World Trade Organisation Rules

rubuhoeikanaika

martinsurrey wrote: »

and the Chavs abusing foreigners on trams will grab the world wide trading opportunities opened up to them and become the next Richard Bransons...

or maybe the brightest grads will move, they voted overwhelmingly to remain (if you believe the polls), they become bankers because they want the cash, if the cash is elsewhere, why not.

I moved from the North East to Surrey for work, its not that much further to Paris.

Funnily enough unlike most bankers who work in the City, Branson doesn't live in the UK and so his tax exposure here is minimal.

CLAPTON

martinsurrey wrote: »

and the Chavs abusing foreigners on trams will grab the world wide trading opportunities opened up to them and become the next Richard Bransons...

or maybe the brightest grads will move, they voted overwhelmingly to remain (if you believe the polls), they become bankers because they want the cash, if the cash is elsewhere, why not.

I moved from the North East to Surrey for work, its not that much further to Paris.

there is no evidence that the 'finest' graduates voted to remain and no evidence that the finest minds are graduate.

we will note that Richard Branson isn't a graduate.

its interesting that all the lefties and many others, that have spent the last 8 years slagging off the bankers are now their new found best friends.

I do wish to keep a strong financial service sector but not at the price of unlimited EU immigration and loss of our democratic system.

rubuhoeikanaika

CLAPTON wrote: »

surely your logic is that a talent pool of 4,000,000,000 is better that a mere 400,000,000
why would a visa be a problem for people with these unique and special skills?
how many UK bankers are EU nationals and how many from the EUs.

Indeed, a talent pool of 4 billion would be good. And to some extent that's why places like Singapore have done so well, they are very welcoming to such immigration.

Visas are not a problem for banks, generally. But they are expensive as hell and take a long time to process. So you'll get one if you need one, but it's better if you don't need one.

It's not doing great, but the eurozone is still the world's richest economic area. London makes a lot of its money from eurozone business. If we leave the EEA this will change.

as you know the UK has a higher level of financial services with the USA than EU so it would make more sense to allow unlimited immigration from the USA.

Could you give me evidence for that claim? But actually, I do think a deal where the UK has full access to the US single market including financial services, in return for unlimited immigration, would be a good deal. But the USA will never allow such a thing (even the eurozone didn't like it, it was a European Court case that prevented them from stopping it last year). And in any case there already is a huge centre in the US-- New York.

martinsurrey

CLAPTON wrote: »

as you know the UK has a higher level of financial services with the USA than EU so it would make more sense to allow unlimited immigration from the USA.

in effect their is, its not hard to get a UK visa as a Yank, thats why non EU immigration is higher than EU.

ONS numbers

do you think the exiters will be happy if we still let 300k non EU migrants in each year?

rubuhoeikanaika

CLAPTON wrote: »

I do wish to keep a strong financial service sector but not at the price of unlimited EU immigration and loss of our democratic system.

That's fine -- that is a reasonable choice to make. But you have to recognise that it is a choice: you don't get to restrict euro immigration but without harming the financial sector.

So in some ways Nigel Farage is one of the more honest Brexiteers. He admits this. It's people like Johnson who claim that we are so special we can have it both ways (as he did in his Telegraph column) who are not being straight.

setmefree2

rubuhoeikanaika wrote: »

But actually, I do think a deal where the UK has full access to the US single market including financial services, in return for unlimited immigration, would be a good deal. But the USA will never allow such a thing (even the eurozone didn't like it, it was a European Court case that prevented them from stopping it last year). And in any case there already is a huge centre in the US-- New York.

Politically unthinkable. It would be political suicide.

CLAPTON

martinsurrey wrote: »

in effect their is, its not hard to get a UK visa as a Yank, thats why non EU immigration is higher than EU.

ONS numbers

do you think the exiters will be happy if we still let 300k non EU migrants in each year?

I don't think we need to import 300k bankers each year

setmefree2

martinsurrey wrote: »

do you think the exiters will be happy if we still let 300k non EU migrants in each year?

No they would not be happy. (I was a Remainer by the way). There can be no fudge on immigration or it will destabilize the whole country.

martinsurrey

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't think we need to import 300k bankers each year

no, we dont, but if you accept that we as a nation want net migration down to XX,XXX, that means we have to cut at least 250k net migrants a year, if we have a limit on the numbers, we have a limit.

If you were a large employer would you rather risk having your visa quota slashed next year, or move to a country that doesn't have one?

setmefree2

Brexit Kills That EU Financial Transactions Tax Stone Dead Then

There has been much worrying over what is going to happen to the City of London now that Britain has voted for Brexit. How will the financial centre fare now that it is outside the regulatory embrace of the European Union? The obvious answer is that it will thrive precisely and exactly because it is outside the regulatory embrace of the European Union.

However, there’s rather more to it than just this as Sir Mervyn (now Lord) King points out. And he was the Governor of the Bank of England and thus does have a certain amount of knowledge about these things:

A transcript is here:

“There are some threats from the EU that will no longer be relevant. So, the idea there might be a tax on financial transactions – which George Osborne challenged, took to the European Court of Justice and lost his case – now we won’t be involved in that, and my guess is that any attempt in Europe to impose such a tax will never take place now because business will simply come to the City… There are obviously uncertainties in the short run… but the idea that this is a doom and gloom story seems to be wildly exaggerated.”

If they do attempt to impose it then the business will just move to London. As happened with much Swedish business when they imposed their FTT before realising what a disaster it was and thus repealing it. And if we’re outside the EU then there’s not much leaning on us not to do that they they can undertake

Because one of those EU regulations that Britain will soon be free from is the limitation upon the size of bankers’ bonuses. Currently they’re capped at twice pay – and assuming that the newly free UK lifts that cap then banking will go back to having rather lower salaries and higher bonus payments when profits are made.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/29/brexit-kills-that-eu-financial-transactions-tax-stone-dead-then/#51cafe104fd0