Those of you locked out behind the Financial Times paywall may have missed this bit of Brexit good news, reported by their Financial Editor Patrick Jenkins a few days ago:

‘A week ago UBS became possibly the first big bank to come out with an upbeat view on Brexit. Via a combination of public announcements and private briefings, it became clear that the Swiss bank now planned to move only 250 or so jobs from London to an EU location such as Frankfurt, or just 5 per cent of its London headcount. At the start of the year, it had sounded alarm bells over a possible move of 1,000 roles’.

Other big banks, Jenkins went on,  seem to share that more sanguine view. Why? For starters, I’d surmise it’s because they don’t work either in the ‘Land of Remain’ that is the Treasury, or the Bank of England.

Patrick, being the professional journalist that he is, engaged in no such polemic. He just reported the facts – that in meetings with European policymakers over recent months, bankers say they have been reassured about a crucial mechanism that will allow business to remain in London. It is something called ‘back-to-back’ trading which allows an entity in one jurisdiction to carry out a duplicate transaction in a larger location.

If you missed this good news on the BBC it is because it wasn’t there. Yes, the banks, able to continue centralising their European capital needs and risk management in London, won’t all be rushing off to Frankfurt, now as the BBC and Remainers so determinedly forecast.

And those in the City  still dismayed about Brexit? Well, it’s because of the lack of progress in political negotiations. They are not alone. Every Brexiteer is too. But disenchantment with political progress is not the same as Brexit spelling an economic or political disaster.

‘It’s the FT’s duty to pour scorn on a terrible mistake’, its letters page headline read earlier this week. Nobody can be under any illusion as to its Editor’s negative mission on Brexit but at least it still reports the ‘despite Brexit’ good news.

A pity the same can’t be said of the biased-against-Brexit BBC which only pours the scorn.


  1. It’s not the FT’s duty to “pour scorn on a terrible mistake”. It’s their duty to report the facts.
    Readers can then decide for themselves whether they should feel scornful or not.

    • Yes, they can also call for a further referendum – this time in real knowledge of what brexit means in practical terms; – a moderated one at that; this time devoid of any confidence trickery.

      • If the results of the referendum are to be ignored due to the supposed use of ‘confidence trickery’, what, on earth is the point of holding another one? Oh wait, is it in order to get the ‘correct’ result this time? Yep, that must be it…..

        • No Suze, that’s not really it.

          You’ll notice I described a ‘moderated’ referendum, which means one subject to oversight, as is done elsewhere in the world.

          There will soon be a lot more relevant information available, which it’s only common sense to consider.

          • I have pretty conclusive of where the eu is going.Cameron Blair and Brown all knew so I expect that at least one of the leave politicians also knew. Had they have used it in the referendum we would have had a landslide victory. They did not use it because if the people discovered that our PM knew about the Barcelona plan it would have caused chaos. However recently each diktat they introduce offers more proof. It will all come out when the time is right.

      • The reason you’d like another referendum has nothing to do with “real knowledge” or any “confidence trickery” but because you simply don’t like the result. Rather than accepting the result with good grace you and the rest of the Remoaners have to pretend that the people who voted Leave were somehow conned.

        No one knows what Brexit will mean “in practical terms” until after it happens.

        • You are correct in that I happen to dislike the outcome, but I dislike the process leading to it far, far more.

          There was unquestionably sharp practice (yes on both sides) and a great deal of speculation, which we shall soon be able to resolve.

          Your last comment supports my point to an extent, in that people voted with limited knowledge, but we shall soon know fuller details such as the 58 impact reports, any divorce bill, and citizenship plus many others.

          Who buys a car without knowing the colour or kicking the tyres?

          Such a referendum (whatever the outcome) would restore credibility to the sordid process.

          • She was not mistaken. Another little fact. The wonderful democratic EU parliament voted overwhelmingly to stop Turkey,s entry proceedings. The equally democratic Commission rejected their vote. Why Within the barcelona agreement they had already signed an agreement with Turkey in 2005 plus 7 other Arab countries. Google the balder barcelona agreement and their Isesco document. Note first paragraph their intention to teach arabic throughout the world and spread the holy que,ran THE EU,S WORDS NOT MINE

          • Interesting post, but it also was the case that any single member could veto Turkish membership, and Turkey was a long way from fulfilling the 35 membership criteria even before the failed coup.

      • Still waiting for your impact study on remaining. If you demand to know the impact of leaving we demand to know the impact of staying it’s only fair.

      • & what part of

        “The referendum on 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain or leave the EU. This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide”

        don’t you understand ?

        • I understand the statement with its inherent vagueness.
          It is half of a journey and leaves more unsaid than expressed.
          I also understand the democratic compact between the protagonists and the electorate to play the referendum game properly; I also understand the unfitness for purpose of the ballot question itself: context which compunds the narrow difference in votes to still rob the outcome of a lot of credibility and meaning.

          In addition, the enormously different, long-lived implications of any one alternative negotiated option over another in any single area, plus the potential for unintended outcomes, alongside new information, never debated, all point to calm further consideration armed with full knowledge being the only common sense way forward, whatever one’s own partisan view might be.

          For obvious reasons, leavers may instinctively disagree but before reading the Express or Mail and shouting ‘no’ we should also remember that such continuation happens to be precisely what Nigel Farage and petition organisers all intended if they had had a narrow loss – a 48:52 loss.
          This shows there is some underlying consensus for a clear decision if we will only admit it.

          People -including remainers should accept such an improved better-founded decision quietly and if leavers are confident that the case for brexit is solid, they should embrace the opportunity to build on it, cementing credibility, and thus improving unity.

          • So you do understand the statement.

            & as a self confessed sore loser seek to obfuscate the clear result by following the tried & tested EU playbook in seeking another referendum
            to obtain the “right” result.

            How very post democratic of you.

    • The Beeb gave up on that a long, long time ago
      Whether Brexit, Trump, Climate change, or terrorism aided by mass immigration.

    • I have every faith in the FT’s objectivity on this and kindred topis.

      (Reminds me I must finish and post my Want List to Santa).


  2. The liberal left, MP’s and TV media 2008-2015 :- ‘Bankers are the worst type of leaches, lock em all up, cancel their bonus payments. Tax em till they squeal. they are a cancer on society!

    Sensible people 2008-2015 :- ‘But we need them, they create wealth, employ tens of thousands and if we persecute them they will go abroad. It will be disastrous’.

    The liberal left, MP’s and TV media 2008-2015 :- Yeah yeah, so what, punishing fat cats comes first.

    The liberal left, MP’s and media 2016-2017 :- ‘Banks! But we need them, they create wealth , employ tens of thousands and if we do Brexit then they will go abroad. It will be disastrous’.

    Sensible people 2016-17 : ‘Sorry, were confused now’?

    • Remoaners tend to change the subject when you suggest to them we should:

      1) Harmonise our public holidays (other countries have more)

      2) Harmonise our standard VAT rate as well (generally higher in the wider EU).

      1) Business types say “we can’t afford it”.
      2) Is particular anathema to Labour Remoaners, who after all, criticise the Tories for putting our VAT up to 20%.

      The expression “cherry picking” springs to mind.

  3. The Treasury are always wrong.
    Goldman Sachs Carney is always wrong.
    The Financial Times, and the Economist, have gone Left Wing.

    The EU is a useless political construct based on a 70 year old treaty.
    Economics are well down its priority list, therefore it will either reform or disappear.
    Preferably the latter.

    • Before sold to a foreign company a few years back, the FT had more balanced views on the EU.
      Eg about 4 years back the FT’s principal EU commentator wrote
      “there may be reasons why the UK may wish to remain in the EU.
      But whatever they are, they are not economics’
      Economics is not a true science, and is closer to philosophy or politics than science.
      As the queen observed to massed bankers after the Crash
      “Why didn’t you see this coming ?”
      Answer. Because there are as many opinions as there are economists.

      • ” as many opinions as there are economists”.
        Not lecturers, and professors, in economics at universities .

        They all agree how wonderful the EU is.
        Wrongly, of course.

    • Carney should be sacked! He is anti this country and a total globalist plant. Every time he opens his mouth His predictions are wrong and anti Britain.

      • Economists forecast, astrologers predict.
        On balance we should follow the astrologers.

        Carney is a plant, and a Goldman Sachs stooge.
        Bet he goes to Bilderberg meets.

    • An excellent snapshot of what we are up against by Christopher Chope MP. After meeting Verhofstadt and Barnier his view is:

      “Having heard what they had to say, I’m afraid I’ve come to the conclusion that the only Brexit deal being offered to us from Brussels would be far worse for the UK than leaving without a deal in March 2019.

      “Indeed, the only withdrawal deal on offer from the EU would require the UK to agree to the EU’s demands without any guarantee of being able to secure a reasonable future trade deal on terms better than the WTO.”

      He explains why very succinctly here:

      Wonder whether he is being asked to go from studio to studio to put the Brexit case…or whether it’s going to be wall-to-wall Heseltine, Clegg and the completely partial Jon Pinaar and Paul Mason as usual?

    • Leaving the EU is now going to be established in law. And that will flush the Labour party remainers out from their concealed positions. Voting against that will mean voting against the result of the referendum and the wishes of 17 million people.

        • Neither here nor there. In 2005 Blair was able to continue in power on 35.2% of the votes which amounted to only 9.5 million people. The point is that the 17 million (almost 52% of voters) voted to LEAVE and WON.

          You are pulling the usual lefty losers trick of playing fast and loose with the turnout vs total eligible to vote in order to try to undermine the validity of the result.

          You are a charlatan.

          • It’s not fast & loose, it’s maths, and remember General Elections only last for 5 years.
            If I am a charlaton then so is Nigel Farage, who planned to do exactly the same had he lost by 48:52, which I guess you would have supported?
            Many countries set threshhold for change and have moderated campaigns.

        • And Leave was 34.7% of the electorate.
          And 24.6% of the UK population.
          And 0.21% of the World population.

    • I think you mean a third referendum – the first was in 1975 and the second in 2016. Your use of the term ‘moderated’ sounds extremely sinister and undemocratic to me. As for the divorce bill, well a lot of that is up to us – we could walk away and adopt WTO rules which, given that we have a trade deficit with the EU, would not be a disaster.

    • We don’t have to pay a penny to the blood suckers, they have taken enough money from us. We do not want to be in a United States Of Europe and if that means getting off your backside and working to make this a better country then we need to get on with it. This is not and was not about money – it is about sovereignty.

      • It was always about politics, and sovereignty.
        The EU lost the economic argument long ago.

        If our disgusting, corrupt, establishment had got the result they wanted, there would have been no question of a 3rd referendum.
        They got a well-deserved come-uppance.

    • Fine then how about a full impact study in remaining in the eu. Remainers are very good at demanding but have no facts or vision relating to the concequences of staying. £20 billion pa contribution. Unlimited and unsustainable migration. Direct taxation A totalitarian police state just last week merkle produced a document outlining the procedures she is putting in place not only to control the msm but also to make them a political arm of the EU. Then Google Barcelona agreement and Isesco documents and decide if you want your children to live in a single coffee coloured population. Yes please ensure that this is included in your impact report. I could offer 100 reasons to leave but you lot in your ivory towers have never even tried to research the EU to have any idea of what you are doing. We the unwashed, uneducated morons knew exactly why we needed to get out.

      • I would support such a report wholeheartedy.
        It, and the impact reports should have already been done, *actually before the vote – which would have been a conscientious way to deal with the issue rather than bequeathing such a stain on society as the referendum sadly became.

  4. If it is a mistake, which I don’t believe, it is only a mistake about economics. But economics as thought of by the Financial Times are only about Corporations and their profits. They arent about working people having to contend with a huge influx of immigrants undercutting them in the job market, getting priority in the allocation of public services and altering the flavour of life in their towns and cities out of all recognition.

    If the British had wanted a country which was a province in an anti democratic Greater Europe dominated by Germany, a lot of them wouldn’t have bothered fighting WW2.

    What do working people care about whether or not obscenely paid people in the City lose their jobs to Europe ? If they do, serves them right, they might think, for the financial debacle they engineered and which working people, not them are still paying for.

    • Exactly.
      The economy can be measured in many ways, & provided the populace are
      happy & safe (which is the only reason to have a state), it is an abstraction.
      Japan has gone through a prolonged period of stagnation, but it is a more
      secure & happy society than the UK.
      Re Germany, & our independence,I can’t help recalling that when Richard the Lionheart
      was captured by the Germans in 1193, they forced him to acknowledge the German
      Emperor as feudal lord of England.
      Plus ca change.

    • My only experience of Frankfurt is a night at the Airport. It closed at 11pm and when I say closed I really mean CLOSED. Under a local law, upheld in Court regardless of the reason for the delay, your flight is going nowhere. And all the shops and cafes shut too.

      I have a colleague who has just spent a few days in Frankfurt. We never discuss politics, but the first thing he said on his return was “Horrible city,I don’t believe that these bankers would want to go and work there”

      Perhaps Frankfurt is an ideal place for these people. Serve them right

      • Brussels did the same to me two years ago.
        Re Frankfurt – as the FT is published there as well, you’d think they’d learn a lesson.

      • That’s why it’s a non starter. There isn’t enough office space in Frankfurt to accommodate what is in the square mile. Remainers think we’re stupid but don’t actually understand some very basic facts

      • Brussels, is the facade for Berlin & beyond.
        What better facade than the capital of a non country, cobbled together
        & with no sense of identity ?
        The security forces, police, etc hardly function, since they speak two different
        languages & have different cultural traditions.
        The borders of the EU concede with the lands that were conquered by, or
        collaborated with the Third Reich.
        There is, of course, one exception.
        Just what was WW2 for ?
        While we remain an EU vassal state, it was as pointless as the Afghan or
        Iraq Wars.

      • You are wrong. I have pretty conclusive proof that their ultimate goal is a federal states of europe very closely aligned with the middle East and med. countries. One agreement has already been signed. This alliance gives them oil advantages and more power. They see themselves as THE world power. The signed agreement is the reason for the love of Islam and not just welcome but encouragement to migrants from the 8 countries involved. However they had to permit migrants from all countries in thoes areas to avoid suspicion. They had no problem with this as most are Islamic anyway. Churches in the Eu did question why Christian migrants did not come… Hungry has offered to take Christain migrants but no joy. The Church’s also noticed that Christian migrants were often refused visas and were always the first to be deported. They have no respect, care or empathy for the European people. Common sense dictates that if a politician has a policy that is unacceptable to the people and causes a vote share to fall dramatically as well as causing increased Eurosceptism then they would dump that policy. Merkel has not. The Barcelona agreement is the reason. EU official document Isesco is a part of the confirmation. Google them. Races mixed to the point of just a single coffee coloured people

        • An interesting conception. I can certainly see such a scheme appealing to the leaders of the failed states from Germany to Iran and including most of the rest.

          THE Power? Well we all have our illusions. In a world with the US (and allies), Russia, and a resurgent China, the best case outcome of that scheme is war without end, Amen. More likely is that Europe is again conquered by Russia, the US, or both together.

          I don’t see the US caring much, really, although willing to defend a Britain, Israel, and perhaps a reformed KSA, standing out from such a mess. Done that way, Europe ends up encircled in a resource poor area between the US bloc and Russia. That is one of the main causes of Hitler’s loss, and Europe was more productive in those days. And forget Africa, Europe lost any pretense of sea power at Trafalgar and Jutland.

          There’s just not all that much upside for the US in taking it apart. Russia, on the other hand, needs Europe for selling its own oil, which is about all it has left. China needs middle east oil, and I suspect will fight for it. All three powers (other than our Europhiles) despise Islamic terrorism, and in such a scenario the gloves are likely to come well off.

          In short, do I disbelieve it? Not completely, and Europe’s support of Iran is quite troubling. Do I see it working? No. Nobody yet has unified Europe, not even Rome, and I don’t think this bunch can either, even with Persian support.

          But even as I say your conception could be true, I agree with David R above. It actually is Das Vierte Reich, conceived in Berlin. The Germans are either at your throat or groveling at your feet..

  5. Since when does ‘job losses may not be as bad as expected’ count as good news? I have a friend who works in HR in large investment bank at Canary Wharf. He says they, like all the big banks, are waiting to see, but they have contingency plans for a major shift away from London. The truth is no one knows.

    • Absolutely right ! Why then the continued forecasts of doom from diehard remainers ?
      At the very least , those who claim to be “professional” and who boast of their objectivity , should at the very least report ALL the relevant news and not just that which appears to support their prejudices .

      • One cannot expect objectivity or even common honesty from those
        dedicated to the destruction of the UK, and all the nation states of
        Their motives are usually greed, but some, genuinely believe in the construction
        of a United States of Europe as good thing.
        Miseducated idiots.

      • On my daily business missive from HSBC, the EU bods have just downgraded our 2018/19 growth forecast.
        To coin a phrase – “they would, wouldn’t they”?

    • They might, but I doubt much of the move will be to Europe. More likely Singapore, or if they finally get their thumb out, India. Nobody with sense has any clue that Europe is going to even hold its own, it’s a dying continent.

        • Then they are delusional. There’s a German Army study floating about, which gives the EU about 10% chance of existing in 2040. It will be replaced by a bloc looking to Moscow, they think. I don’t buy that part, I think that bloc will be looking to London, if you get your thumbs out.

          But the EU is doomed, by disparate societies, by lack of productivity, by welfare and corruption and especially by ridiculous levels of immigration.

          I also read Norway has decided that when Sweden blows up, they will take no refugees. Wise Norwegians.

        • No chance. Not only is Frankfurt a very boring city to live in it doesn’t have the financial infrastructures. London deals with the yen and rupees and many other foreign currencies without trouble why should the euro be any different?

      • ‘The Suicide of the West’. The number of books written on this theme over the last decades is quite amazing.

        There is indeed not a fin de siecle feeling about Europe but a fin de Civilisation air hanging about it. And of course, this has been precipitated by dodgy French philosophy.

        When parallels are pointed out between present day Europe and the late Roman Empire in the West ( Such as the invasion of barbarians, the debasement if the currency etc) it is sometimes said that yes, there is a crepuscular, decaying feeling but it is still possible to live well.

        That’s what the elites are about. They have no religious beliefs so despite their surface attitudes they don’t care much for the future because they won’t be in it.

  6. My daughter’s US employer has told staff that their European HQ will remain in England because the company wants to operate under impartial English commercial law. The company apparently believes that if it is involved in litigation with a company in most EU countries, the law will always tend to favour the local company.

      • Particularly France, along with their refusal to speak English. Most other European countries learn English as their first foreign language and the company can deal in English with most of them. French is not such a popular language outside France.

          • Hard to start a business and difficult to employ people because they are impossible to get rid of it they turn out to be lazy or incompetent. Very difficult to get a job there unless you speak very good French – a clever way of making immigrants think again. But if you get a job on the railway I believe they retire about 52 with good state pension.

          • On the West coast of the USA, apart from fast food outlets it is hard to find an eating place which isn’t Italian.

          • Doesn’t surprise me, they are quite good at taking care of themselves. Still, I wouldn’t know, haven’t been on our left coast since about 1975. Plan to keep it that way. Fair number here as well, including until he got sick, Rudi Guiliani’s favorite chef, who does Italian, unusual in an Egyptian.

          • I drove down route 101 from San Francisco to San Diego. Stunning oceanside scenery. I underestimated how long it was though. The distances in the USA are vast.

          • A beautiful drive, I did it with my parents when I was in high school, and then on to Seattle.

            Not uncommon, they say. Yep, it a big and varied country. There is a reason why Americans (often Canadians too) give distances in hours. For instance from where I live to my family in the Philadelphia suburbs is 24 hours, Frisco about the same, Chicago is about 12, as is Fargo, but Denver and Omaha are only about 4. Those are all nonstop driving distances, not including breaks for anything. It’s also why we have air travel instead of trains, although the so-called security is making a lot of flying useless, quicker to drive. But the continental 48 states are about the size of Europe, from Iceland to the Urals. it’s also a reason why not so many Americans come to Europe on vacation, unless you have specific interests there is plenty here.

        • I liked that: The problem with the French is that they won’t speak English. Obviously those pesky Gallic frog-leg eaters haven’t forgiven us for the Battle of Agincourt. However, considering the ascent of and possible world domination by China, economically speaking, perhaps we should forget English, French, German and all other European languages and learn Mandarin instead!

          Factoid: Mandarin Chinese is the world’s most spoken language with English in third place behind Spanish as the second most popular and spoken language.

          • I remember how angry the French were at some EU meeting with all the new EU countries. The French, as usual, wanted a translation of all documents into French but one of the new EU countries, I think it was Romania, said they didn’t want a translation, copies in English would be perfectly acceptable.

          • I remember some years ago the organisers of the international Francophone conference in Hanoi tried to recruit 30 English/French interpreters as about a third of their delegates didn’t actually speak French. Happy days!

          • And Romanian is a Romance language like French and a Romanian speaker can even find French understandable, to a limited degree.

          • While colonialism and the material success of English speaking nations gave it a head start, the success of the English language is, in great part, due to its grammatical simplicity. In far flung corners of the globe foreigners get together, without any English speakers present, and talk to each other in English. That includes when the Chinese need to talk to anyone too.
            It’s a delightful irony that the global lingua “franca” is English. I don’t see that changing for a long time. No matter how many Chinese decide to speak Mandarin to each other they’ll still want to talk to the world in English.

          • There maybe more Chinese speakers in the world but they are mostly resident in China and surrounding countries. Same with Spanish mostly spoken in Spain or their ex colonies. If you include people who speak English as a second language I suspect English would be the most spoken language world wide.

    • Turnabout. I’m not even slightly surprised. Back when we were industrialising most of our capital came from England. Why? “impartial English commercial law.” If you look around the world, where does one find the big players? London, New York, and Singapore. What do they have in common? “impartial English commercial law.” I don’t know anybody who really gives two shakes about anybody in Europe, other than to make fun of the French, even though for most of us, our heritage is all over Europe (and the world). but the UK is a different story, most of us love it, a few hate it, but everyone cares.

      It is very much why the world is as the world is.

    • Mmm. I seem to think that the US will always favour the US in any dispute.. Remember the oil slick scandal which left BP paying spurious compensation claims to US farmers who were miles inland.

  7. I’m sure it can’t be this simple – mainly because the Remainers keep saying it’s not, but please bear with. Here’s what I’m struggling with:
    If, instead of subjecting us all to endless months of shrieking, catastrophising, belly-aching and hectoring Leavers for being stupid, the FT, BBC, Sky, Osborne, Carney, the banks, big business, the CBI, Euro-Graf Heseltine, Gina Miller et al had decided to accept the result of the referendum and said, “Right, the challenge now is to get the best deal we possibly can for the UK to ensure that we make the most we can out of this, for the good of all of us, and we should look on this as an incredible opportunity to achieve something brave and different, perhaps even leading the rest of Europe out of the economic doldrums in the process” – would that not have become a self-fulfilling prophesy?
    But instead, they chose to rant and sulk and talk us down, sneaking off to the very people who have caused the people to vote OUT, casting teary assumptions and generally giving the message to the world that we were a divided, spiteful, hopeless country.
    In doing so, aren’t they the ones, not the upbeat Brexiteers who are inviting economic Armageddon and causing their own difficulties?

    • It is difficult to argue with the outright political bigotry of remoaners.
      And they are well represented in our corrupt, disgusting elite.

      • Y’know, years ago I would have been horrified to think that parliament and the civil service in this country were corrupt and disgusting. I wouldn’t – couldn’t – have believed it. There were too many checks and balances, I thought, including the media whose job it was to shine light on any dubious practices, effectively to act on behalf of the people.
        Since Brexit, my eyes have opened wider along with the can of worms. And I think many, many other decent, law-abiding people feel the same sickened revulsion at the succession of democracy deniers who spout their views uninterrupted on the airwaves and in the press, as if they represented anything other than their own vested interests.

        • The rot set in during the Bliar years. He got rid of the unpolitical civil service and replaced it with one more to his liking. His and Brown’s policies were geared not to improving Britain but to ensure New Labour remained in power in perpetuity. Thank God it didn’t work.

    • Absolutely agree,
      What I have come to understand is that these people do not consider their Britishness a virtue. They are internationalist, the concept of ‘country’ makes them feel uncomfortable.
      Basically they are not on the same team as us.

      • Their team seems to draw from two groups.
        The average voter, well-meaning but sadly misinformed, who does not understand the first thing about the history, mechanics and long term goals of the anti-democratic EU.
        And the career politicians and Sir Humphreys, the money men and the ambitious media bloc who understand very well, but reckon they will do pretty well out of it.

        • I can understand any billonnare or global corporation supporting the EU.
          Obviously, their multi millionaire bag carriers, Blair& co also.
          Their position is rational if unpleasant.
          It’s the miseducated young people who think they’re left wing or progressive that need a dose of common sense combined with lessons in history & especially economic & political history
          Why would some 30 year old with a degree in sociology or performance art
          think their interests coincide with those of George Soros or Richard Branson ?
          And as for massive US investment banks ?
          The only rational reason for remaining as servile members of this bureaucrats’ dream is that it would restrain Corbyn’s plans for our economic ruin.
          However, simply enforcing existing voting regulations would deal with
          his lot.

          • You are exactly right. It makes no sense. It shows how indoctrinated the young are, and how confused most other Remainers are.
            If every howl of Heseltinic outrage on the BBC had been countered by a sensible, logical Brexiteer, they might have things clearer. Strangely that has never happened.

          • The EU did a fantastic job with it’s propaganda, it infiltrated every large organisation and our educational system with it’s so called ‘funding’. Merkel gave the game away when after the referendum result she ‘regretted that not more young people had voted’. How much of our EU contributions go to their propaganda machine?

          • How much EU funding do our universities get? A significant amount, which is why they are bleating so hard. Maybe they are even obliged to, as part of the deal.
            But here again, the most basic logic poses this conundrum: if these Remoaning academics are so much cleverer than the rest of us, how is it that they can’t work out that an EU net contributor like the UK will be better off not paying in to Brussels, and will have more funds available for them once we have left?
            And a brave Britain, with independence restored, will have every reason to want to invest massively in homegrown research, especially in science, medicine and technology.
            QED: this is all about politics, not cash. But why?

        • Not only do they expect to do well, but because of the way in which power and responsibility have been grabbed by Brussels, they are no longer accountable for the graft, power mania and idiocy. “Not me, guv…” It’s a protection racket with suits and glass buildings, nothing more.

        • You are right but the misinformed voter who voted Remain because they reckoned the status quo was better than the unknown or because their propaganda filled children and grandchildren persuaded them are now being educated about the reality of the spiteful, corrupt, evil EU.

      • Their interests are solely their own finances. Look for the money or to give it the EU name – ‘funding’ ie bribery with our own money. Traitors and Quislings the lot of them.

  8. Only when the UK’s relationship with the EU is properly understood will we know what the fallout as far as jobs and the fate of services, particularly banking, financial and legal services, really become apparent. That said many US banks have already begun bulking up European entities outside the UK, on the quiet, allowing them to transfer some activities from London to EU, but most lack sufficient licences to carry out many of the operations they currently run from London and are staying put until the nature of the final deal, if any, which the UK has negotiated with the European Union is finally revealed.

    It could go either way and could end up affecting money spinners like banking, financial and legal services very badly indeed, both inwardly and outwardly. A clumsy brexit could be very damaging.

    • Businessmen always like to hedge their bets.
      They are lobbing a few into the EU, “just in case”.
      A quick, hard, Brexit with no transition, is needed, to give clarity, and certainty.

      • Most will hang around until tariff, licensing and passporting issues are clarified and made the final decision after that. However it won’t make much sense to financial businesses to continue to offer services to the EU, if the services cost significantly more to mount from a country outside the EU.

        Only time will tell.

        Walking away without a favourable deal could be catastrophic for services.

  9. UBS made it clear that it only made its decision to provisionally limit the number of jobs leaving the UK (since when were job losses of any scale due to a political decision “good news” by the way??) after it received “assurances on the future regulatory regime” from HM government.

    This follows last year’s decision by Nissan to keep its Sunderland plant open after it also received “assurances” about future trading terms (though it has since stated explicitly that this decision will be reviewed once the details of our future trade deal with the EU are known).

    In both cases the companies concerned have refused to disclose the nature of the “assurances” they were given by the government. Presumably because non-disclosure was a condition of being offered those mystery assurances in the first place.

    So we’re now in the lunatic position where a Japanese/French car company, and a Swiss bank, know stuff about our future relationship with our largest trading partner which is being withheld from parliament, the media, the devolved governments of the UK, and us mere mortals.

    That’s not “taking back control”, that’s the same old globalist stitch-up between the Establishment and multi-national business.

  10. I suspect that not as many businesses in Britain will abandon the country because of Brexit. It is not in their interest to remove their financial assets from this country, thus losing a huge market with a far more stable economy than those of many European nations. But I think it is fair that businesses should be cautious here. The only thing is, they cannot blame Theresa May. I read this morning that a coalition of businesses had asked Theresa May to get a “quick deal”. This is understandable from a business perspective, but unrealistic. Until the EU stop bullying Britain into coughing up a divorce bill before telling us what the final terms will be, then we will get nowhere.

    • A “huge market” which is one-eighth the size of the rEU.

      And which is shown by all economic indicators so far this year to be LESS stable than the rEU….. even without the gargantuan instability of not having the faintest notion of how it’s going to trade with any of its key partners in a few years’ time.

      • Our trade with the rest of the world handled with tariffs under WTO rules is continuing to expand. The opponents of Brexit who are still out to stop or dilute it seem to see Brexit as some big economic event.
        It is difficult to see why.
        They concentrate on trade. There is no evidence that joining the EEC or completing the single market did anything to boost UK growth so it is difficult to see how leaving it will do the opposite. JR.

  11. A terrible mistake for the editor of the Financial Times may not be a terrible mistake for he who has to pay EU contributions – the British taxpayer that is.

Comments are closed.