If we vote for Brexit what happens

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Ballard wrote: »

I am a banker and entirely get your point. Furthermore I think that you're spot on with the banking crisis being a major factor in us leaving the EU.

People from Sunderland don't care about The City and I don't blame them. If I didn't work there I probably wouldn't care about it either but the fact remains that it's a massive industry for the UK and without it we would all be much poorer.

It could easily be argued that the bail out has cost us all a huge amount but that's in the past and we have to move on and think of the future. What are our options without these international banks?

I appreciate your POV.
However I saw this the other day:

The_Last_Username wrote: »

There will be no "Brexit Armageddon" for the London financial district.

Mark Boleat, head of policy at the City of London, the local government that administers Europe's biggest financial centre, said talk of a massive exodus has been mistaken.
"If it was going to be Armageddon, we would have noticed it by now," Boleat told Reuters in an interview in a room off the local government's seat of power in the medieval Guildhall.
"They are never all going to up sticks and leave ... We expect the steady flow of new business coming in."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-city-idUKKBN17227O?il=0

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Arklight wrote: »

That's a jolly good source of data there, that you are completely misinterpreting.

Ah, the angry (OP's terminology, not mine) one returns.
My point was clearly made earlier in the thread and as stated elsewhere, fact remains fact.
Much though some very obviously wish to engage in pointless debate regarding a subject posted much earlier, I do not.
We have already moved on.
As such I decline to participate further in your supposed (but false) self-aggrandizement.


BTW, is using such derogatory terminology as "Brexicists" really necessary?
A lesson on how not to mount a persuasive argument; use insult.

"WTO rules Brexicists"

Arklight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm not stirring. It's all over all the major news networks.

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-guidelines-eu-hands-spain-power-over-gibraltars-future-10819502

The important part of this story is that it shows that like a rat in a maze, there is no road the UK can turn down in Brexit negotiations where the EU aren't already there in greater numbers.

They are 27 countries against our 1. We can no more hang on Gibraltar in perpetuity against the wishes of the EU than we could have "kept" Hong Kong.

Spain is now even prepared to drop opposition to Scottish accession. Of course it is, the UK has never been weaker internationally, if it loses Scotland, its seat at the UN and most probably its nuclear threat - England will be too weak to keep Gibraltar anyway.

Ballard

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I appreciate your POV.
However I saw this the other day:

My post wasn't making any points about what will happen to The City. I was merely saying that dissatisfaction with the financial services played a large part in the majority of those who voted choosing to leave the EU.

kabayiri

Ballard wrote: »

I am a banker and entirely get your point. Furthermore I think that you're spot on with the banking crisis being a major factor in us leaving the EU.

People from Sunderland don't care about The City and I don't blame them. If I didn't work there I probably wouldn't care about it either but the fact remains that it's a massive industry for the UK and without it we would all be much poorer.

It could easily be argued that the bail out has cost us all a huge amount but that's in the past and we have to move on and think of the future. What are our options without these international banks?

I really don't know. It's a tough enough cookie to think about the political fallout of Brexit.

Sunderland is a good example. Spend on infrastructure investment in London is 24 times higher than it is in Sunderland.

It is therefore unsurprising that somewhere like London copes with the massive amount of change we have seen better. It should do. The regional difference in Remain vote is explainable to a degree.

Cameron would never command respect during the Brexit campaign if he toured Sunderland, trying to understand their problems. He is a Shires Tory.

It would be up to Labour to understand the people of Sunderland, and to explain to those voters why things will be better. Sadly Corbyn is an Islington type, totally out of touch with regional matters.

I wondered if the Brexit vote was one of those times where a perfect storm of conditions generated a freak result.

Arklight

Conrad wrote: »

Remainers accross the media saying we should not be playing our defence ace in the negotiation, as ever batting for the EU, not the UK

I said a year ago we would deploy this ace and Remainers told it was not an ace. As said back the, our membership of the Five Eyes System and us guarding Europes oil supplies through the Straights Of Hormuz are just to power plays for us.

The simple solution to that is for Europe to carry on with ever closer union and tool up their own military. France doesn't need British protection, the rest of them are all NATO states anyway, but it's hard to see what the EU has really got from British and American sabre rattling other than a tide of refugees.

Your vision of Brexit heaven does rather rely on the EU completely collapsing as a political entity. This is a long held and much beloved conviction of the British Right - who rather like the ragged old Doomsday cultist outside Victoria Station, seem to have lost any understanding that the prediction that "the end is nigh" rather loses it's power when you have been saying it for 40 years.

Ballard

kabayiri wrote: »

I really don't know. It's a tough enough cookie to think about the political fallout of Brexit.

Sunderland is a good example. Spend on infrastructure investment in London is 24 times higher than it is in Sunderland.

It is therefore unsurprising that somewhere like London copes with the massive amount of change we have seen better. It should do. The regional difference in Remain vote is explainable to a degree.

Cameron would never command respect during the Brexit campaign if he toured Sunderland, trying to understand their problems. He is a Shires Tory.

It would be up to Labour to understand the people of Sunderland, and to explain to those voters why things will be better. Sadly Corbyn is an Islington type, totally out of touch with regional matters.

I wondered if the Brexit vote was one of those times where a perfect storm of conditions generated a freak result.

I am in agreement with you. I don't know the figures but everything that I've seen over the years points to a disproportionate amount of money being spent in the South East.

I would say in defence of London, and in particular the financial services, that by my fag packet calculations city workers conservatively pay a total of 14,000,000,000.00 a year in tax (based on 700,000 workers paying an average £20,000 tax/NI). Realistically it would be far greater than that as they'd pay other taxes with the money that ends up in their bank accounts.

None of us know what will happen to The City but those who hope that its demise is approaching would be in for a real shock if their dream becomes reality.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Ballard wrote: »

My post wasn't making any points about what will happen to The City. I was merely saying that dissatisfaction with the financial services played a large part in the majority of those who voted choosing to leave the EU.

Ahem.

Ballard wrote: »

What are our options without these international banks?

Hence my response regarding what is fact happening so far which suggests that we will not be "without these international banks".

Filo25

kabayiri wrote: »

I really don't know. It's a tough enough cookie to think about the political fallout of Brexit.

Sunderland is a good example. Spend on infrastructure investment in London is 24 times higher than it is in Sunderland.

It is therefore unsurprising that somewhere like London copes with the massive amount of change we have seen better. It should do. The regional difference in Remain vote is explainable to a degree.

Cameron would never command respect during the Brexit campaign if he toured Sunderland, trying to understand their problems. He is a Shires Tory.

It would be up to Labour to understand the people of Sunderland, and to explain to those voters why things will be better. Sadly Corbyn is an Islington type, totally out of touch with regional matters.

I wondered if the Brexit vote was one of those times where a perfect storm of conditions generated a freak result.

Equally though even a lot of the investment in London is driven by Demand rather than some long term strategic plan to favour London over the regions, I don't think many of us who commute regularly in London would claim its transport infrastructure is overinvested in!

Many were complaining about the prospect of paying more money for airport expansion in London and saying we should spend more at regional airports, but it ignores the simple fact that there is already significant excess capacity at regional airports while Heathrow is bursting at the seams.

If there is an issue with investment in the UK it is that there is too little of it everywhere, the reason London tends to get more than the regions is simply because of demand and returns on investment.

Sometimes I do think it would be the best for both London and rUK, if we just broke away and formed our own city state !

Ballard

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ahem.

Hence my response regarding what is fact happening so far which suggests that we will not be "without these international banks".

Well done you.

You are brilliant and I bow down to your superior Intellect.