Europe remains the key to Britain’s future economic success

[newbee2022]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It has nothing to do with broadmindedness in Frankfurt or Paris. 

 

It's just that German and French banks are used to doing business in London, and  to force them not do it, would require a Trump and neither Germany nor France have one. Yet.

No

[Cameroni]

12 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

No

 

Oh yes, previous attempts to take on London as a financial centre were half-hearted and amateurish, weak even. They failed because they were sabotaged by German and French banks. It would need strong leadership to push through the required legal changes that would force German and French banks to do business in the EU rather than the UK.

 

It could be done.

[RayC]

8 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

With settlements now a very moderate deal was reached, the EU only requires a modest percentage of settlements to be made in the EU. However, the EU could have mandated a far greater precentage of settlements has to be made in the EU. That would have substantially reduced the business the City does in terms of settlements. US banks located in London would have had to use EU clearing houses, they'd have had no choice. So the major UK clearing houses would not have had that business anymore. It would not have applied "equally" to the US sector, because US clearing houses in the US would not have been affected, only the UK's clearing houses would have. Could some US banks in the UK have decided the extra cost of Frankfurt clearing houses would make them cease operations in Europe alltogether, yes, but extremely unlikely. They'd just have paid the Frankfurt fees for settlements.

 

This is what I mean, this would have benefitted Frankfurt as a financial centre.

 

Equally with foreign exchange business btw, the EU could mandate a few things and that business would migrate from London to Frankfurt or Paris, because it would have to due to new regulations.

 

What type of regulation have you in mind? Can you give a specific example?

 

The EU can only regulate the affairs of its' member states or companies which wish to operate within the bloc. If the EU makes it more difficult for third country companies to do business within the EU, they will either look outside the bloc or, alternatively, pass on the opportunity. Neither outcome is in the EU's interest. Moreover, how could an EU regulation prevent US and Japanese financial companies, negotiating a settlement in Euros, doing so through London if they so wished?

 

I don't see how applying increased regulation to EU financial institutions will improve their competitiveness and increase market share.

[RayC]

7 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Oh yes, previous attempts to take on London as a financial centre were half-hearted and amateurish, weak even. They failed because they were sabotaged by German and French banks. It would need strong leadership to push through the required legal changes that would force German and French banks to do business in the EU rather than the UK.

 

It could be done.

 

Not without an outcry from the French and German banking sectors, and the considerable risk of negative effects to the EU economy.

[RayC]

9 hours ago, frank83628 said:

 

I seem to remember people complaining that a win at 51% wasn't good enough and there should be a 2nd vote, but here 55% in a poll is proof People didint want Brexit.

 

 

2+2=5.

 

Your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of this latest poll.

[RayC]

9 hours ago, frank83628 said:

People voted for brexit so as not to be goverened by the bureaucratic BS in Brussels, the UK can still trade with whoever.

It was the weak remainer politicians that dragged their heels and made the UK look weak by trying to undermine the whole process, now stamer wants to reset it and waste all that time and money, then what, Farage wins next and reinstate it.

 

 

The 'confused' emoji should never have been removed.

[johng]

31 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The 'confused' emoji should never have been removed.

I agree I would have given you one for the above.

@frank83628 is correct it was remainer politicians that did everything in their power to delay and hinder the will of the population that voted to leave.

[frank83628]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

The 'confused' emoji should never have been removed.

Yes, well, if you could think outside your bubble you wouldnt be so confused

[frank83628]

38 minutes ago, johng said:

I agree I would have given you one for the above.

@frank83628 is correct it was remainer politicians that did everything in their power to delay and hinder the will of the population that voted to leave.

Yup, a idea of a second referendum would not have even been entertained had the vote been to remain, would not have even made page 7 of a tabloid, instead, just as you say, all the remain politicians dragged their feet, whinged & whined nonstop and undermined the will of the people at every possible opportunity. Made the UK look a laughing stock to the world... and now stamer, who won by 34%, is going to do his best to reverse everything. 

[johng]

2 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

and now stamer, who won by 34%, is going to do his best to reverse everything.

I think and hope that he will fail miserably in that endeavor.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, johng said:

I agree I would have given you one for the above.

@frank83628 is correct it was remainer politicians that did everything in their power to delay and hinder the will of the population that voted to leave.

 

Absolute tosh.

 

What did you expect to happen? That we would wake up on 24 June 2016, and we would be out of the EU and everything would be sorted?

 

In any event, we now have Brexit but some of the loudest moaners about it are not remainers but Brexiters.

[RayC]

35 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Yes, well, if you could think outside your bubble you wouldnt be so confused

 

😂 Says the bloke who dismissed the findings of a survey without any good reason simply because it doesn't fit his narrative.

 

Some things you just can't make up.

[RayC]

28 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Yup, a idea of a second referendum would not have even been entertained had the vote been to remain, would not have even made page 7 of a tabloid, instead, just as you say, all the remain politicians dragged their feet, whinged & whined nonstop and undermined the will of the people at every possible opportunity. Made the UK look a laughing stock to the world... and now stamer, who won by 34%, is going to do his best to reverse everything. 

 

Whinging and whining about an event which didn't happen (and was a non-starter from the outset).

[RayC]

29 minutes ago, johng said:

I think and hope that he will fail miserably in that endeavor.

 

Heaven forbid that the UK government should try to forge a better diplomatic and trading relationship with our closest neighbours.

[bannork]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Heaven forbid that the UK government should try to forge a better diplomatic and trading relationship with our closest neighbours.

It's undeniable that Brexit has damaged the UK economy, figures show free trade from beyond the EU cannot compensate for the loss of frictionless trade with the EU. Which is not surprising when one considers our position geographically.

The Tories really messed up with the taking our borders back mantra. All they did was substitute South Asian and African workers for those from the EU. What a shambles 

I agree with whoever it may be: Labour, Tories or Reform, who insist some of the millions of Brits signing on at present, get trained up as care workers and start earning their living.

[frank83628]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Heaven forbid that the UK government should try to forge a better diplomatic and trading relationship with our closest neighbours.

There was no reason why that couldnt have been done straight away after the brexit vote result was in.

[RayC]

21 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

There was no reason why that couldnt have been done straight away after the brexit vote result was in.

 

I agree but unfortunately, the ERG didn't and they were the ones who Teresa May had to listen to, which is why we've ended up where we have.

[nauseus]

On 5/12/2025 at 7:34 PM, RayC said:

 

Absolute tosh.

 

What did you expect to happen? That we would wake up on 24 June 2016, and we would be out of the EU and everything would be sorted?

 

In any event, we now have Brexit but some of the loudest moaners about it are not remainers but Brexiters.

 

Your comment is tosh. It was plain to see that the PM, most of her cabinet, along with the Civil Service, dithered, dallied and made all best efforts to stop the UK leaving the EU. They only succeeded in part but the result is the dog's dinner we still have to eat now.

[RayC]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Your comment is tosh. It was plain to see that the PM, most of her cabinet, along with the Civil Service, dithered, dallied and made all best efforts to stop the UK leaving the EU. They only succeeded in part but the result is the dog's dinner we still have to eat now.

 

Here we go again. The same old Brexit tune: The reason Brexit isn't a success is because it was sabotaged by everyone from the 'Man in the Moon' to 'The Jolly Green Giant'.

 

Here's a recap of the FACTS for you. Your hero, Boris Johnson, signed the Withdrawal Agreement not Theresa May. What went on during her watch was basically irrelevant. If Johnson thought that the Withdrawal Agreement was the 'Dogs Dinner' you suggest, then he should not have signed it. No one could have coerced him into doing so: Not the EU; not the Civil Service; no one. 

 

Your side got what it wanted: We left the EU. Its' your side's responsibility and you are accountable for the outcome. You knew what you were voting for, or so you kept telling us Remainers.

 

Stop blaming others for a situation which you created.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Here we go again. The same old Brexit tune: The reason Brexit isn't a success is because it was sabotaged by everyone from the 'Man in the Moon' to 'The Jolly Green Giant'.

 

Here's a recap of the FACTS for you. Your hero, Boris Johnson, signed the Withdrawal Agreement not Theresa May. What went on during her watch was basically irrelevant. If Johnson thought that the Withdrawal Agreement was the 'Dogs Dinner' you suggest, then he should not have signed it. No one could have coerced him into doing so: Not the EU; not the Civil Service; no one. 

 

Your side got what it wanted: We left the EU. Its' your side's responsibility and you are accountable for the outcome. You knew what you were voting for, or so you kept telling us Remainers.

 

Stop blaming others for a situation which you created.

 

Your so-called facts are rather a joke. Your assumptions about who my heroes and what I "created" are are quite wrong.  

 

So, here we go again. 

 

May never got the opportunity to sign "her" deal - that was the only good thing to emerge from the whole (incomplete) mess of a dubious process. Boris was full of bull shine and bluster: his affable nature calmed many down for a while but we can see, now, that he was far from heroic, with that act.

 

Boris's "oven-ready" deal was in fact a weak tweak of May's Chequers Agreement, which emerged suddenly, just after she flitted off to Germany at some insultingly ungodly hour to see her Mutti in Berlin. I believe this shows us who had the real power over the EU and also the weakness and gullibility of the UK governments of the day.

 

My "side" did not get what it wanted, which was a reset back to pre EU status. There were few conditions prior to joining (bar de Gaulle, mainly) but seemingly thousands of the buggers when it was exit time. I didn't create any situation - the EEC/EU was allowed to morph into a foul political cesspool over time.

 

 

 

 

[RayC]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Your so-called facts are rather a joke. Your assumptions about who my heroes and what I "created" are are quite wrong.  

 

So, here we go again. 

 

May never got the opportunity to sign "her" deal - that was the only good thing to emerge from the whole (incomplete) mess of a dubious process. Boris was full of bull shine and bluster: his affable nature calmed many down for a while but we can see, now, that he was far from heroic, with that act.

 

Boris's "oven-ready" deal was in fact a weak tweak of May's Chequers Agreement, which emerged suddenly, just after she flitted off to Germany at some insultingly ungodly hour to see her Mutti in Berlin. I believe this shows us who had the real power over the EU and also the weakness and gullibility of the UK governments of the day.

 

My "side" did not get what it wanted, which was a reset back to pre EU status. There were few conditions prior to joining (bar de Gaulle, mainly) but seemingly thousands of the buggers when it was exit time. I didn't create any situation - the EEC/EU was allowed to morph into a foul political cesspool over time.

 

 

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

'My' facts are just that, facts. There is nothing in your self-pitying post to refute them.

 

To give you some credit, you have done a complete volte-face wrt Johnson. I seem to recall that you had his face as your emoji and singing his praises? Still, I'm pleased that you now realise just what a charlatan he is. Better late than never.

 

Whether Johnson's deal was a tweak of May's and/or whether Merkel was the real power in the EU is completely irrelevant. No one forced Johnson to sign the Withdrawal Agreement. That is a FACT. It is as simple as that.

 

Just as the UK is never going to regain its' position circa 1850 as the world's dominant power, the EU was - and is - never going to return to its' 1970s self. If this is what you wanted then you were always destined to be disappointed.

 

If you have another vision of what the world post-Brexit should have looked like then can you please explain what it is: I've asked this question numerous times but have yet to receive a direct answer, so I've steeled myself for yet another disappointment.

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

'My' facts are just that, facts. There is nothing in your self-pitying post to refute them.

 

To give you some credit, you have done a complete volte-face wrt Johnson. I seem to recall that you had his face as your emoji and singing his praises? Still, I'm pleased that you now realise just what a charlatan he is. Better late than never.

 

Whether Johnson's deal was a tweak of May's and/or whether Merkel was the real power in the EU is completely irrelevant. No one forced Johnson to sign the Withdrawal Agreement. That is a FACT. It is as simple as that.

 

Just as the UK is never going to regain its' position circa 1850 as the world's dominant power, the EU was - and is - never going to return to its' 1970s self. If this is what you wanted then you were always destined to be disappointed.

 

If you have another vision of what the world post-Brexit should have looked like then can you please explain what it is: I've asked this question numerous times but have yet to receive a direct answer, so I've steeled myself for yet another disappointment.

 

'My' facts are just that, facts? Because you say so? You 'seem' to remember? Right. I used BJ's pic (briefly) as a wind-up. At least that was a success, it now 'seems'? 

 

The Johnson tweak was completely relevant because Merkel/May's deal was crap but it largely survived to be served  as Boris's oven-ready deal turkey.

 

In my post I went back as far as the 1960's - not the 1850's - the Empire was over already.

 

World vision? However much you might dream, the EU has little influence on global events and this smidgen decreases more with time.

 

My hoped-for idea of a post-Brexit relationship was that the UK should be free of the EU political regime but with an amicable and mutually beneficial relationship. So pretty much a reset to 1970. The British and French even worked together to get the Concorde into the air four years before the UK joined the EEC!  Where there's a will there's way - or there used to be.

 

Self-pitying back. I'm sick of this SOS every year. This is the last time I'll waste time.

[candide]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Complete and utter nonsense.

 

'My' facts are just that, facts. There is nothing in your self-pitying post to refute them.

 

To give you some credit, you have done a complete volte-face wrt Johnson. I seem to recall that you had his face as your emoji and singing his praises? Still, I'm pleased that you now realise just what a charlatan he is. Better late than never.

 

Whether Johnson's deal was a tweak of May's and/or whether Merkel was the real power in the EU is completely irrelevant. No one forced Johnson to sign the Withdrawal Agreement. That is a FACT. It is as simple as that.

 

Just as the UK is never going to regain its' position circa 1850 as the world's dominant power, the EU was - and is - never going to return to its' 1970s self. If this is what you wanted then you were always destined to be disappointed.

 

If you have another vision of what the world post-Brexit should have looked like then can you please explain what it is: I've asked this question numerous times but have yet to receive a direct answer, so I've steeled myself for yet another disappointment.

Brexiteers will never tell it because there was never a project. Brexit was an act of faith.

 

So they complain the Tories, then Labour, torpedoed Brexit, but they are unable to articulate how it should be, according to them?

 

For example, should it be the low-tax and low-protection, ultra-liberal economics version of Brexit, as touted by the so-called economists for Brexit? Or should it be a more protectionist andvsocial version for people who feel they have been left behind (i.e. in the NE)?

[RayC]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

'My' facts are just that, facts? Because you say so? 

 

No not because I say so but there is no evidence to suggest that Johnson was coerced into signing the Agreement. He made a choice to do so. 

 

If you have evidence to the contrary show it.

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

You 'seem' to remember? Right. I used BJ's pic (briefly) as a wind-up. At least that was a success, it now 'seems'? 

 

Of course you did! And no doubt singing Johnson's praises at the time was all a 'wind up' as well!

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

The Johnson tweak was completely relevant because Merkel/May's deal was crap but it largely survived to be served  as Boris's oven-ready deal turkey.

 

Relevant in that sense but completely irrelevant wrt whether Johnson had to  sign the Agreement. 

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

In my post I went back as far as the 1960's - not the 1850's - the Empire was over already.

 

Good. We agree on something.

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

World vision? However much you might dream, the EU has little influence on global events and this smidgen decreases more with time.

 

There are three major trading blocks in the world. The US, China and the EU. They dictate the terms. If you are not one of the three, then you are at their mercy and are effectively a rule taker, not a rule maker.

 

The UK had influence when in was in the EU. It has none now.

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

My hoped-for idea of a post-Brexit relationship was that the UK should be free of the EU political regime but with an amicable and mutually beneficial relationship. So pretty much a reset to 1970. The British and French even worked together to get the Concorde into the air four years before the UK joined the EEC!  Where there's a will there's way - or there used to be.

 

So you expected the EU to change to suit what you perceive as the UK's best interests. Why on earth would it do that?

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Self-pitying back. I'm sick of this SOS every year. This is the last time I'll waste time.

 

The fact that you find my questions too challenging to answer in a meaningful way speaks volumes.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Brexiteers will never tell it because there was never a project. Brexit was an act of faith.

 

So they complain the Tories, then Labour, torpedoed Brexit, but they are unable to articulate how it should be, according to them?

 

For example, should it be the low-tax and low-protection, ultra-liberal economics version of Brexit, as touted by the so-called economists for Brexit? Or should it be a more protectionist andvsocial version for people who feel they have been left behind (i.e. in the NE)?

 

Have another pint.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

No not because I say so but there is no evidence to suggest that Johnson was coerced into signing the Agreement. He made a choice to do so. 

 

If you have evidence to the contrary show it.

 

 

Of course you did! And no doubt singing Johnson's praises at the time was all a 'wind up' as well!

 

 

Relevant in that sense but completely irrelevant wrt whether Johnson had to  sign the Agreement. 

 

 

Good. We agree on something.

 

 

There are three major trading blocks in the world. The US, China and the EU. They dictate the terms. If you are not one of the three, then you are at their mercy and are effectively a rule taker, not a rule maker.

 

The UK had influence when in was in the EU. It has none now.

 

 

So you expected the EU to change to suit what you perceive as the UK's best interests. Why on earth would it do that?

 

 

The fact that you find my questions too challenging to answer in a meaningful way speaks volumes.

 

Deaf and pompous. Have another pint.

[RayC]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Deaf and pompous. Have another pint.

 

Nothing to hear. The silence in response to my questions is deafening.

 

A pint? Good grief! You must be a plebeian. A gentleman doesn't drink claret from pint jugs😉