George Osborne blocked the EU implementing more Banking regulation, after problems were found with HSBC in Switzerland and elsewhere. City of London is known as the money laundering centre.

I was hoping we stayed in to get on with the regulation of the banking system but looks like the bankers won, once again.

 

It is asked was it a cunning plan from the beginning.

I dont think they have completely won except in Britain. consider

Banks are moving out of the UK or at least establishing themselves in EU countries - which will be under those EU countries Laws

We will be left with a lot of the crap

They do appear to be expecting a HARD Brexit - as am I.

Trump is pressing hard for further banking deregulation in the US - and might actually get that. So the US banks will shift back there as well ass to their chosen EU hidey holes.

So the banks are unlikely to lose out. They just move, but they are unlikely to get the level of protection they had here - but thats no good if it costs too much to trade (Milk/dairy farmers in Ireland will be seeing that too)

Lets just make sure we make them pay what they owe us before they swan off - FAT chance - Look at what happened with the recent sell offs - all paid up - interest free and fiddled figures

If Banks have headquarters in the UK, with operations in the EU, then i think the EU would require the Banks to operate to EU standards in the UK. Given the billions transfered on a daily basis between Banks, there would need to be an agreement on standards and regulation.

At the moment UK can block changes in the EU to a certain extend, but after Brexit if the EU wanted to impose new Banking standards which would no doubt apply to UK Banks, then tne UK are likely to have to go along with it.

If Banks have headquarters in the UK, with operations in the EU, then i think the EU would require the Banks to operate to EU standards in the UK. Given the billions transfered on a daily basis between Banks, there would need to be an agreement on standards and regulation.

 

At the moment UK can block changes in the EU to a certain extend, but after Brexit if the EU wanted to impose new Banking standards which would no doubt apply to UK Banks, then tne UK are likely to have to go along with it.

They will simply create new companies where they want them.

The downside of this for the banks is that pretty much everyone, and especially the EU require them to capitalise the EU arms far more than the UK does

... This means they need too have and tie up more 'real' assets/money to buffer the host nations from collapse rather than just run on smoke and mirrors with the nations taxpayers assuring the bankers profits and debts as in the UK.

If Banks have headquarters in the UK, with operations in the EU, then i think the EU would require the Banks to operate to EU standards in the UK. Given the billions transfered on a daily basis between Banks, there would need to be an agreement on standards and regulation.

 

At the moment UK can block changes in the EU to a certain extend, but after Brexit if the EU wanted to impose new Banking standards which would no doubt apply to UK Banks, then tne UK are likely to have to go along with it.

I thought that banks resisted EU changes and the government supported them prior to brexit!

I thought that banks resisted EU changes and the government supported them prior to brexit!

Yes, and?

(Hope you are not going to say 'so why are they moving to the EU' - and demonstrate you are just firing questions without reading the responses or read any of the background linked here)

Yes, and?

 

(Hope you are not going to say 'so why are they moving to the EU' - and demonstrate you are just firing questions without reading the responses or read any of the background linked here)

Oops that's me told then! However, I am not quite sure what you mean?

I thought that banks resisted EU changes and the government supported them prior to brexit!

Of course the Government and Banks did not want more regulation.

Can you imagine the can of worms that would be uncovered with greater audit trails, greater transparency on money be moved around etc.

Oops that's me told then! However, I am not quite sure what you mean?

If that was what you meant - then there's little point in repeating anwsers if you aren't going to read them is there?

Its all here in the thread.

Lets try a slightly different tack:

Why do you think they would move to the EU despite the UK wasting an entire renegotiation pre Brexit vote in adding and extending UK protections for them against proposed EU tighter regs?

It is quite logical and obvious even without looking it up.

Whats your guess?

I would have thought that this would be one really good reason to leave the EU !

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/674777/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-EU-superstate-laws-Magna-Carta-rights-Britain

 

EU super state laws strip Britain of its Magna Carta rights, writes JACOB REES-MOGG

 

THE European Union Arrest Warrant (EAW) does not enhance the United Kingdom’s security but does risk miscarriages of justice and undermines centuries of legal protection.

In England and later the United Kingdom, Habeas Corpus is a right of great antiquity. Anyone who is arrested must be brought before a court but this does not apply in continental countries.

 

This has led to people like Andrew Symeou spending ten months in a Greek prison for a crime he did not commit. British citizens can now be held in foreign jails for extended periods and denied their common law rights because the EAW is superior in European law. Likewise, trial by jury is not standard practice in the rest of the EU so the Magna Carta right to trial by peers is removed.

 

 

 

 

When it was introduced the EAW was advertised as a means of capturing terrorists and paedophiles.

 

Instead it has been used, as in the King case, to persecute parents who are unhappy with the NHS treatment their child was receiving or to arrest a tipsy driver.

 

Fundamental protections, the assumption of innocence, trial by jury and the right to appear before a court have all been sacrificed on the altar of the EU super state.

 

Britons have been extradited to countries with third world prisons and justice systems. Leaving the EU would restore our historic rights.

 

Daily UKIP, sorry Express

And i thought freeman of the land stuff was frowned upon

The only part of Magna carta still used today is habeas corpus. The remaining was repealed by the English Bill of Rights 1689 and future Parliament Acts

The EU was not even conceived until 1958

Not to mention the UK is Common law and the EU states are Civil law

Mainland europe has had Civil as in Roman law before our Magna Carta

You commit a crime in a foreign country you are tried under their judicial system, not British

You mention the King case. That was actually the British Government that applied for the arrest warrant

Any request to extradite a UK national has to go before a British Judge, He decides if there are substantive grounds on the evidence submitted to justify extradition. These little things the Express leave out for obvious reasons

I would have thought that this would be one really good reason to leave the EU !

 

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/674777/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-EU-superstate-laws-Magna-Carta-rights-Britain

I dont doubt that Rees Moog wouldn't want a European Arrest Warrant or the ECJ around if the investigations into historic (and perhaps ongoing) 'abuses' ever really kicked off ....

and rather rich coming from someone who supports May's attempts at using 'Royal' prerogatives to bypass UK parliament ...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728376/Brexit-MP-High-Court-Parliament-Article-50-triggered-IMMEDIATELY

and Merkels party wins key state in elections

http://www.france24.com/en/20170514-merkel-party-wins-key-regional-poll-northern-germany-cdu

Well the negotiations are due to start,

The EU says the door to the EU can still be open to the UK, but NOT the same door the UK used before.

Rebates and special circumstances will NOT be continued, as has been demanded by other full member EU states who dont get them.

If the UK decides it wants to stay - it will be as a much more 'normal' member, Not as some trouble making immigrant on the outskirts just claiming benefits to send home.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-eu-verhofstadt-idUKKBN1950QO

As the DUP pile on the pressure - THEY have plenty of time

"Following more than an hour of talks between May and DUP leader Arlene Foster on Tuesday, May said the discussion had been productive and Foster said she hoped a deal could be done "sooner rather than later"."

While the chancellor (who was to have been sacked if May had won her gamble) says 'For Gods sake, we cant leave the EU and the EU trade deals because there aint any others worth having ...

"Philip Hammond would push May not to leave the customs union - an arrangement which guarantees tariff-free trade within the bloc but prohibits members from striking third-party trade deals. "

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-idUKKBN19430T

UK economics helping businesses should be main priority. 52% of people did not vote to damage the country. They expect Government to ensure that the economy is not put at risk by the Brexit deal agreed with the EU. If that means staying in single market and customs union, then that would be supported by a majority. Of course some won't be happy, but they are a minority.

The issue of any Border being put into place has to be decided first with any agreement between the DUP and the tories

The issue of any Border being put into place has to be decided first with any agreement between the DUP and the tories

Possibly, but theres alsways scope for 'misunderstanding'.

UK economics helping businesses should be main priority. 52% of people did not vote to damage the country. They expect Government to ensure that the economy is not put at risk by the Brexit deal agreed with the EU. If that means staying in single market and customs union, then that would be supported by a majority. Of course some won't be happy, but they are a minority.

But May appears to be doing her best to ensure any bridges SHE doesn't want crossing are well and truly burnt.

... and unlike everything else, she seems to be doing that quite well..

Oh and if anyone things Osbourne not getting sacked things that a more 'progressive' 'business and economy friendly' Brexit is on the cards - think again

Osbournes cabal is actually worse than May and only interested in protecting the financiers business at everyone elses expense.

May at least was trying to deliver what the British public actually voted for in a break with the EU, not just the public just paying for financiers EU benefits.

Am of the opinion if this deal with the DUP fails, which me thinks it will due to Adams, Brexit is dead in the water

Am of the opinion if this deal with the DUP fails, which me thinks it will due to Adams, Brexit is dead in the water

Wish it were true od, but both Corbyn and a powerful Tory group want brexit. The Torys just want it with benefits for the financiers.

Given the poor showing by the libdems, which everyone will say is 'everbody supports Brexit, rather than 'everybody fears May and her policies more as an immediate threat'

one of the REAL drivers for Tory Brexit stances

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/18/european-commission-to-crackdown-on-offshore-tax-avoidance

"It is possible the regulations will never be adopted by the UK. However, if Britain negotiates to remain part of the single market, it would be subject to the same tax and financial regulation as full members of the union."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/world/europe/brexit-talks-uk-brussels.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/world/europe/brexit-talks-uk-brussels.html?emc=edit_mbe_20170620&nl=morning-briefing-europe&nlid=80833938&te=1

Day 1

Brexit: UK caves in to EU demand to agree divorce bill before trade talks

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/19/uk-caves-in-to-eu-demand-to-agree-divorce-bill-before-trade-talks

British negotiators have capitulated to key European demands for a phased approach to Brexit talks, agreeing to park discussions on free trade until they have thrashed out the cost of the multibillion-euro UK divorce settlement.

"Putting a brave face on a concession that may further strengthen the tactical dominance of the EU, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, insisted his initial retreat remained consistent with long-term government strategy.

Previously Davis had threatened to turn the issue into the “row of the summer” in a bid to avoid being held to ransom over the divorce settlement."

Ireland:

"Hopes for swift progress on the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic were dashed when the joint negotiators revealed it would no longer be in the first wave of their working groups, but would be subject to a separate, slower dialogue."

"as long as controlling migration remains at the core of Britain’s position, backed by both Mrs. May’s Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party, continuing access to the single market would seem to be impossible."

Most telling:

"In contrast to well-rehearsed EU positions on issues such as the financial settlement and Irish borders, British officials admit they did not bring any prepared negotiating papers to share with their counterparts – insisting instead that their overall ambitions were made clear by the government’s white paper and Lancaster House speech."

But the two later published agreed “terms of reference” that made no mention of trade. Davis put a brave face on their relative lack of progress during a joint press conference where he sought to channel historic moments of national adversity.

EU policy papers

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/eu-position-papers-article-50-negotiations_en

Day 1 Terms of Reference (so far)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/terms-of-reference-for-the-article-50-negotiations-between-the-united-kingdom-and-the-european-union

Terms of Reference Summary:

The following initial negotiating groups have been established:

 Citizens' rights;

 Financial Settlement;

 Other Separation issues.

In addition, a dialogue on Ireland / Northern Ireland has been launched

under the authority of the Coordinators.

Mays stances (to date)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/17/key-points-from-mays-what-have-we-learned

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/02/the-white-paper-on-brexit-a-wish-list-disguised-as-a-strategy

DUP deal scuppered leaving Torys even more reliant on Corbyn for Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/theresa-may-under-pressure-as-dup-says-show-some-respect

Tory rebels were set to scupper hard Brexit anyway unless Corbyn scuppered (scuppers?) the Tory rebels

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-rebels-idUKKBN19B3A7

But what worth a 'soft' Brexit that only really benefits our corrupt international bankers?

Well the EU hopefully has that well in hand unless May or her successor manage to save our corrupt Financiers and continue their protection from the EU regs DESPITE

The bankers (UK and EU)

Trump (unlikely to change his mind on this)

and the UK

From 2013

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22164384

bit technical from 2014

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/assessing-impact-new-banking-regulatory-framework

2016

http://www.cbronline.com/news/verticals/finance/how-will-new-uk-and-eu-regulations-hit-uk-banking-4924138

and the Bankers squeal like stuck pigs - as they should be

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-banks-regulations-idUSKBN17R1P9