1000 EU financial firms moving to ...........

[Sheepy]

LONDON !

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks/a-thousand-eu-financial-firms-plan-to-open-uk-offices-after-brexit-idUKKBN1ZJ00L">https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... KKBN1ZJ00L">https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-banks/a-thousand-eu-financial-firms-plan-to-open-uk-offices-after-brexit-idUKKBN1ZJ00L



Project fear is on life support as its revealed that European financial firms will be opening offices in London to serve its UK customers after Brexit .

Just another load of sensationalism they fed the masses with,we even offered to pack their cases for them,but alas like a nasty rash that has no cure.

On the amusing side,we even had volunteers queuing up to pack them off,I guess they are just not as popular as they would us believing.

[Baron von Lotsov]

Well they do when choosing where is going to be a safe harbour for their cabbage . When I say transparent I mean all above board at the point of entry. and protected by UK law .

That some clients require more discretion than others is neither here nor there

If al the illicit money were removed from London financial firms the City would probably go bust. It's not only Russia but apparently there was a huge amount of corruption in Hong Kong during British rule. We are similar to the Swiss, as per "ask no questions". Indeed I've seen it myself at Companies House. Think of it like plumbing. We have a lot of pipework in this country.

[Conchúr]

I never stated or implied it was a success, that is you putting false words into my mouth. You provided additional IMF figures and put them in your context. I had already provided the context for the figures I quoted. I certainly drew the conclusion that the IMF figures indicate that the UK will do better in GDP terms than two of the three largest remaining EU economies and equal the third and largest. You would be particularly silly to dispute my figures as they are both widely published and credible and once again I didn't suggest you were disputing them.



This is really very simple. I made a clear and unambiguous statement that these figures provided a valid degree of support and grounds for some optimism that the many Remainer 'prophets of doom' were wrong to predict an economic Armageddon upon leaving the EU. You appeared to question this and used the common strategy of obfuscation and moving the goal posts. You have been found out and are now moving on to denying making statements or drawing conclusions which I never suggested you had made in the first place.



Frankly you are wasting my time and I suspect, from past experience that despite losing the argument, you simply want the last word so by all means have it. I am not really interested in what some unqualified foreigner has to say about the UK's imminent departure from the EU and his seeming confused views on the UK's immediate economic prospects.

Allow me to quote you from a few posts ago on this thread: "These GDP growth figures tell us that any early negative economic impact will, in all probability, be avoided."



That is what you said — those are the goalposts you yourself hammered into the ground.  I have demonstrated that this would not appear to be an accurate statement — using the very same source you did.  You haven't disputed those figures in any way and instead have just accused me of obfuscation rather than actually setting out any counter-argument.  So I ask, given your quoted statement above, do you think that the IMF figures you presented actually show that any early negative economic has been / will be avoided ?  It's a trick question of course, because it's either a case of admitting you didn't consider the figures in context or you simply don't really understand them.  



Personally, I think you just saw a news article and leapt on it without actually looking deeper into the data the article cited. And this is precisely my concern for the future — that we now live in a time where people will double down and accept anything better than Armageddon as being "success".  All this will achieve is making people easier to fool by a government which knows it can spin anything as a victory and people will willingly lap it up.  If you are a committed Brexiteer and you want Brexit to be a real success, then you need to be more scrutinous of the things you read.  



You may not be interested in what I, who you deem to be a lowly "unqualified foreigner" have to say — but it doesn't change the objective fact that you posted data, took an inaccurate conclusion from it, and have been unable to actually back that conclusion up once challenged.

[Major Sinic]

Again, I didn't dispute your figures.  I said this in my last post.  I also pretty openly said that I thought that the economic doom forecasts were counterproductive.  Can I be any clearer?



I didn't redefine your argument, I elaborated on it.  I took the very figures you presented and I placed them in context — using the exact same source you did, the IMF.  From those figures, I was able to demonstrate to you that even if the figures were not "doom" they were still indicative of far-below-average growth for a country like the UK — a country which has for the bulk of the past 35 years posted annual growth levels around and above the 2-3% mark.  



In other words, the IMF figures you paraded on here were — in a realistic context — indicative of a country whose growth has so far been quite significantly damaged by Brexit. But the crux of your argument seems to be "well it ain't doom so that's OK".  So yeah — a big win for you if you want to limit your critical analysis to a perpetual game of one-upmanship against people who made more dramatic predictions.  Sadly however, it doesn't take away from the fact that the statistics you posted are ultimately (and, as I have shown, demonstrably) self-defeating to your wider argument . . unless of course you are actually someone who defines "success" as "anything better than Armageddon".



If you are going to spend the next few years pointing out that the sky has not fallen down — then I dare say you will have a lot of fun seeking out the doom-mongers.   It doesn't change the fact that it makes you susceptible to doubling down and viewing damage as success merely because it isn't doom.

I never stated or implied it was a success, that is you putting false words into my mouth. You provided additional IMF figures and put them in your context. I had already provided the context for the figures I quoted. I certainly drew the conclusion that the IMF figures indicate that the UK will do better in GDP terms than two of the three largest remaining EU economies and equal the third and largest. You would be particularly silly to dispute my figures as they are both widely published and credible and once again I didn't suggest you were disputing them.



This is really very simple. I made a clear and unambiguous statement that these figures provided a valid degree of support and grounds for some optimism that the many Remainer 'prophets of doom' were wrong to predict an economic Armageddon upon leaving the EU. You appeared to question this and used the common strategy of obfuscation and moving the goal posts. You have been found out and are now moving on to denying making statements or drawing conclusions which I never suggested you had made in the first place.



Frankly you are wasting my time and I suspect, from past experience that despite losing the argument, you simply want the last word so by all means have it. I am not really interested in what some unqualified foreigner has to say about the UK's imminent departure from the EU and his seeming confused views on the UK's immediate economic prospects.

[Streetwalker]

The Russians don't like transparency.

Well they do when choosing where is going to be a safe harbour for their cabbage . When I say transparent I mean all above board at the point of entry. and protected by UK law .

That some clients require more discretion than others is neither here nor there

[Baron von Lotsov]

I would be expecting the complete opposite to 'hostile' .  Whatever happens in the fallout of Brexit it will be most important to keep our financial services on the right side of friendly , welcoming and transparent .

The Russians don't like transparency.

[Conchúr]

Again you try to move the goalposts and redefine the argument. I won't suggest you are stupid because you obviously are not but your obfuscation is transparent and obvious.



I refer back to the stated purpose of my post, supported by credible statistics from the IMF. Justify why and how those statistics don't justify my specific claim that the UK in its first year seems unlikely to justify the widely prophesied immediate economic collapse by a wide range of Remoaners from both the UK and certainly one, very nervous, EU nation. If you can't do that then please stop wasting my time.

Again, I didn't dispute your figures.  I said this in my last post.  I also pretty openly said that I thought that the economic doom forecasts were counterproductive.  Can I be any clearer?



I didn't redefine your argument, I elaborated on it.  I took the very figures you presented and I placed them in context — using the exact same source you did, the IMF.  From those figures, I was able to demonstrate to you that even if the figures were not "doom" they were still indicative of far-below-average growth for a country like the UK — a country which has for the bulk of the past 35 years posted annual growth levels around and above the 2-3% mark.  



In other words, the IMF figures you paraded on here were — in a realistic context — indicative of a country whose growth has so far been quite significantly damaged by Brexit. But the crux of your argument seems to be "well it ain't doom so that's OK".  So yeah — a big win for you if you want to limit your critical analysis to a perpetual game of one-upmanship against people who made more dramatic predictions.  Sadly however, it doesn't take away from the fact that the statistics you posted are ultimately (and, as I have shown, demonstrably) self-defeating to your wider argument . . unless of course you are actually someone who defines "success" as "anything better than Armageddon".



If you are going to spend the next few years pointing out that the sky has not fallen down — then I dare say you will have a lot of fun seeking out the doom-mongers.   It doesn't change the fact that it makes you susceptible to doubling down and viewing damage as success merely because it isn't doom.

[Major Sinic]

Did I dispute the figures?



The IMF is indeed a credible source of information and the figures you presented cite a rate of growth for the UK that is significantly below its average rate of growth as an EU member. Between 1985 and 2019, the IMF provides that average UK growth was 2.35%.  That's even factoring in the late 2000s global financial crisis where there were two years of recession and also factoring in the sluggish growth figures since the referendum year in 2016 to 2019 (1.8%, 1.8%, 1.4% and 1.2%). You can check the figures here : https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD">https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper ... C/WEOWORLD">https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD.



Do you dispute the IMF figures ? If not, then do you agree that the IMF's forecast growth rate of 1.4% and 1.5% post-Brexit reflects a continued sluggishness of the UK economy since the Brexit vote ?  Now if you want to talk about forecasts of economic Armageddon, go talk about it to someone who actually peddled them. I have always said on this forum that the forecasts of economic doom were counterproductive, mainly because Leavers would measure "success" by anything that came above doom.  In other words, an incredibly low threshold of success would be set.  And here we are ... in a weird warped world where sluggish growth is presented in a positive light just because the sky has not fallen in.  Do you see the problem with that ?



Given all of the above, provided that you don't dispute anything (if you disagree with the IMF data let me know), would you say therefore that the figures continue to suggest damage [NOTE: not doom]?  Feel free to add in how you think it's worth it in the long run and you knew that there would be a hit — that's absolutely fine and you're entitled to say that — but do you accept that so far the figures reflect ongoing damage being done to the economy ?

Again you try to move the goalposts and redefine the argument. I won't suggest you are stupid because you obviously are not but your obfuscation is transparent and obvious.



I refer back to the stated purpose of my post, supported by credible statistics from the IMF. Justify why and how those statistics don't justify my specific claim that the UK in its first year seems unlikely to justify the widely prophesied immediate economic collapse by a wide range of Remoaners from both the UK and certainly one, very nervous, EU nation. If you can't do that then please stop wasting my time.

[Conchúr]

Yeah, yeah! These figures come from the International Monetary Fund,one of the worlds foremost and credible economic commentators and because you know full well they are supportive of the view that the 'prophets of doom' whether from the UK of an EU country are less than credible you are attempting to move the goalposts and obfuscate valid comparison. None of these figures are 'great' and I neither stated nor intimated that they were.



You could equally ask how much better off Germany and France might be if they also left, or more to the point how much better off the UK might have been if it had left following the Treaty of Rome or perhaps had never joined. They are, like your suggestions, meaningless in the present context. Along the lines of 'if my grandma had a willy she would be my grandpa.'



The sole purpose of my post was to show, using credible evidence from the IMF, that prophecies of the economic Armageddon which would immediately befall the UK, as guaranteed and promised by many Remoaners, was false. Your false dichotomy does not invalidate this.

Did I dispute the figures?



The IMF is indeed a credible source of information and the figures you presented cite a rate of growth for the UK that is significantly below its average rate of growth as an EU member. Between 1985 and 2019, the IMF provides that average UK growth was 2.35%.  That's even factoring in the late 2000s global financial crisis where there were two years of recession and also factoring in the sluggish growth figures since the referendum year in 2016 to 2019 (1.8%, 1.8%, 1.4% and 1.2%). You can check the figures here : https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD">https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper ... C/WEOWORLD">https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD.



Do you dispute the IMF figures ? If not, then do you agree that the IMF's forecast growth rate of 1.4% and 1.5% post-Brexit reflects a continued sluggishness of the UK economy since the Brexit vote ?  Now if you want to talk about forecasts of economic Armageddon, go talk about it to someone who actually peddled them. I have always said on this forum that the forecasts of economic doom were counterproductive, mainly because Leavers would measure "success" by anything that came above doom.  In other words, an incredibly low threshold of success would be set.  And here we are ... in a weird warped world where sluggish growth is presented in a positive light just because the sky has not fallen in.  Do you see the problem with that ?



Given all of the above, provided that you don't dispute anything (if you disagree with the IMF data let me know), would you say therefore that the figures continue to suggest damage [NOTE: not doom]?  Feel free to add in how you think it's worth it in the long run and you knew that there would be a hit — that's absolutely fine and you're entitled to say that — but do you accept that so far the figures reflect ongoing damage being done to the economy ?

[Major Sinic]

DUPLICATE

[Major Sinic]

But see, this is the problem in interpreting growth figures — people read them in a skewed way.  The real question to ask in assessing the benefits of Brexit is not "what is our growth compared to other countries?" but rather "what is our growth compared to what it otherwise might have been?".   A GDP growth of 1.4% is actually relatively low for the UK on a historical basis.  So with that mind, couldn't I just as easily say therefore that Brexit has been needlessly and mutually damaging for the interests of Europe as a whole, disrupting growth across the board ?  I mean, what is positive about pointing out that the UK is predicted to have a growth rate that is historically quite slow — but its neighbours will also have slow growth ? What's so great about that ?



For a further demonstration of how things can be interpreted, you cite the figure of 0.5% growth for Italy. Well what would that growth be if Italy were to decide to leave the EU? Would it be better or would it be worse ?  I would also point out that the IMF figures make one critical assumption — that the UK will transition to an orderly relationship with the EU. The more distant the relationship (as Javid seems to suggest he wants), the less orderly the transition will be.  The less distant the relationship, the more pointless Brexit is.



As I've been saying for the last couple of weeks on here, the days are coming when Leavers are going to have to weigh up their feelings on the concepts of pain versus pointlessness — on a whole array of issues.

Yeah, yeah! These figures come from the International Monetary Fund,one of the worlds foremost and credible economic commentators and because you know full well they are supportive of the view that the 'prophets of doom' whether from the UK of an EU country are less than credible you are attempting to move the goalposts and obfuscate valid comparison. None of these figures are 'great' and I neither stated nor intimated that they were.



You could equally ask how much better off Germany and France might be if they also left, or more to the point how much better off the UK might have been if it had left following the Treaty of Rome or perhaps had never joined. They are, like your suggestions, meaningless in the present context. Along the lines of 'if my grandma had a willy she would be my grandpa.'



The sole purpose of my post was to show, using credible evidence from the IMF, that prophecies of the economic Armageddon which would immediately befall the UK, as guaranteed and promised by many Remoaners, was false. Your false dichotomy does not invalidate this.

[Conchúr]

Of course you will continue to believe that Brexit will be damaging to the UK; that is your partisan nature. I believe that the UK will prosper more outside the EU than it ever would within it and you will consider that my partisan nature.



Now one might expect Germany, the economic power house of the EU, and France as the second largest EU economy, now that the UK's departure is definite and imminent to both be anticipating continuing substantial economic growth. After all both are securely positioned to secure the economic benefits that Remainers have continued to claim as the main justification for remaining within this cumbersome future federal monstrosity, to be anticipating an economic performance far exceeding that of the humble little UK.



The reality however is that the IMF, hardly a UK centric organisation, has forecast that the UK economy in its first year outside the EU with all the trading uncertainties this creates, will grow by 1.4% in 2020.



So surely the forecasts for husband and wife team, Germany and France, would be expected to far exceed this. Not so! The IMF have forecast GDP growth of 1.4% for Germany, 1.3% for France and just 0.5% for Italy in 2020. We have had three years of fear mongering, lies and distortions on the subject of Brexit. These GDP growth figures tell us that any early negative economic impact will, in all probability, be avoided.l

But see, this is the problem in interpreting growth figures — people read them in a skewed way.  The real question to ask in assessing the benefits of Brexit is not "what is our growth compared to other countries?" but rather "what is our growth compared to what it otherwise might have been?".   A GDP growth of 1.4% is actually relatively low for the UK on a historical basis.  So with that mind, couldn't I just as easily say therefore that Brexit has been needlessly and mutually damaging for the interests of Europe as a whole, disrupting growth across the board ?  I mean, what is positive about pointing out that the UK is predicted to have a growth rate that is historically quite slow — but its neighbours will also have slow growth ? What's so great about that ?



For a further demonstration of how things can be interpreted, you cite the figure of 0.5% growth for Italy. Well what would that growth be if Italy were to decide to leave the EU? Would it be better or would it be worse ?  I would also point out that the IMF figures make one critical assumption — that the UK will transition to an orderly relationship with the EU. The more distant the relationship (as Javid seems to suggest he wants), the less orderly the transition will be.  The less distant the relationship, the more pointless Brexit is.



As I've been saying for the last couple of weeks on here, the days are coming when Leavers are going to have to weigh up their feelings on the concepts of pain versus pointlessness — on a whole array of issues.

[Major Sinic]

From those who want Brexit. (I don't mean those who were fooled into voting for it.)

,

From both sides of the great divide; both Leave and Remain.



Only an ill-informed bigot would suggest it all came from one side of the argument, so I am not remotely surprised at your response.

[papasmurf]

 We have had three years of fear mongering, lies and distortions on the subject of Brexit.

From those who want Brexit. (I don't mean those who were fooled into voting for it.)

,

[Major Sinic]

I don't think I ever said there there would be an 'armageddon day' the moment we leave the EU.  More a growing sense of things being less good than, or more difficult than, they were before.  If that trend happens and it becomes bad enough, then various crises - economical, social and political, will crop up over the next year or two.

Of course you will continue to believe that Brexit will be damaging to the UK; that is your partisan nature. I believe that the UK will prosper more outside the EU than it ever would within it and you will consider that my partisan nature.



Now one might expect Germany, the economic power house of the EU, and France as the second largest EU economy, now that the UK's departure is definite and imminent to both be anticipating continuing substantial economic growth. After all both are securely positioned to secure the economic benefits that Remainers have continued to claim as the main justification for remaining within this cumbersome future federal monstrosity, to be anticipating an economic performance far exceeding that of the humble little UK.



The reality however is that the IMF, hardly a UK centric organisation, has forecast that the UK economy in its first year outside the EU with all the trading uncertainties this creates, will grow by 1.4% in 2020.



So surely the forecasts for husband and wife team, Germany and France, would be expected to far exceed this. Not so! The IMF have forecast GDP growth of 1.4% for Germany, 1.3% for France and just 0.5% for Italy in 2020. We have had three years of fear mongering, lies and distortions on the subject of Brexit. These GDP growth figures tell us that any early negative economic impact will, in all probability, be avoided.l