely self-inflicted) or "brown people". The majority of leavers I know don't expect this outcome, they think it'll be a net decline in all immigration (including those from India, Pakistan etc;)
because? If it's because we aren't fertile enough, or our education system isn't good enough, or we aren't paying enough for certain jobs, why not address this?
I'm interested to know whether you think there should be any upper limit to the population of the UK: 100m? 500m? more?
Also - a population highly burdened with a lot of children tends to produce less value. It keeps more people out of work.
Migration is the most ethical of those.
And even then we put a price on it.
Even leaving the EU alone, results in the UK setting up their own GPS alternative. That's a huge cost to bear alone
The only reason this is possible is due to UK leadership in the area, so it's actually a brilliant opportunity for the UK to remain at the leading edge.
They had no success negotiation access to Galileo, so they are forced door a Homebrew alternative.
America is the leader with GPS, last time I checked.
To be honest, a lot of your comments lack realism and objective references. I'm 100% sure you live in the UK
'SSTL was selected to supply the navigational payloads for the first 14 Galileo Full Operational Capability satellites, in partnership with prime contractor OHB System AG of Germany, in January 2010. In 2012, the OHB-SSTL partnership was awarded a second contract to supply a further 8 spacecraft for the programme and earlier this year the Batch 3 contract was again awarded to the OHB-SSTL partnership.'
Source: https://www.sstl.co.uk/media-hub/latest-news/2017/sstl-celeb...
> To be honest, a lot of your comments lack realism and objective references. I'm 100% sure you live in the UK
:)
It's logical that the UK was involved when they were a EU member ( through partnerships as your opinionated source mentions).
1) It doesn't mean they are a leader ( as you mentioned).
2) It doesn't mean they have the expertise to set everything up ( which they didn't want to, since they tried negotiating for military access to Galileo)
3) It's not going to be cheaper now. They already spent 2,1 billion pounds when they were in the EU.
:)
Edit: can't reply anymore, but I do agree that I don't work in that sector and I don't know those companies.
It would surprise me that there is no ( current) EU-member alternative for the work that SSTL had done.
Edit 2: the current owner of SSTL is EADS ( Airbus). Which has it headquarters in France. SSTL is founded in the UK though.
Edit 3: Inmarsat History is synical in your statement that the UK is better off alone with brexit. Since it's origin is because of international cooperation
:)
The UK also has world leading Geomatics capabilities. I work in this sector.
I think one of the positive factors for the UK as regards Galileo is that technology has advanced hugely since Galileo's inception, thus a new UK system can be superior and far cheaper, hence the confidence behind the idea.
'UK engineers have completed the build of the novel Quantum satellite.
The telecommunications platform will be the first fully software-defined spacecraft. '
I don't know how to take this - one way to look at it is democracy won and people spoke, the other way to look at it is we can't always expect the masses to make rational/sensible decisions.
By your own admission, [the majority of] those that voted Leave didn’t understand what they were voting for.
By that measure, I don’t believe “democracy won”.
Yes, a democracy needs an informed electorate to function. But it is the electorate's responsibility to keep themselves informed. There will always be fake news, click baits and outright wrong/illegal manoeuvers from someone or the other.
IMHO, if the electorate can't take a few mins to understand what they are voting on, they don't deserve to vote.
Sadly, any time I have suggested that not everyone is equal and therefore not everyone deserves the same rights in determining circumstances for others, someone has invoked Godwin’s law.
Tough problem to solve.
Is it? Surely this is why we have people we delegate to because most people aren't going to be spending their time trying to keep up with the finer points of macroeconomics within a multicountry trading block as it pertains to tariffs, etc.
Much like I delegate to a doctor when I'm ill - if he gave me the wrong treatment and said "it's your fault, you should be better informed", that would seem a little harsh, no?
[edit to correct a mistaken plural]
Compare this with cancer or some other problem for which I go to the doctor to - it is not an easy task to understand the nuances of various drugs and treatments. Still, at least some people spend time and learn as much as possible before putting drugs into their bodies. But there is an implicit trust in doctors, because bad doctors don't last long in their profession. But bad politicians? It is almost a given that if a politician isn't a crook to some degree, he/she isn't gonna last long. By this time, the electorate should have learned to view everything that comes out of any politician's mouth with distrust, the opposite of what they (generally) do to a doctor.
Also, one doesn't need to learn the finer points of macroeconomics - Brexit is a bad idea for Britons, from every angle, even without understanding the depth of the issue.
We can blame the politicians all we want - but in the end, we vote for these politicians. Until we keep doing it, what right do we have to complain?
If the public were told the truth about what we'd be sacrificing for "sovereignty", I don't think we'd be here.
If you are imaginary enslaved [by the EU] then your freedom can also only be imaginary and will likely disappoint.
Democracy failed here. People elect representatives for a reason. Normal people shouldn't be expected to understand the complexities and nuances of a public policy decision. It should have been the responsibility of the elected representatives to have reasoned discussions, to weigh the pros and cons etc. and finally make decision for the people they represent. They abdicated on their most basic duty and we are in this mess now.
If voters had known what they are in for, they wouldn't have voted to leave.
Perhaps you should get more informed and read up on the Kalergi Plan.
You really shouldn't have voted leave my friend.
Your point about "unelected officials" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the EU works. "The EU" or its officials don't decide that much, if anything at all. Most of it relates to being able to exchange goods and services in a fair and safe manner. And even then, these decisions are driven by the elected governments of the member countries, because the "unelected officials" are selected and directed by those.
For example: if a company from country A is providing a service in Country B, using workers from country A, then there need to be certain rules. Labor protections should apply equally, as should professional qualifications and such. Similar things apply to goods traded between countries. If one country lowers its standards, for example for medical equipment, and the other members are forced to accept that equipment, then there is both a safety concern and a competitive concern. That's why so much regulation is coordinated at the EU level - and driven by the member states.
And no, bilateral treaties can't keep up the slack, because 28 member countries would have to have bilateral treaties with each other, which would be impractical.
Unless a voter spends a ridiculous amount of time studying and keeping current in politics, he can only meaningfully participate in a limited number of elections and issues. "Down the ballot", even for things like AGs or Judges, much less regulatory officials, people lose interest and competency.
Humphrey in Yes, Minister puts it very aptly: the UK joined the EU to try to screw it up from within after failing to screw it up from without. De Gaulle saw through this and that is why he refused to let the UK join while was at the helm.
The UK leaving the EU and/or disagreeing with what it stands for (to the UK: a market; to the rest of the EU: a peace project with benefits) has been a debate ever since the UK joined. If I am not mistaking, nearly all challenges to PMs in the UK since have been about the EU.
True, the EU is not perfect. But it's more or less functional and it's brought us peace since 1945. Plus, as an EU citizen, it's wonderful to be able to move from one point on the continent to another on a whim.
A large chunk of EU MP's time is actually spent transcribing EU law into Member State law, which is to say a lot more -- good -- stuff gets done in Brussels and Strasbourg than gets reported by the media. The EU, as an aside, happens to be a convenient scapegoat across the EU: when it's good, it's because of us; when it isn't, it's because of Brussels. But you'd never know that reading UK press.
To me the real WTF is that Brexiters didn't even believe in their own project all while pushing for it [1]. They had done such a good job in the decades prior at scapegoating the EU for just about everything, that UK voters ended up voting Leave, thereby pointing a gun at their own face.
More outrageous still is that some of the movement's leaders, such as Farage, are jumping ship by moving to continental Europe.
Frankly, as a continental EU citizen who has been watching this circus with growing awareness since the late-80s, the only thing that comes to my mind is: unless the UK public gets its act together (in which case I fully expect the rest of the EU to insist on the UK abandoning its budget rebate nonsense and adopting Schengen and the Euro, on top of aligning with the EU project once and for all), good riddance.
[1]: Mehdi Hasan's take on this in Chris Hayes' podcast is spot on: https://player.fm/series/why-is-this-happening-with-chris-ha...
English majority was lying all the way from mid 20th century. Last two blatant lies - promise to the Scots to keep them in the EU and 350mil to NHS(which was really a front for "they are stealing our benefits").
The referendum was called by Cameron to try and keep the party hardliners in their box. Nothing more than playing politics. The remain vote was supposed to be a foregone conclusion or he'd have not called that referendum at all. Cameron's reaction the morning after says it all.
In the words of Chris Patten, former Tory chairman:
"The whole sorry shambles began with a decision to call a referendum in order to try to manage the English nationalist right wing of the Conservative party."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/07/uk-must-have-s...
It was like the vote for Trump, the current way of living simply wasn't working out for many, ( Make America Great Again ) and they could not careless about the consequences, since the government had been ignoring them for far too long, they decided to take a vote into something different.
When I read ( arguably only limited in scope as I didn't spend much time on it ) how the remain were positioning themselves, most of their point were money, immigration, money, immigration, money. And really didn't answer any concern of the leave camp. It was like an internet argument, except happening in real life, You are Wrong, and I am Right. This does absolutely nothing to bring the two camps together. And to me It was very irresponsible from both side of the parties. At the end of the day, a representative democracy, normally people shouldn't have to be making this decision. Now it is the people that are going to suffer.
Those shiny Euros the UK is coining?
Seriously, the banking services provided by the city will move to Paris and Frankfurt in no time. Outside the EU, London has zero structural advantage or lock-in.
Meanwhile they get to drop the EU common external tariff. That alone will be a significant economic benefit to UK.
You are quite clearly misinformed what I actually takes in most European countries to get a banking license.
It's not quite the same thing as opening a corporate entity in, say, Delaware.
And as the EU made quite clear: Renting a mail box in Frankfurt and setting up a limited company won't quite do the trick.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40258449
So a few things from that article are important. The first is that a subsidiary already exists. The second is that some clearing already occurs in the US, so there's precedent for non-EU Euro clearing. And third, it looks like the European Central Bank has been trying to get clearing out of London anyways, but was stopped by the courts.
So it's not likely to be stopped since the US clears transaction, and even if it is there's already a subsidiary in France to pass it all through. There'll be some local job hits, but the sky is falling stuff is nonsense. Counties and businesses will still want to do business with UK and they will figure out how to do it very quickly.
There are many cities in the EU. If London has no advantages other than being in the EU then why is so much financial work done there?
By the way, unlike what many in this thread seem to think, being in the EU is of limited value for business protection. France and Germany via their proxies have been trying to pull financial work out of London for years - the EU Commission already tried to illegally ban Eurozone countries from using the UK for certain types of trading and clearing, and the British government had to sue the EU in its own courts to get the ban lifted (said ban entirely violated all the treaties which explicitly forbid that, and the Commission knew it, which goes to show what kind of government we're talking about here).
Despite these challenges the UK has done very well and not just in finance. In 2018, out of the big western European economies (the UK, France, Germany, Italy) which do you think had some of the best GDP growth?
https://order-order.com/2018/11/09/eu-experiencing-significa...
Yes, in the November quarterly GDP figures released by Eurostat, they showed the UK did the best. If you believed what you read in the press you'd think the UK economy was about to collapse, but it's not the case.
Well, sorry for the pun, but you obviously don't:
"By the way, unlike what many in this thread seem to think, being in the EU is of limited value for business protection. France and Germany via their proxies have been trying to pull financial work out of London for years - the EU Commission already tried to illegally ban Eurozone countries from using the UK for certain types of trading and clearing"
The EU wanted to have the EURO clearing in countries that have the Euro. The EU supreme court, that is hated so much in the UK, actually ruled that such a demand can not be made since the UK is in the EU (but not in the Euro). Since the UK is leaving the EU now, Euroclearing will move back to the Eurozone with a sunrise period granted by the EU.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/financial-services-city...
It does not make sense to look only of the cost of something (e.g. EU membership fees) without looking of the benefits gained. Allowance of euro clearing was one of the benefits.
What sort of "benefit" does the EU's own civil service try to take away? There is no technical reason why euro clearing must happen physically inside the eurozone. And why do you think the Commission tried to pass a law that violates the treaties? It's because they know that the ECJ frequently ignores the treaties and laws, and does whatever is most advantageous to the EU's ideological goals regardless of what's written - see their ruling on cancelling Article 50 for an especially clear example.
I'm sure you can see why I might consider a "benefit" that the EU itself has tried so hard to illegally remove not an especially compelling argument.
In fact their position is still illegal. EU regs say any jurisdiction that is "equivalent" from a regulations perspective has financial access sufficient to perform clearing, but the Commission has decided that on the day of leaving, despite having still identical regulations, the UK will not be "equivalent". You don't have to be a lawyer to see that if two laws start out identical and neither is changed, then they are still equivalent, but the Commission claims they aren't. This is entirely predictable given their past behaviour, and this time, the court will take their side.
Yes, there is. Overview concerns and the ability to intervene in times of a crisis. Or how "The Economist" said, in regards to Brexit and Euro Clearing. "Sometimes it is about getting back control" :-)
Another think that makes me skeptical about Brexit: The UK had comparably low debt compared with other countries. During the last financial crisis, the debt exploded, also due to the finance heavy economy. Another crisis may be overdue. If there is a no deal situation and the next financial crisis comes, good luck with that.
The UK was the "sick man of Europe". Then three things happened.
1. Reforms by Thatcher
2. Oil found in the Northern Sea
3. UK joined the EU (or the precursor of the EU)
The oil is running out. And now they are leaving one the the biggest markets. So two out of thee advantages may be gone. Nobody knows the future but call me skeptical about the chances of success.
I could give you a similar list of free trade partners.
London is on par with New York at the moment, but Brexit has literally killed that. London will not stop being a financial centre and it's going to be the biggest financial hub in Europe for a long time... But globally, it's now on the level of Tokyo or Singapore.
PS: I used to work in Braclays HQ, the one in Canary Wharf.
Rather, as with Detroit, there's a good chance the best and brightest will take their talents where they'll be useful and well compensated.
The people with the least value and mobility will be what's left.
Being the pioneers doesn't mean they'll be the ultimate beneficiaries of it.
The amount of fearmongering going on around this topic is quite eye opening and can only mean opportunities for people who keep their head. The top voted comment in this thread is saying that euro clearing moving out of London will "kill the market" and "be a shot in the head".
That person clearly has no idea of the size of the euro clearing market (small), or the fact that it will hurt the EU significantly more - that activity not only takes place in London for good reasons, but it exposes the UK to significant risks in case of clearing house failure ... not an entirely unthinkable problem given the eurozone's dire economic straits (stalling despite negative rates). I'm OK with it though: short term loss of relatively minor profits for banks is probably worth the insulation from the threat of government-backed bailouts in case of eurozone problems.
Also note the article: that money is leaving the UK because the EU is forcing it to leave via regulation. That's not a good sign for the strength of the EU economy - they can't win their own banking business on their own merits and have to literally ban Europeans from using British services to stop them doing it.
My view is simple - the EU is heading in the wrong direction, fast, and not even attempting to turn around. There's a train wreck coming for sure but it's not coming to the UK, as long as we get out in time.
So they'll go to Silicon Valley then?
Tech salaries are nowhere near that high in Europe and I don't think Brexit's gonna change that. For either the UK or anywhere in the EU.
A Senior Engineer in London can expect 70K-100K($90k-$127k) on the higher end of the spectrum. Similar rates go in Amsterdam, or US outside of Bay Area and NYC.
I sincerely wish the best for all brits but it is sad like an actual personal break up. Especially as this was just a Cameron/Conservative power play gone wrong.
Well, the "strong work ethic" is well reflected in your productivity :-)
https://qz.com/1096354/ons-data-analysis-uks-productivity-pr...
What do these types of platitude even mean? Which country doesn't claim a highly educated, creative, dynamic work force?
And what's the significance of that? Suppose I had $100 in a bank in UK and I moved it to a bank in Germany. Neither country is better or worse because of that. The article doesn't bother to explain the ramifications.
Deals are made in UK because English law is really, really good. Having to maintain offices in EU will surely increase the capital requirements of the banks but it's not a straightforward "Britain is XYZ poorer because banks shuffled some stuff around" situation.
Can you elaborate?
We also have alternatives to courts - called Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms - which operate out of London mostly, and are known to be free of political interference etc.
See http://www.lcia.org/ for an example. You'd write an ADR into a contract and use these people if you didn't want to use our courts. And our courts respect this arrangement if it is agreed upon and treated properly. It's often used between parties even where nobody involved is a British company or person.
In the UK, how are they "known to be free of political interference etc."?
Is it easy for people to contest a decision that looks unfair and bring it to the regular courts ?
Britain lately became known for lack of law enforcements towards dirty money. I also not sure how one can manage to claim strong laws and be a surveillance capital of, say, Europe. I'd assume that's because the situation is even worse in other places.
On your actual point i doubt there is noticable difference in laws. I think culture is more important than laws and our laws are just codifying our culture
What you have that they don't have is the English language as the native language. Non UK lawyers (as me) chose to UK arbitration etc. because of the language, not because we trust your courts more than the German, French or Dutch courts.
Yes, arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in most other countries could be conducted in English, but with UK arbitration we know that we would be able to read the statutes, court rulings etc that the arbitrators read and refer to, in the same language as them.
https://www.qlts.com/blog/why-english-law-governs-most-inter...
Not really an independent opinion so it seems. It would surprise me if they suggested something else, considering their business.
Everyone can find someone to agree with on the internet :)
International people have been judged in "Den Haag" a lot more than anywhere else.
Here are my "opinionated" sources:
> The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ)[1] is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justi... )
> Theresa May has failed to get the EU to agree that Britain will retain a voice at the European court of justice in return for her concession that the Luxembourg court will retain a role in protecting citizens’ rights in the UK after Brexit. ( https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-f... )
Personal: haven't ever heard a UK court settle for international affairs. Hague is the only one I remember from events ( eg. Khadaffi, Bemba, ... )
Usually it's a matter of negotiation. In a contract between a French and a German company, the French lawyer will suggest French law and venue, the German lawyer will suggest German law and venue. If either of them have sufficient bargaining power, it may very well prevail. Among equal parties, a compromise would usually involve selecting a "neutral" legal system and venue. English is the language everyone knows, so usually English is chosen. It's not always UK. Sometimes it Hong Kong or Singapore (typically if a party is Asian). Sometimes it's New York. Generally, European lawyers are wary of American courts and American law with its exotic remedies such as punitive damages. Also, between Europeans it seems unnecessary to go to another continent for arbitration.
I suggested in another comment a historical component to this, namely the legacy of the British empire. It seems logical that having exported our governance for a long time our legal system would be well known through the world too.
English law tends to be incorporated into contracts that are made among countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and parts of the Caribbean. However, contracts made between US entities and other entities frequently incorporate the law of the State of New York and even refer all disputes to courts in the City and County of New York so venue is locked down. There's also an increasing tendency for contracts (other than those for services) to incorporate as a legal framework the "United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" [0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_C...
See here for an explanation (EDIT: more relevant secion from same wikipedia page) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_as_a_fou...
English civil law therefore has gained popularity, as it is reliable (precedents can be consulted), and because judges can easily adapt previous rulings to new circumstances.
Common legal system is simpler at local levels(because it doesn't have to consult a central authority), and along with British empire - it is widely applied.
Do you know why finance contracts in baking, M&A etc. in common low are so extraordinary complex? You have to consider fuer every eventuality and every former case.
Ummm...the German bank can loan or invest about $85-$90 of that. The British bank has to loan about the same amount less. When you talking trillions it ads up. Generally you want banks with a lot of deposits.
As for rule of law in general, it's debatable whether its better in the UK than in the other Western or Northern European nations.
Aha, but as the major financial services industry player, we actually had a seat at the table, and could actually influence those laws.
Now we may have to follow rules we have no say in, or something.... Only 3 months away, no rush.
Having more assets under management is very impactful because money doesn't just sit in a bank -- it is used again for other things. Thus, there would be less money for loans and other investments.
If you're trying to get a mortgage or start a business, that's very impactful.
If you are a construction worker and financing for new commercial real estate is down, that's impactful.
If you're a factory worker and the factory can't get access to capital to launch a new product line.
All very real impacts.
For loans and deposits, there were likely to be already booked in EU branches already rather than London. These branches are merely being moved to a EU subsidiary. For derivatives, repos and other, these are not really typically funding any activity in the UK.
In any case it is unlikely to have any impact on lending in the UK. What it will have an impact on is where the banks are making their money, i.e. more EU business will be taxed in the EU (keeping in mind that EU business already done out of a EU branch of a London bank was already taxed in the EU).
The connection to lending and borrowing is tenuous. There are many things on the books that can't be used to borrow against!
The article just says "assets". What if those were $1T worth of toxic derivatives? Still bad (for UK)?
I simply wish this article was better written and provided some useful and insightful information. $1T makes a nice headline and I guess that's all they needed.
It doesn't really matter where an investor/banker sits, except in fairly narrow circumstances (e.g. depending on who's regulating him/her, s/he might or might not be able to invest in Iran, and have different rules on insider trading, etc.).
This is not entirely true [0]. The money-multiplier effect would mean the bank in Germany then has something like ~$900 more dollars (converted to Euro's of course) that it could loan out. I'm not sure on their exact Reserve Requirement, but it appears to be less than 10%. Apparently the UK doesn't have much of a Reserve Requirement though, so perhaps they would not necessarily lose out as much as Germany would gain in this scenario.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Mon...
The 'money multiplier' might have been a decent description of the banking system 100 years ago, but it's basically a myth these days.
Does the location matter now?
1) If this is just capital moving around within their own respective due to legal jurisdictional changes, this may be rational and may not even matter at all. Sometimes you change your behavior due to a change in rules but it affects you neither positively nor negatively.
2) If capital is leaving due to economic fears of leaving the EU, it may be entirely irrational. It has yet to be seen the long term impacts of leaving the EU. It isn't even a settled matter as to whether being a part of the EU is a good thing. Switzerland has done just fine without the EU, Greece has made off like bandits by being a member of the EU, and Germany has likely slowed their potential economic growth by being tied to countries like Greece via the EU.
3) Capital system geographies are surprisingly robust to change. It took centuries for capital systems to move away from Venice and later the low countries. Those capital systems survived massive recessions, multiple unprecedented geopolitical shifts, and numerous invasions and wars. They didn't die because of political turmoil or economic turmoil, they died because other regions learned from them and incrementally improved on their innovations. Compared to the level of turmoil seen in Europe throughout the 16th-19th century, Brexit looks like a walk in the park.
I hold zero opinions on whether Brexit is good for Britain. But economically speaking, I don't see much to fear. I haven't seen much indication that they are trying to destroy their trade regime that was established by default through their membership in the EU, which means that it is still effectively a single market. They already have their own currency and it was already free floating. The banking industry may be prominent in the UK, but all the banks were already multinational and headquartered in various countries to begin with; HSBC isn't losing out on EU business any more than Citibank is. Why is everybody running around like the sky is falling?
Although, uncertainty doesn't seem to be a big deal in bull markets, so it could be contextual.
”I have a feeling, in a few years people are going to be doing what they always do when the economy tanks. They will be blaming immigrants and poor people”. (Mark Baum).
Many people feel that austerity policies post the 2008 crash distilled feelings which led to Brexit.
If Brexit leads to another crunch, one scenario is a lot more right-wing politics, not less.
This is obviously not necessarily true, but the possibility made me very sad - and makes one wonder whether Brexit will trigger a spiraling political and economic crisis in the UK, not resolve one.
C'est la vie. Maybe I'll move to Ireland.
Hang on, that's not right. Do they mean "£800 billion ($1 trillion)", or "£800 million ($1 billion)"?
I've heard people say things like "thousand million", but I've never heard "milliard", and never heard "billion" to mean 10¹².
> Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the value of assets moving in pounds.
(Whole article is very likely to get flagged off, btw)
Ya if only we were as open minded as China and Russia we would win this war.
I wonder when Britain will try to get back into the EU. It would take the swallowing of a lot of pride on the British side, but basically there is already a majority against the current Brexit conditions, pretty soon there will be a majority for remaining in the EU, period.
No, things that aren't yet determined how or if they are going to "work" are those relating to shipment of food and medicine. There is a very high risk of short-term chaos. Considering that in 2018 there were a few days without fresh food simply because of two feet of snow, people are really underestimating the potential risks here.
EU GDP: $19.2T UK GDP: $2.6T
English speaking being the only real differentiator here and probably the most critical reason. However that only goes so far. And what for sure has changed is that we're down from 20+ currencies before to one huge single market with mostly the same currency.
How that all factors in is impossible to say, but to argue that nothing has/will change seems equally unrealistic as the over-the top reporting of the media suggesting the UK banking sector will collapse. Things will go on, but my bet would be there will be a considerable hit.
In case this ever happens - it won't - this will be attributed to the EU pumping billions into Poland's budget every year. Net benefit to Poland is higher than the UK's yearly contribution to the EU budget nowadays.
Now, go ahead and undo it because a few % more voted to leave at a certain point. These decisions to join/leave should be like adding a new Constitutional Amendment in USA, very hard to do, either way and require super-majorities.
Car registrations fell here in Austria as well, despite good economic indicators, it's not a big deal.
For many people in the UK any decrease in house prices is regarded as a very bad thing indeed.
This argument requires some hard numbers to make.
A significant number of owners bought their homes a long time ago and won't be affected.
A significant number of owners live in areas where prices were not affected by EU investment.
A significant number of NEW prospective owners will have access to lower prices in currently extremely crowded markets.
So, less alarmism, more facts and numbers please.
[Citation Needed]
EU membership has improved the _entire_ economy, and thus house prices nationwide.
--
I can't quite tell if you are from the UK or not, but fixed rate mortgages are not normal. Even purchasers who purchased 20 years ago commonly have to refinance their property every two years or so in order to get a fixed rate.
Combined with only 19% of the population (never mind more stock value than their primary residence value) owning any stock, stock ownership among the general population there is not like the US.
That basically means some majority of people there at least are using real estate as their primary store of wealth.
For many people in the UK any decrease in house prices is regarded as a very good thing indeed. (perhaps i'd be able to finally afford a property!)
Foreign property investors shifting away from London will be bad for people whose primary contribution to the economy is buying up properties, and good for everyone else who lives or works in London.
The divide and rule aspects of the UK EU referendum results are being exploited to the full. Like the last US election there is no good result for the English people - remaining or leaving are both going to have an ugly side. The City of London rules the financial world and enables incredible sums to float offshore via trusts and opaque corporate setups. What we are seeing is a further divide between the haves and have nots.
https://youtu.be/np_ylvc8Zj8 < spiders web documentary
'At the demise of empire, City of London financial interests created a web of secrecy jurisdictions that captured wealth from across the globe and hid it in a web of offshore islands. Today, up to half of global offshore wealth is hidden in British jurisdictions and Britain and its dependencies are the largest global players in the world of international finance.'
This makes the consumer banks and FS firms shuffling fiat currencies around europe a tiny drop in the ocean
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/11/11/the-cayman-conun...