The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM

Status
Not open for further replies.
European Commission wants UK to pay Brexit costs — in euros
The European Commission wants Britain to pick up the tab for any costs related to its departure from the EU, such as the relocation of agencies now hosted by the U.K., and bear the currency risk by paying in euros, according to a draft of Brussels' negotiating plan.

The hard line for the Brexit talks, laid out in a draft of the Commission's detailed negotiating directives obtained by POLITICO, also includes tight protections for EU citizens and the EU budget, robust legal controls for any transitional phase for U.K. withdrawal, and clear guarantees for businesses whose goods go on the market before the ”divorce" is finalized.

But it is the Commission's approach to the U.K.'s ongoing financial obligations to the EU that stands out in the document, suggesting that Brussels wants to make it very clear that leaving the bloc doesn't come cheap.

”The United Kingdom should fully cover the specific costs related to the withdrawal process such as the relocation of the agencies or other Union bodies," the Commission wrote, adding that the U.K.'s financial obligations to the EU ”should be defined in euro" rather than sterling.

The Commission's directives, which will provide a careful roadmap for the EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, can only be adopted once leaders of the remaining 27 EU member countries have approved broader guidelines now being developed by the European Council. The 27 will meet to discuss those guidelines at an extraordinary summit in Brussels on April 29.

But even as the Council's draft guidelines were being revised and reviewed by diplomats in Brussels and in capitals across the Continent, officials at the Commission have been hard at work on the more detailed directives, under the close supervision of Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, his chief-of-staff, Martin Selmayr, as well as Barnier and his team.
Guess that was inevitable with how "flexible" the pound is at the moment
 
how is this our problem again?
That bit sounds like nonsense to me, too. I can understand the EU choosing to move those agencies after we leave, but why would we pay for them to do so?

you are kicking the agencies out after the EU was so nice and built it in the Uk with EU money. Now we have to relocate them and build it elsewhere. Its a big hassle.
We aren't kicking the agencies out. As far as I know the EU could choose to leave those agencies in the UK even after we leave (although obviously they won't do that).
 
That bit sounds like nonsense to me, too. I can understand the EU choosing to move those agencies after we leave, but why would we pay for them to do so?


We aren't kicking the agencies out. As far as I know the EU could choose to leave those agencies in the UK even after we leave (although obviously they won't do that).
Because the EU paid for those buildings in the first place, and are forced to relocate them as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU

We aren't kicking the agencies out. As far as I know the EU could choose to leave those agencies in the UK even after we leave (although obviously they won't do that).
In reality they will be though, the EU cant really have these agencies in countries that dont offer free movement to EU citizens
 
That bit sounds like nonsense to me, too. I can understand the EU choosing to move those agencies after we leave, but why would we pay for them to do so?


We aren't kicking the agencies out. As far as I know the EU could choose to leave those agencies in the UK even after we leave (although obviously they won't do that).

You voted leave, thats "kicking out" everything that has to do with the EU.
 
You voted leave, thats "kicking out" everything that has to do with the EU.
1. Actually I didn't, thanks

2. Unless there is some (not self-imposed) rule saying that EU institutions must be based within the EU, us voting to leave the EU doesn't force them to move those agencies anywhere. I fully expect they will move the agencies even if they have to bare the costs of doing so, but that decision is entirely their's to make.


That said, (I think) I understand other posters who pointed out that they will make it a negotiation point just because they can.
 
Can the UK get its money back as well then?
Thats an entirely reasonable thing to ask yeah.

The problem of going down that road is that then the UK has to negotiate the current value of 40 or so years of UK investment, which just adds more things to negotiate in a very small window of time.

1. Actually I didn't, thanks

2. Unless there is some (not self-imposed) rule saying that EU institutions must be based within the EU, us voting to leave the EU doesn't force them to move those agencies anywhere. I fully expect they will move the agencies even if they have to bare the costs of doing so, but that decision is entirely their's to make.


That said, (I think) I understand other posters who pointed out that they will make it a negotiation point just because they can.
The majority of these rules are going to be ultimately self-imposed, they just happen to differ from the UKs own self-imposed rules

The point is whether its remotely practical for the EU to run an agency in a country that is no longer in the EU, given that the UK will not have free movement for EU citizens anymore, and presumably be operating under its own set of standards and laws.

Not to mention that the UK would then continue to see the benefits of having the agency being based here, which EU countries would miss out on despite being the ones that pay for the agency to keep running.

With that in mind its entirely reasonable that the EU would want to relocate things from the UK to a country that is going to continue to contribute something towards them (and therefore recoup relocation costs from the country forcing the relocation in the first place - the UK)
 
1. Actually I didn't, thanks

2. Unless there is some (not self-imposed) rule saying that EU institutions must be based within the EU, us voting to leave the EU doesn't force them to move those agencies anywhere. I fully expect they will move the agencies even if they have to bare the costs of doing so, but that decision is entirely their's to make.
I'd imagine the argument with point 2 is that, presumably, the proper functioning of these agencies would require the free movement of staff from the UK into Europe and vis-versa. Any potential issues, or interruptions, or new Visa requirements, that would prevent this from happening as a result of leaving the EU does effectively force them to move the agencies in question, else they fail to do the thing they are intended to actually do.
 
Over half of a record high vote turnout voted Brexit, who is seriously gonna campaign to reverse it?
You mean a slight majority with two out of four union members voting for it, being fueled by lies on the side of a bus and their most important concern, "immigration"?

But yeah, don't see anyone campaigning for it. Nobody that could make a difference, at least.
 
Over half of a record high vote turnout voted Brexit, who is seriously gonna campaign to reverse it?
The party smart enough to realize that most other parties are vying for that 51% in a system where you could have a majority with 49% of the vote.
Who would be so dumb to try to aim for the brexit crowd that both UKIP and the Tory are already claiming.
 
Cross posting from this thread;

Trump puts EU ahead of Britain in trade queue
Merkel lands Brexit victory for Brussels

Britain has been pushed behind the European Union in the queue to strike a free-trade deal with the United States, officials in Washington have said.

President Trump has softened his opposition to negotiating with the bloc as a whole after attempts by his officials to open talks with individual European nations were rebuffed.

During a private conversation last month, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, convinced Mr Trump that talks on a US-EU deal would be simpler than he thought, sources close to both sides of the discussion told The Times.

This led to a “realisation” in the Trump administration that a trade deal with the EU — allowing the tariff-free exchange of goods and services — was more important to US interests than a post-Brexit deal with Britain, a source close to the White House said.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade deal between the EU and US, shelved after Mr Trump’s election victory, could now be revived or a new deal proposed.

The EU is America’s biggest trading partner: US exports to the bloc last year were worth $270 billion; it imported goods worth $417 billion. In the same period the US exported $55 billion in goods to Britain and imported $54 billion.

The development threatens to embarrass Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, who after meeting Mr Trump’s advisers in January claimed that Britain would be “first in line” for a deal. A year ago Barack Obama warned that the UK would be at “the back of the queue” if it left the EU. Speaking alongside David Cameron in London, he said: “Maybe at some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement but it’s not going to happen any time soon.”

Mr Trump’s change of heart has been put down to Mrs Merkel’s intransigence. After her trip to Washington, she briefed cabinet colleagues on what she said were “very basic misunder- standings” by Mr Trump on the “fundamentals” of the EU and trade.

“Ten times Trump asked her if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany. Every time she replied, ‘You can’t do a trade deal with Germany, only the EU’,” a senior German politician said. “On the eleventh refusal, Trump finally got the message, ‘Oh, we’ll do a deal with Europe then.’ ” Cecilia Malmström, the EU’s trade commissioner, will visit Washington next week for informal talks with Wilbur Ross, the US commerce secretary, and other Trump officials. The EU and Mrs Malmström are keen not to appear to plead for the reopening of TTIP negotiations but will discuss the “economic and strategic rationale” for a deal if the American side does the same.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...ueue-l7t8zwn7k

And obligatory gifs for such occasion;



 

8bit

Knows the Score
That bit sounds like nonsense to me, too. I can understand the EU choosing to move those agencies after we leave, but why would we pay for them to do so?


We aren't kicking the agencies out. As far as I know the EU could choose to leave those agencies in the UK even after we leave (although obviously they won't do that).
No, they can't. Those agencies must be located in the EU. If the UK is no longer in the EU, then those agencies cannot stay there.

https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/854687528254918657
 
Some new developments today:


German lawyers think even a transitional deal would have to pass the bundestag (and therefore probably other parliaments aswell):

BERLIN — Negotiating Britain’s exit from the EU could be even more fraught than previously thought — because national parliaments may also be involved.

That’s one of the conclusions of an analysis by the research service of the German parliament, the Bundestag, and it’s backed by a senior MP in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats.

If the national parliaments of the 27 countries remaining in the EU — and perhaps also some regional parliaments — are all to get a say, it could make the passage of the Brexit deal more complex and leave less time for the actual negotiations.

It’s generally agreed that the “divorce deal,” setting out the arrangements for Britain’s departure from the EU, can be sealed by Brussels and London. But Britain’s new relationship with the bloc is a different matter.

The EU has suggested an initial deal would not need the approval of parliaments in member countries, as it would be only temporary — to be replaced by a more comprehensive trade agreement at a later date. The German government backs this view “with the explicit reservation that this will be reviewed at a later point in time,” according to the 10-page Bundestag analysis, dated March 27 and obtained by POLITICO.

But the analysis also states that if the deal “is being ‘loaded up’ with competencies of the member states, this would turn it into a mixed agreement [affecting both EU and national legislation], which would require unanimity in the European Council and the ratification of all member states for it to be sealed, according to our current evaluation.”
And then also this:

EU to exclude financial services from post-Brexit deal

The EU intends to exclude the financial services sector from a trade deal with the UK after Brexit, according to the latest tweaks in the EU's draft negotiating guidelines. EU citizens must also be granted permanent residency in the UK after 5 years of living there.
The new text spells out that any free trade deal that would allow the City of London, Europe’s leading financial centre, continued access to EU markets would require that Britain continues to respect the EU's regulatory and supervisory standards.
It serves a blow to British prime minister Theresa May, who has called an election for 8 June. In the letter she sent to the EU to notify UK's exit, she argued for an ambitious free trade agreement that covers financial services.
However, France, Germany and other countries are looking to attract financial companies to Paris and Frankfurt, and other cities once the UK leaves the single market with Brexit.
An earlier version only said that the future trade agreement should "not endanger financial stability in the Union and encompass safeguards against unfair competitive advantages".
The new line was agreed by EU advisers to head of state and governments on Monday (24 April) in a preparatory meeting ahead of the Brexit summit on Saturday (29 April), according to Reuters.
In another change in the draft guidelines, the EU wants to secure the right to acquire permanent residency in the UK for EU citizens who have continuously lived in the UK for five years, Bloomberg reported.
The EU has already said in its guidelines that "agreeing reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law" for EU and UK citizens caught up in the process "will be the first priority for the negotiations" for the bloc.
The new draft of the EU 27 will be discussed at a political level by European affairs ministers on Thursday, for a final preparation of Saturday's summit.
 
It's really a mess. I guess we won't see much going on between now and the British elections in June. After that there is not much time left until the German elections in late September, though. It'll take another ~month til a coalition is ready to start working properly, so more than half a year of that 2 year negotiating time will be pretty much lost.
 
It's really a mess. I guess we won't see much going on between now and the British elections in June. After that there is not much time left until the German elections in late September, though. It'll take another ~month til a coalition is ready to start working properly, so more than half a year of that 2 year negotiating time will be pretty much lost.
It's almost as if May should have waited until after the French, German and indeed her own elections were settled to trigger Article 50. Oh well, it's not as if there's much riding on it.
 
Seven City banks set to open offices in Frankfurt (20 more in extended talks)

At least seven international banks based in London have taken the decision to open offices in Frankfurt to beat trading restrictions in the wake of Brexit, the German city said yesterday.

A further 20 banks were in advanced talks on relocating some staff, Frankfurt officials said, as Deutsche Bank warned it might have to move up to 4,000 of its 9,000 UK employees.

The US giants Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and Swiss banks Credit Suisse and UBS were all understood to be considering a relocation of London staff, German media reported.

More than 250 foreign banks operate in the UK while Frankfurt hosts about 60, including small outposts for the four floated as candidates for relocation yesterday. Frankfurt is keen to position itself as the EU base of choice once Britain leaves the single market and loses its right to authorise UK-based banks to offer services across the 27 member nations.

Banking industry sources believe Goldman Sachs has already decided to move some staff to Frankfurt despite hot competition from Paris and Dublin. Goldman Sachs did not respond to questions yesterday.

”A Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Swiss, Indian and a Russian bank have already opted for Frankfurt," Hubertus Väth, managing director of Frankfurt Main Finance, the city's business promotion association, told Handelsblatt yesterday.

”In three of the five US banks, decisions have been made in favour of Frankfurt, or are in the offing," he said. ”With more than 20 banks, the talks are getting more and more concrete."

None of the banks confirmed a move and talk of decisions being made may be part of Frankfurt's attempt to build momentum for its self-promotion campaign. Sources at Credit Suisse and UBS told The Times that Frankfurt was on the table but no decisions had been made.

Credit Suisse is understood to be looking at various EU cities to send staff to perform functions complicated by Brexit, with Dublin also a possibility.

UBS has said that Frankfurt and Madrid were being looked at but managers were waiting to see the final Brexit deal before deciding. City sources said Russian bank VTB could be lining up a Frankfurt move after saying last year it would leave the UK.

Sylvie Matherat, chief of compliance for Deutsche Bank, Germany's largest bank, said it could move 4,000 jobs away from Britain. ”For front office people who want to deal with a European Union client, you need to be based in continental Europe, and we are speaking of 2,000 people," Ms Matherat said.

Deutsche would also have to book all trades for clients based on the continent in the EU, meaning moving large parts of its IT capacity to its home base in Frankfurt, she added. ”Then local supervisors say, you must have your risk management here. That means another 2,000 people, other IT capabilities," Ms Matherat said.

A senior Wall Street banking executive told The Times: ”The absolute priority for us is that there is no client we cannot do business with as a result of Brexit. We will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that our service to our clients is not interrupted."

Handelsblatt reported that ”Brexit could cost 30,000 to 75,000 jobs on the island" from 2.2 million working in the financial sector.

The Times reported this week that Wall Street banks were considering creating ”pop-up" branches in European countries after Brexit while keeping most of their work for continental clients in London. This could put them at odds with EU regulators who fear ”brass plate" offices with no proper presence.

JPMorgan Chase was also said to be focusing on Warsaw as a destination for its new back office operations centre.
The exodus begins
 
It's almost as if May should have waited until after the French, German and indeed her own elections were settled to trigger Article 50. Oh well, it's not as if there's much riding on it.
Jesus, she had complete control of putting A before B and she couldn't even get that right, She really is fucking clueless.

Such long term vision, give her a massive majority.
 
There's not going to be any brass plating. Some US banks might try it, but as Deutsche Bank says the regulatory bodies want full operations in the jurisdiction.

The good news is that I've got a whopper of a contract to do some network consultancy and design for an impending move. Bad news is, that's it's a long term client who I'll doubt will have much need for me once it's done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.