BREXIT Mega Thread (The Saga Begins?)

[Major-Tom]

If Europe's financial markets leave London because of Brexit, where is the most likely place they would go?

Dublin?
Amsterdam?
Frankfurt?
Paris?

The Irish would certainly build a burgeoning financial sector in Dublin.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

You seem to believe in something I will call, for want of a better label, Social Imperialism. I think most actual socialists would be horrified by the sort of "work for all who want it, the rest to the devil" attitude that you like, that the USSR liked, and that seems to be the only real alternative to the market (which does the same thing, just a bit differently, ultimately). I wouldn't strongly object to Social Imperialism.

Well I think one of the big differences is who is actually fit for work, and one of the big objections to austerity is how it has treated disabled people.

At the moment we have a private company judging who is fit for work and they're contracted with the mission to reduce the number of people receiving disability benefits. Someone I know was signed off work by a medical professional for mental health reasons but then was deemed fit to work. If our people aren't fit for work we should look after them if their condition is permanent, or we should invest whatever we need to get them back to work.

Look, if you're in a wheelchair for some reason or one of your arms doesn't work or you have schizophrenia or something I don't think we need that person to work. The community can just look after them. It doesn't cost a lot of money for those people to live dignified lives. In a sense this is all insurance to us anyway because it could happen to our parents or our children or us.

But if you're a 25 year old male and you're offered a 30 hour job on minimum wage that you can quit at any time if you find something better and you turn it down then I don't have any sympathy. Rome wasn't built in a day - and it wasn't built by young men refusing to work either.

I think all of this is right but the way the government's policies have been characterised is also very unfair.

It is not always easy to determine if someone is disabled to the point they cannot work. Your system for determination can be loose or strict. If it is loose, claiming to be disabled can become a way to live permanently on welfare because you just do not like working. If it is strict, some people who (at least arguably) are genuinely disabled will be left without support. Both choices are bad, but you need to choose one.

[Questers]

Being simplistic, it's not loose vs strict - it's loosest vs looser vs loose vs strict vs stricter vs strictest.

I am on the loose side.

(And that is the only time ever you will hear me say that sentence.)

[The Sauganash Union]

If Europe's financial markets leave London because of Brexit, where is the most likely place they would go?

Dublin?
Amsterdam?
Frankfurt?
Paris?

The Irish would certainly build a burgeoning financial sector in Dublin.

Well, it would be the easiest for British institutions to switch over there. They speak English, have a more Anglo-Saxon style economy, and well-integrated with North American markets.

[Aelex]

it takes two to tango, as they say

[Neu Leonstein]

Well, it would be the easiest for British institutions to switch over there. They speak English, have a more Anglo-Saxon style economy, and well-integrated with North American markets.

They're not British institutions though. They're global and regional SIFIs and broker-dealers. London is a good place to be in this time zone because the network effects that have accumulated over the centuries encourage a lot of their clients to be in the same place, and because the infrastructure is there. There are three parts to that infrastructure: physical, technological and regulatory.

Brexit means the last part of those three drops away to some extent. So now they have to reoptimise across those various criteria to reallocate their balance sheet and staff. For some of those staff, that's an emotional thing (they might care about the language spoken in a place, or whether the economy "has a more Anglo-Saxon style"). But for the people who make the decision, it's a bit more hard-nosed than that.

Question is: can Dublin outdo some alternatives on those three axes? I would argue that the answer is probably no on the physical and regulatory side of things. Dublin is small: it'd be hard enough to get the office space, let alone the transport links and housing needed to put up all those extra people. But more importantly, I'm not sure Irish regulators are up for having the subsidiaries of five or six of the biggest G-SIFIs hanging around all of a sudden. They're not resourced for that, and have had some pretty shitty experiences with banks that got a bit too big for Ireland.

I think Dublin is more likely to be a site for some middle- and back office work (settlements, clearing, risk management, accounting etc) than it is for sales and trading, or for corporate advisory work.

[The Blaatschapen]

If Europe's financial markets leave London because of Brexit, where is the most likely place they would go?

Dublin?
Amsterdam?
Frankfurt?
Paris?

The Irish would certainly build a burgeoning financial sector in Dublin.

The Leprechauns would welcome that pot of gold

[Neu Leonstein]

Meanwhile, in the EU:
Mario Draghi’s secret formula to explain EU’s good mood: €+↑=♥

The most relevant presentation for EU leaders at Friday’s summit was not about the major political issues on their agenda such as trade, migration, Brexit or defense cooperation. Rather, it was a routine rundown of Europe’s economic situation by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi.

By nearly every measure, Europe’s economy is sparkling, a situation that tends to lift both the spirits and poll numbers of incumbent politicians — indicators that typically move in tandem. If unemployment is low and consumer confidence is high, when stock markets are jumping and inflation is in check, public policy problems suddenly seem easier to solve, and voters’ anxieties easier to soothe.

And so it is in the EU.

[...]

Forget About Brexit, Focus on the Euro Area Future

[...]

The outperformance of growth in the European Union this year and likely next versus most earlier growth forecasts for the European Union (and the euro area specifically) was no surprise to those of us paying attention. Macroeconomic policy remains accommodative, monetary policy a little less so, and fiscal policy a little more so, than before. More importantly, the fundamentals have kicked in. It is no longer just the German engine pushing against drags of austerity and banking system risks. The banking system is much sounder in every EU country, even Italy and Portugal, and a virtuous cycle is underway. And growth is driven internally, and not from exports, no matter what the Trump administration says. (In fact, euro area and EU net external trade has not contributed to GDP growth since mid-2015.)

And now the political capacity has turned in favor, in strong contrast to the United Kingdom and the United States. President Emmanuel Macron now has his parliamentary majority to begin overhauling the French economy. There will surely be some clashes on the streets of France in the coming months, but eventually the sclerotic French economic model will be shaken up. The En Marche parliamentary majority, who owe their jobs to Macron, is highly unlikely to be deterred by leftist unions, to whom they owe nothing. This will be good for France and noticeably for Europe. The French president will have a solid economy to back up with his credible partnership with the otherwise politically and economically dominant Germany.

[...]

[Questers]

All French presidents who take on the unions lose. Why should Macron be any different?

He is in his honeymoon period, like Hollande was, and like the other big failure on the other side of the atlantic - Justin Trudeau - somehow still is. Let's wait until he actually tries to address a problem.

[Neo Balka]

All French presidents who take on the unions lose. Why should Macron be any different?

He is in his honeymoon period, like Hollande was, and like the other big failure on the other side of the atlantic - Justin Trudeau - somehow still is. Let's wait until he actually tries to address a problem.

oddly enough, all are french.

[Souseiseki]

All French presidents who take on the unions lose. Why should Macron be any different?

He is in his honeymoon period, like Hollande was, and like the other big failure on the other side of the atlantic - Justin Trudeau - somehow still is. Let's wait until he actually tries to address a problem.

oddly enough, all are french.

but the unions are also french?

ha ha, what a timely joke!

[Eredion]

Meanwhile, in the EU:
Mario Draghi’s secret formula to explain EU’s good mood: €+↑=♥

The most relevant presentation for EU leaders at Friday’s summit was not about the major political issues on their agenda such as trade, migration, Brexit or defense cooperation. Rather, it was a routine rundown of Europe’s economic situation by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi.

By nearly every measure, Europe’s economy is sparkling, a situation that tends to lift both the spirits and poll numbers of incumbent politicians — indicators that typically move in tandem. If unemployment is low and consumer confidence is high, when stock markets are jumping and inflation is in check, public policy problems suddenly seem easier to solve, and voters’ anxieties easier to soothe.

And so it is in the EU.

[...]

Forget About Brexit, Focus on the Euro Area Future

[...]

The outperformance of growth in the European Union this year and likely next versus most earlier growth forecasts for the European Union (and the euro area specifically) was no surprise to those of us paying attention. Macroeconomic policy remains accommodative, monetary policy a little less so, and fiscal policy a little more so, than before. More importantly, the fundamentals have kicked in. It is no longer just the German engine pushing against drags of austerity and banking system risks. The banking system is much sounder in every EU country, even Italy and Portugal, and a virtuous cycle is underway. And growth is driven internally, and not from exports, no matter what the Trump administration says. (In fact, euro area and EU net external trade has not contributed to GDP growth since mid-2015.)

And now the political capacity has turned in favor, in strong contrast to the United Kingdom and the United States. President Emmanuel Macron now has his parliamentary majority to begin overhauling the French economy. There will surely be some clashes on the streets of France in the coming months, but eventually the sclerotic French economic model will be shaken up. The En Marche parliamentary majority, who owe their jobs to Macron, is highly unlikely to be deterred by leftist unions, to whom they owe nothing. This will be good for France and noticeably for Europe. The French president will have a solid economy to back up with his credible partnership with the otherwise politically and economically dominant Germany.

[...]

So what you are saying is Merkel´s plan wörks. Nothing will stop the EU now.

[Ifreann]

Meanwhile, in the EU:
Mario Draghi’s secret formula to explain EU’s good mood: €+↑=♥

Forget About Brexit, Focus on the Euro Area Future

So what you are saying is Merkel´s plan wörks. Nothing will stop the EU now.

Est Europa nunc unita
Et unita maneat

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Eurozone's got almost 10% unemployment (UK 4.6%). Not really "sparkling by any measure", just doing a bit less badly than before.

And growth is driven internally, and not from exports, no matter what the Trump administration says. (In fact, euro area and EU net external trade has not contributed to GDP growth since mid-2015.)

Err... be careful what you are saying here?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

BTW the election of a French Margaret Thatcher to thunderous applause from the Western left is one of the most interesting and less remarked developments of the past decade. It will strengthen the French economy, at least in the short term, but it's odd to see who is on his side.

[Geilinor]

BTW the election of a French Margaret Thatcher to thunderous applause from the Western left is one of the most interesting and less remarked developments of the past decade. It will strengthen the French economy, at least in the short term, but it's odd to see who is on his side.

Macron is no Thatcher or Reagan. He's far more like Blair or Bill Clinton.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

BTW the election of a French Margaret Thatcher to thunderous applause from the Western left is one of the most interesting and less remarked developments of the past decade. It will strengthen the French economy, at least in the short term, but it's odd to see who is on his side.

Macron is no Thatcher or Reagan. He's far more like Blair or Bill Clinton.

Rubbish. They were status quo politicians (so was Reagan in comparison to Thatcher). What Macron is saying is that he is going to tear up the French civil service and employment protections. If he actually does that, it would be a major rightist reform.

[Geilinor]

Macron is no Thatcher or Reagan. He's far more like Blair or Bill Clinton.

Rubbish. They were status quo politicians (so was Reagan in comparison to Thatcher). What Macron is saying is that he is going to tear up the French civil service and employment protections. If he actually does that, it would be a major rightist reform.

He's not going to tear it up but he will leave more of it up to negotiation between unions and businesses. He's not seeking to crush the unions.

[Hydesland]

BTW the election of a French Margaret Thatcher to thunderous applause from the Western left is one of the most interesting and less remarked developments of the past decade. It will strengthen the French economy, at least in the short term, but it's odd to see who is on his side.

The left are hardly enthusiastic about Macron, they just preferred him to Le Pen.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

BTW the election of a French Margaret Thatcher to thunderous applause from the Western left is one of the most interesting and less remarked developments of the past decade. It will strengthen the French economy, at least in the short term, but it's odd to see who is on his side.

The left are hardly enthusiastic about Macron, they just preferred him to Le Pen.

That's probably true of the French left, but the Anglo left are in love with him. So the oddest thing of all: Macron was the long awaited surrender of France to the dreaded Angle-Saxe. He is effectively an American politician, not a French one. I really thought they would choose Le Pen over that.

[Questers]

The Anglo left like him probably because they don't know or care about any of his policies - he's the French Justin Trudeau to them, although he may be the French Margaret Thatcher in reality.

The Anglo left absolutely stopped thinking or debating political economy. To the modern left "class" is an issue in the same way that "race" and "gender" are issues. In the United States the Left is not even connected to Unions - they are here, but the conversation often revolves around workers rights and not political economy.

They love Macron because he defeated Le Pen, who is the most evil candidate in their point of view. Obviously, the real leftist in the race was Melenchon. But Melenchon took little interest from the Anglo left. Why? Because the Anglo left is not a real movement - it should be called the Anglo anti-right. *

* With some minor exceptions in Britain. Britain's left is still intellectually dominated by the anti-right though.

[Imperializt Russia]

Leave voter realises his fruit farms could collapse without EU migrant workers



:thinking:

if only someone could have predicted the kind of government we would get if we voted for brexit, then perhaps he could have avoided this pitfall.

Maybe if they paid our people proper wages they wouldn't shun manual labour.

Brexit isn't going to spontaneously lead to the demolition of neoliberalism, primarily since Brexit was led by the most neoliberal neoliberals in the EU (us) more or less in protest about how the neoliberal EU wouldn't let us be as neoliberal as we wanted to.

[Imperializt Russia]

And how much of the stuff it was prestigious for back then is still around?

Banks, shipyards, universities, Westminister, and pubs all still exist.

Yeah, international finance is going to stay in London without EU passporting to do EU trade because of the fucking pubs, wow.

[Geilinor]

Socialism isn't well defined in this respect. Some people think socialism means a life of free stuff in a council house for whoever chooses it.

I don't think this is true, though. People who think that just lack ambition.

They view it as: Whatever the Conservatives want, versus a life of free stuff in a council house for whoever chooses it. I don't view it as that choice. There is a third choice - mine.

Sounds like Third Way social democracy.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't think that's true - I'm talking about mandatory work for people who can work, or a public insurance system for people who want to transfer sectors or attempt entrepreneurship, and public social care for people who genuinely can't work. This is basic socialism in action.

Socialism isn't well defined in this respect. Some people think socialism means a life of free stuff in a council house for whoever chooses it.

In my experience, universally right-wingers.

In the most arbitrary sense, yes, it does mean "free stuff", in the sense that social policies I advocate either provide money to people with limited economic influence or participation, or removing financial barriers to certain things.
It lies in the social belief that money should not paywall certain options, nor should people be left to literally die (or choose to kill themselves which isn't exactly a big difference) due to economic hardships they face.

Perceived economic failure (including failure to achieve aspirations) or actual economic hardship probably leads as reasons for male suicide, which is the leading cause of death for the majority of working-age males.

But it's not free stuff for the sake of free stuff. The argument is that the individual, the nation and the economy all benefit from the removal of these paywalls, which as they exist, merely serve the minority economic interests of the elite, and often not even "the economy" (except shaping it to arbitrarily funnel more money to these elite minority economic interests), let alone the nation or the public.