If we vote for Brexit what happens

setmefree2

Just wanted to flag up the fact that this Irish court case hasn't gone away.

Jolyon Maugham filed a case in Ireland last week, seeking an answer on whether the UK can revoke its Article 50 process without the approval of the other 27 EU member states. He hopes to take the case to the European Court of Justice.

http://www.cityam.com/258256/brexiteers-slam-irish-article-50-case-lawyers-claims-people

setmefree2

Malthusian wrote: »

According to Remainders, £350m a week is chicken feed, easily affordable, an insignificant drop in the ocean of the nation's finances, so I'm not seeing the problem.

The EU are asking for $60 billion - I have seen a number of commentators say they think we will pay $30 to $35 billion.

prosaver

setmefree2 wrote: »

The EU are asking for $60 billion - I have seen a number of commentators say they think we will pay $30 to $35 billion.

Thought we had some investment..in the EU .. cash back, yes

BREXIT BOOST: Britain due MASSIVE repayment from rich EU property empire, say campaigners

BRITAIN is due a massive Brexit repayment for its share of the multi-billion EU property empire, anti-Brussels campaigners said last night.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/698247/Anti-EU-campaigners-call-Britain-HUGE-repayment-property-empire

:be

Not sure if we have to pay billions a year tho?

StevieJ

Malthusian wrote: »

According to Remainders, £350m a week is chicken feed, easily affordable, an insignificant drop in the ocean of the nation's finances, so I'm not seeing the problem.

Do you still believe that it was £350 million a week?

prosaver

prosaver wrote: »

Thought we had some investment..in the EU .. cash back, yes



:be

Not sure if we have to pay billions a year tho?

It wasnt the EU Who said we have to pay billions ..just someone from malta..

Redwood also hit back at recent comments from Malta's Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, an EU member, that the U.K. could have to pay as much as 60 billion euros to leave the union.

"I don't see why we should have to pay; I don't see what the legal basis is. You cite to me the treaty article that says you have to pay a lot of money to get out of this club.

"I find it very odd because everybody tells me on the European side that it's this wonderful thing to belong to so surely it's penalty enough, in their terms, that you're no longer in it."

ref http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/uk-will-not-pay-for-leaving-the-eu-says-brexit-mp.html

davomcdave

There was a great article by Martin Wolf in the FT that reckoned that the most likely sticking point in negotiations is how much the UK owes the EU for things like projects that have been agreed already and pension liabilities accrued. If what has been posted on here, both quotes from newspapers and by posters, I think he may well be right.

Herzlos

Malthusian wrote: »

According to Remainders, £350m a week is chicken feed, easily affordable, an insignificant drop in the ocean of the nation's finances, so I'm not seeing the problem.

You mean just under £250m a week, but yeah, we get lots out of that. We get nothing significant out of £140m worth of printing/photocopying.

As said, just think what else we could be doing with all of that money and time.

setmefree2

Central bankers face off over impact of a disorderly Brexit

Carney says architecture of financial system could collapse but Draghi disagrees

Europe’s most important central bankers are at loggerheads over one of the continent’s biggest economic judgment calls: does a disorderly Brexit pose a financial stability risk?
For Mark Carney, Bank of England governor, a messy and severe Brexit could be a “Jenga” moment, where the legal architecture for financial flows collapses, hurting the City of London’s European customers even more than Britain itself.
Mario Draghi, meanwhile, is largely unfazed. The European Central Bank governor has told EU-27 negotiators he is unworried about financial risks from a mobile industry that is adapting to new circumstances. Far from a stability threat to the eurozone, Brexit costs will be containable — and concentrated in Britain.
Whether bluff or negotiating bluster, these arguments will shape the balance of power in Brexit talks, and potentially determine whether Britain remains the EU’s main financial centre even from outside the bloc.

What are the potential risks?
Mr Carney’s argument turns on hedging. Without a market access agreement, European banks and businesses would find it harder to tap Europe’s dominant derivatives market and find essential products to manage balance sheet risks.
“There are currently deep hedging markets,” he said. “If we’re caught in the collective position on both parts of the channel where the main counterparties can no longer dynamically hedge, that takes out capacity, holds up transactions and can cause unforeseeable moves in markets with collateral implications.”

A hard fall out of the bloc carries other potential risks. It might drain market liquidity, raise doubts over the validity of cross-border insurance contracts and generate needless alarm by obscuring financial exposures.
Economic ructions from sudden shifts in capital flows are another worry. A House of Lords committee recently concluded that the sheer interconnectedness of the UK-EU financial system “presents serious difficulties” in even gauging the impact of dramatic legal changes.
Instability would come in part from the difficulty of meeting the EU’s own financial rules post-Brexit. These require some types of interest rate swaps and derivatives to be traded on regulated markets and passed through clearing houses. If London were cast into the regulatory wilderness, European firms would need to scramble for new solutions to fulfil their obligations.
For Simon Gleeson, a partner with Clifford Chance specialising in financial regulation, the prospect bears out Mr Carney’s warning. “In very broad terms, about 20 per cent of the City of London’s volumes come from the EU. So in a hard Brexit scenario, the City loses 20 per cent of its volumes overnight,” he said. “That hurts, but it is all it does.”
The EU, however, faces a more daunting challenge: “A normal retail bank has funding that is mostly floating rate, in the form of deposit accounts, and lending that is almost all fixed rate, so if it can’t hedge its interest-rate exposures it is potentially highly unstable.”

Are the EU-27 alarmed?
Not yet. Hard as Britain has tried to make the point, the reaction in Brussels and Frankfurt has ranged from curiosity to outright rejection. Burkhard Balz, a German centre-right MEP and leading member of the EU parliament’s economy committee, said Mr Carney “has to say something like that” to better position Britain in upcoming talks. “From my perspective he is definitely wrong.”
One eurozone central bank governor told the FT that the ECB’s governing council had not discussed Mr Carney’s comments, saying that financial stability risk from the UK exit “certainly isn’t the ECB’s number one priority . . . the effect of Brexit on EU banks isn’t expected to be that large”. Brexit was barely mentioned in the ECB’s latest financial stability report.
Another central bank governor puts it even more succinctly: “If you were the governor of the Bank of England, if I were governor, then we would both say that wouldn’t we? . . . I don’t see where the financial stability risk is.”
Some smaller member states — and a few more nervous senior eurozone officials — are more alive to the potential dangers. But for now these concerns relate to ensuring minimising costs rather than saving the system. A study by the Bruegel think-tank “conservatively” put the cost of the EU-27 relying on a fragmented wholesale financial market at €6bn-€12bn for households and corporates. That would be on top of the “possibly greater” cost of losing access to London’s relatively efficient financial market.

Why are they so relaxed?
Eurozone central bankers are sanguine for three main reasons: they see the risks as moderate, believe the worst effects can be mitigated and that the EU controls the regulatory levers to respond if the dangers are greater than expected.
One assumption is that multinationals and EU banks would still access services in UK, albeit at potentially increased cost. Options include making use of subsidiaries based in the UK or turning to non-European banks to act as intermediaries within a clearing house.
Indeed financial groups are also busy preparing for Brexit — and reducing the risks it poses. “The good news for the EU is that two years is a reasonably long amount of time that will not allow firms to make all arrangements to serve all their clients in exactly the same way as before, but that will allow many firms to make arrangements for many of their clients,” said Nicolas V!ron of the Bruegel think-tank.
The EU can change the rules if it wants to. Currently banks face higher capital requirements if they use clearing houses in jurisdictions not deemed “equivalent”. That is a problem, but Europe could theoretically change them in a situation where they are doing more harm than good. One senior EU finance ministry official argued that “nothing will prevent users of swap contracts from continuing to do it”.
Europe also has the choice of invoking a last-minute fallback plan if it has underestimated the Brexit risks. In an emergency it can always deem the UK’s financial rules as broadly equivalent and virtually overnight erase any financial blowback. Significantly, that decision can be taken at a late stage in the exit negotiations. The EU-27 would never expect London to refuse their offer.

https://www.ft.com/content/e04582b0-ed67-11e6-ba01-119a44939bb6

setmefree2

Brexit Bill – Government passes moment of maximum danger

The government has fought off the most dangerous of amendments to the Article 50 Bill by a majority of 33. That number, they hope, will subdue the inevitable attempt at amendments in the Lords.
Tory Brexit-sceptic opposition all but crumbled. Only seven Tories voted against the government line after the government promised a vote before the Brexit deal is signed off. Last night the rebels talked of having 22 in their number.

https://www.channel4.com/news/by/gary-gibbon/blogs/brexit-bill-government-passes-moment-of-maximum-danger

setmefree2

Jeremy Corbyn faces Labour walkout over Brexit as 'rival' Clive Lewis threatens to quit

JC faces a shadow cabinet walkout tonight from potential leadership rival Clive Lewis, as the crunch Brexit vote dealt another blow to Labour unity. Shadow business secretary Mr Lewis admitted he might quit to rebel against Mr Corbyn’s three-line whip. “I’ve got to make a decision on how I vote,” he told the BBC. “I’m going to make my mind up.”
Asked how he will vote he said: “I don’t know … a lot on my plate, a lot on everybody’s plate.”
In a day of Labour tensions Mr Corbyn’s office was forced to deny rumours he is thinking about stepping down and anointing a successor from the Left. A source said there was “no truth at all” to the claims.
Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott was expected to fall into line after being mocked by colleagues for missing last week’s vote with a migraine. A source said: “We think Diane has bought a packet of ibuprofen.”
A rebellion by London Labour MPs who are opposed to Brexit looked likely to grow. Two more, Seema Malhotra and Jim Fitzpatrick, were considering defying the whips.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-faces-walkout-over-brexit-as-rival-clive-lewis-threatens-to-quit-a3461416.html