So long Barnier, and thanks for all the fish.

[sbgasman]

Their whole world has collapsed.
Three hits in succession. LoL
No wonder they are so bitter.

could be five by the end of the year

if trump wins in November

and we get a clean exit from the corrupt EU

 

[noseall]

could be five by the end of the year

if trump wins in November

and we get a clean exit from the corrupt EU

It'll still be three dummy.

 

[sbgasman]

Really? A second win for Mr Trump , and a clean exit , does it make you feel big and tough insulting people while hiding behind your computer screen ?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Do you not consider the U.S. corrupt?

 

[noseall]

does it make you feel big and tough insulting

I find it tiresome dealing with RWR thickos.

 

[Notch7]

You should be embarrased by the way you keep kow towing to a bunch of gangsters.

You voted for Johnson, whose paymasters are Russians, climate change deniers, disaster capitalists, hedge fund managers.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence the EU is run by gangsters......I could do with a laugh

 

[sbgasman]

I find it tiresome dealing with RWR thickos.

yet you spend so much time on here, and let’s face it anyone with a forum name as noseall, well it just tells it’s own story , maybe you should get out in the real world, I mean 38 thousand posts is a bit sad , quick tip for you don’t use your usual attitude towards people as your not hiding behind your computer screen.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

But not the financial capacity to clear all their financial trades, for which they rely on London.

As I understand it, Financial equivalence is included in the whole negotiating strategy from the viewpoint of the EU. Whereas UK want it to be a separate arrangement. The EU says no, it's all part of the package.
So I suspect access to financial markets is more important from a UK perspective than it is from a EU perspective.
After all, the majority of UK trade is financial. If it loses any fraction, and it will in a no deal because it will lose access to EU financial institutions and UK firms will not be able to service their EU clients unless Equivalence is granted for UK services which is highly unlikely in a no deal, then it will put the UK economy on an even weaker footing.

 

[EddieM]

As I understand it, Financial equivalence is included in the whole negotiating strategy from the viewpoint of the EU. Whereas UK want it to be a separate arrangement. The EU says no, it's all part of the package.
So I suspect access to financial markets is more important from a UK perspective than it is from a EU perspective.
After all, the majority of UK trade is financial. If it loses any fraction, and it will in a no deal because it will lose access to EU financial institutions and UK firms will not be able to service their EU clients unless Equivalence is granted for UK services which is highly unlikely in a no deal, then it will put the UK economy on an even weaker footing.

As I said, nuclear option, refuse to clear EU transactions, watch the world economy collapse, including our own, so it's not really a viable weapon.

 

[Brigadier]

As I understand it, Financial equivalence is included in the whole negotiating strategy from the viewpoint of the EU. Whereas UK want it to be a separate arrangement. The EU says no, it's all part of the package.
So I suspect access to financial markets is more important from a UK perspective than it is from a EU perspective.

You would. Because it suits your prejudices.

Not that you would change your viewpoint, but here's an analogy :

You're at a boot / garage / clearance sale.
You spy an absolute gem among the pile of items for sale.

Do you :

- make an offer for the whole lot, hoping to get the gem "on the cheap", or
- make an offer for everything sans gem, which you want to discuss all on its own (thus bringing your valuation of it very much to the attention of its holder)?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

As I said, nuclear option, refuse to clear EU transactions, watch the world economy collapse, including our own, so it's not really a viable weapon.

I also understand that UK had previously granted a 3 year 'transition phase' for EU financial transactions following earlier No Deal possibilities.
I think they understand, as you've indicated, that any action from UK in withholding EU access to financial markets would be catastrophic.
Whereas, the EU are prepared to deny equivalence to UK financial organisations, and some UK financial firms have already opened subsidiaries in EU.

 

[Ryler]

.I could do with a laugh

You certainly could you miserable sod.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

You would. Because it suits your prejudices.

Fair comment.

Not that you would change your viewpoint,

I'm open to persuasion.

but here's an analogy :

You're at a boot / garage / clearance sale.
You spy an absolute gem among the pile of items for sale.

Do you :

- make an offer for the whole lot, hoping to get the gem "on the cheap", or
- make an offer for everything sans gem, which you want to discuss all on its own (thus bringing your valuation of it very much to the attention of its holder)?

Not a comparative analogy.
EU are selling, UK are hoping to buy.
So your scenario does not apply.

It would be a better analogy if:
- you received an offer for the whole lot, knowing the value of the individual parts.
or
- you hope to make an offer for the individual items, but only those in which you are interested?

 

[Brigadier]

Not a comparative analogy.
EU are selling, UK are hoping to buy.
So your scenario does not apply.

UK are selling financial clout.

 

[fillyboy]

You voted for Johnson, whose paymasters are Russians, climate change deniers, disaster capitalists, hedge fund managers.

Perhaps you could provide some evidence the EU is run by gangsters......I could do with a laugh

Speaking of hedge fund managers and gangsters, whatever happened to that Gina Miller bird?