The news that the City of London is, apparently, to continue to enjoy free movement of people after Brexit when the rest of the country will not raises a range of thoughts and questions.
First, and glaringly obviously, how does David Davis know? He seems remarkably ill-informed on almost everything else to do with Brexit.
Second, why? Why this privilege for finance alone? Is he trying to confirm it has a rule apart? And why them? And please do not say it's tax revenue.
Third, is he trying to confirm that this is, indeed, a country where it is only money that really counts ? If so he could not do it better.
Let me be honest; I very much doubt that this is true. But if it is then it's another clear message that post-Brexit Britain will be the deeply divided country the government has always aspired to create.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
While this article is about what the Government is trying to do it keep the City happy, aren’t they just talking about things such as “intra-company transfers”? Something that would no doubt be open to any highly skilled or highly paid employee in any sector?
People falling into these categories always tend to get a reasonably easy ride through immigration systems, something which as the article itself says … “would contrast with the tough new rules on lower-skilled workers”.
In other words welcome to the world of work permits for the low paid.
“Why this privilege for finance alone?” – three groups fund the tory party: construction (hence Hinkley Pointless), oil & gas (hence fracking) and finance (hence opt outs). As you noted a while back – the tories are only interested in power – not much else – but to stay in power you need cash – so you need to keep the bribes/contributions/money flowing. Hence the speech given by Davies. “Deeply divided country”? – why would the tories care – they never have, they never ever will.
“Has yet to be agreed…might allow….” That’s been Brexit from day one.
Ok, so that’s why universities are setting up branches in the EU. Then we can hire EU people in the EU and do an intra-University transfer so they can actually work here in the UK. Not. But were it to happen, lots more jobs for the lawyers and administrators to make it work. Frictionless!
See Wikipedia on “Pudding Lane” in London, perhaps we need all those bakers and butchers.
The ‘divide and conquer’ tactic is very plausible – I have to say.
I don’t see the word “free” in that article. Did David actually say “free movement of people”?
Reference to a “temporarily moving a worker to an office in Germany” or a “lawyer visiting a client in Paris” suggests he is thinking of business visitors coming and going without a visa.
But even if he is thinking of something more extensive, is this very much different to the ability of the wealthy, or skilled workers sponsored by their employer, to come to work in the UK from say the US, compared the difficulty that someone from the US without those advantages would have? Not exactly free movement, given the administrative hoops to jump through, but also not too much of a burden if you know what to do.
Oh dear, the current intra company transfer visa is already abused by the IT sector wholesale by ‘body-shops’ who have an office in the UK but are based in the sub-continent. I also very much doubt companies will be willing to do the paperwork and payments (currently £463) every time somebody makes a quick trip from Hamburg.
More smoke and mirrors I’m afraid. The government is still stalling by concentrating on generalities, and procedural issues. They never, ever, discuss the details. Just hopes, aspirations, ill founded assertions, and arguments about the timetables and procedures. If only we could hear a single sensible proposal for the stickiest item on the agenda, the situation in Northern Ireland post-Brexit! But we don’t, because there isn’t one.
Its not merely the double standard that is obvious. Mr Davis seems to be telling a select audience that Britain can have its cake and eat it too.
No, he’s saying the City can. One can argue The City isn’t part of the UK, that it isn’t part of Britain. I doubt one could claim it’s a city state a la the Vatican, but it seems to have more in common with there than anywhere else related to the UK (I almost said ‘In’ the UK there). In existence since before was a UK, the City is perhaps best described as its own place, and as such, I find it entirely appropriate it should be making its own deals with the EU independent of anywhere else. So long as such nonsense is tolerated, of course. But hey, we tolerate nonsense like it having its own mayor and police force and businesses having the vote there, making a mockery of democracy, so why start complaining now?
It’s not really surprising, is it – especially considering the City still has its man in Westminster – https://infogalactic.com/info/City_remembrancer. Surely time to leap into the 21st century, even for a few more adventurous Conservatives.
Free movement for the wealthy has never been a problem. No reason why Brexit would change that.
This touches on what I have been getting concerned about. It is not true to say that GB has an utterly powerless negotiating position at all in dealings with Europe etc. The question is where will we deploy the strength that we have in negotiations. I think all the GB strength will be deployed to look after the interests of the City, making the outcomes for everyone else that much worse.
Although admittedly an indirect puff for the goldbug selling
fraternity ( specifically goldcore ) the below article from ZeroHedge poses possible alarm bells for many savers if its interpretation of this latest ECB/ Commission proposal cones to pass.
Would you consider allocating a blog of your opinion on this whole matter please as it would concern UK savers who themselves are
in a period of « EU transition « ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-14/preemptive-strike-euro-savings-protect-your-savings-gold-ecb-propose-end-deposit-pro
If I find time – it is in very short supply right now
Anthony Redman,
re Gold investment.
My recommendation should be taken as qualified by the fact that I have nothing to lose so is purely academic.
10% allocation to physical gold (and or other precious metals) makes a lot of sense. A significant portion in small coins given that a sovereign would currently fetch in the region of £200-250 some smaller units might be useful. It’s relatively compact and can be secreted about your property. I wouldn’t dream of putting it in any kind of safe – might aswell leave it on the doorstep and save the price of the safe.
Gold coins are classified as currency so there are tax advantages (tax neutralities) in holding them.
If/when the excrement hits the extractor the gold price will rise. It could rise a long way. (Some commentators reckon it could hit $8-10,000 per ounce. I wouldn’t bet on that, but I would bet on there always being someone who will buy gold, though I’m not sure it’s a sane thing to do.
What gold won’t do in the longer term is tank completely. Paper gold is probably not worth having as it is oversubscribed something like 100-1 against actual gold. You probably would never see yours and the preferred customers (central banks, governments, billionaires etc.) will get any physical stuff that can be had.
The belt and braces approach is to buy some Bitcoin. (And maybe diversify from there into other cryptos, but you would do well to find a guru to advise on that and to advise on how to protect any holdings from hackers. Bear in mind that fiat cash is also vulnerable to hacking so there’s no need to get disproportionately paranoid in that regard.) I would do some of both. One or other, gold or crypto will prevail after the collapse.
Paper currency should only be kept in large denomination notes because the newfangled plastic ones are utterly useless as toilet paper. Zero absorbency is not a good quality in toilet paper. Are you old enough to remember ‘Bronco’ rolls – then you’ll know what I mean.
Money in the bank is not safe and the interest rate is derisory. Customer bail-in was supposed to happen in Italy a couple of months back but the Italian government defied the EU rules and bailed out two banks to the tune of about % billion. That tells you a lot about rules.
Whatever the banking rules say is of no account when there is a panic on. The financial fraternity will take care of its own interests first, foremost and, if push comes to shove, exclusively.
That, I would suggest, is the only thing you can rely on the banks to do. It is after all their money. (Well YOU gave it to them. No good blaming anybody else.) Anything else will be organised and paid for through government/central bank intervention.
If you are seriously worried about losing your money I recommend you spend it while you can still enjoy it and its still worth something. Maybe buy something that has inherent value – like an area of land big enough to grow turnips and run some chickens. Or buy tradeable goods – (your guess is good as mine) – anything you might barter with and has a long shelf life. (can openers would be a good line! Alcohol keeps well.) Read survivalist handbooks for recommendations. There are rafts of these people in America who simply can’t wait for a disaster so that they can feel really smug poking an M16 out of their dugout nuclear shelter.
If you are losing sleep over it then definitely get rid of it somehow. It’s not worth the hassle.
Spend it on your friends. You might need them.
Thank you indeed for your time and trouble.
a) Yes I do remember “ Bronco » ….. also the pages of the telephone directories which when superseded used to be holed through with a red hot poker by my mother ( no smokekess zones then) and hung up with string to a toilet wall nail ( circa 1952 ….Venezuelans take note) .
b) I agree with all your points except Bitcoin … still haven ‘ t received satisfactory explanation regarding Mt Gox and similar implosions)
c) Thanks also to Prof. . Murphy… hoping he finds the time to address this subject which has indirectly developed as below.
https://qell.co.uk/investors-sue-monte-dei-paschi-over-cancelled-bonds/