Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dorsidwarf]

I'd probbably vote labour for that manifesto if there wasn't Corbyn at the helm

[TD1]

I think May's line was "vote us for a stronger hand in negotiations."

A reintroduction of fox hunting can be repealed. A bad deal with Europe? Much harder.

[Starver]

Don't kid yourself, it's a shot at a stronger hand for the Tories in UK affairs as much as anything else (and five years before another chance, save for no-confidences or other crises, rather than three) and if we're compelled to leave (try repealing that and re-entering if it turns out it's a big mistake...) I want a cross-party strength, not a single party controlling our demands (not even if it isn't the Tories).  We can have that.

[TD1]

Cross-party strength? I think you mean colossal bickering that ends up in a shoddy compromise.

Of course it's a bid for power, but a five year powerful Tory government is preferable to what could be a permanent Europe deal contested over by Labour and the Tories. It would be their own little power play.

[Starver]

I shall differ from that opinion. Giving it all to May in June would be (apart from inviting some calendar pun) not the best idea. IMO. YMMV. HTH. HAND.

[smjjames]

I think May's line was "vote us for a stronger hand in negotiations."

A reintroduction of fox hunting can be repealed. A bad deal with Europe? Much harder.

But Fox hunting is a staple of British culture! Stereotypically so!.

(just ribbing you guys)

[TD1]

It still goes on round here. The gits go where they please. The hunters, that is.

[wierd]

The fox has entered a china shop m'lord! Shall we pursue it!?
OF COURSE, you GITS! ONWARD!
[20 horses stampede into china shop. Great cacophony of broken dishes is heard)

[martinuzz]

US threatens to impose sanctions against the EU if they drive to hard of a bargain with the Brexit. Chris Giancarlo, chairman of CFTC said the US will take countermeasures if Brussels demands that the so called 'clearing' of financial transactions using euro currency are made on EU soil. This would force part of it's financial sector to abandon London, and move to the EU.
London owes much of it's status as the world's financial center to the fact that most of the world's largest clearing offices have settled there. A forced move to the EU would cost the City 83 thousand jobs, according to a studies done by consultancy club EY in 2016.

Three quarters of the world's financial derivatives that are denominated in euros are currently being taken care of by London clearing offices. 850 billion euros flow through each day.
If a clearance agency gets into trouble, the consequences for the financial markets can be huge. This is why the ECB wants that clearing houses trading in euro derivates are settled within it's own sphere of superintendence. This means that they will be forced to move from London, when the Brexit becomes fact, or cease trading in euro derivates (not an option).

However, the US fear 'balkanization' in other words, fragmentation of the financial markets, when every country or monetary union decides to take care of it's own clearing. This would lead to higher overhead costs for financial institutions when trading stocks or derivates. Apart from that, they think that fragmentation will make monitoring the clearing offices become less effective.

The discussion is not new. In 2015, the British were put in their right by the EU Court of Justice, which ruled that clearing offices in London were still allowed to handle transactions in euros.
The US openly threatening with sanctions in support of the UK is new though.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/vs-sancties-als-eu-londen-hard-aanpakt-na-brexit~a4494188/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_(finance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Trading_Commission

[hector13]

Kinda have to question the cheekiness of the US investigating a foreign nation interfering with their politics while they interfere with Brexit.

[Loud Whispers]

Kinda have to question the cheekiness of the US investigating a foreign nation interfering with their politics while they interfere with Brexit.

When they interfered with Brexit, they were supporting Remain. Now this isn't interference, this is just diplomacy, laffin if you think multilateral relations will never have the USA present somewhere, this has been the state of things since WWII

[hector13]

Kinda have to question the cheekiness of the US investigating a foreign nation interfering with their politics while they interfere with Brexit.

When they interfered with Brexit, they were supporting Remain. Now this isn't interference, this is just diplomacy, laffin if you think multilateral relations will never have the USA present somewhere, this has been the state of things since WWII

A bit pedantic there eh that was the Brexit referendum, this is Brexit negotiations.

They're trying to influence things they're not directly involved in to get an outcome they desire. I think that's a fairly common definition of interference.

[hector13]

Kinda have to question the cheekiness of the US investigating a foreign nation interfering with their politics while they interfere with Brexit.

When they interfered with Brexit, they were supporting Remain. Now this isn't interference, this is just diplomacy, laffin if you think multilateral relations will never have the USA present somewhere, this has been the state of things since WWII

A bit pedantic there eh that was the Brexit referendum, this is Brexit negotiations.

They're trying to influence things they're not directly involved in to get an outcome they desire. I think that's a fairly common definition of interference.

Hah, that's like saying that a Korean election and the Korean war are the same because they both begin with the word Korean.

The referendum was an internal matter - the people of a country deciding its future path. The negotiations are basically just more moves in the Great Game (particularly given today's Schrodinger's Putin, who is simultaneously the puppet-master behind every side in every conflict), so it's natural the USA, being our closest ally, would show their hand.

Well... the negotiations are the conclusion to the referendum, so I totes reject the analogy. A fair point otherwise, though.

Even so, I don't think the US are trying to intimidate for altruistic reasons. If the EU succeeds in making clearings for Euro transactions go through the EU rather than London, it'll cost murrican companies a pretty penny in altering their business to be able to conform to those regulations.

[Strife26]

Do any nation states act out of altruistic reasons?

*Should* any nation state act out of purely altruistic reasons?

[smjjames]

Do any nation states act out of altruistic reasons?

*Should* any nation state act out of purely altruistic reasons?

Purely altrusitic with no politics or other motivations involved? It'd be hard to tell if a decision was purely selfless as a whole because politicians and the complexities of geopolitics.

Though the closest could be global cooperation over something, like say combatting global warming, or fixing the Y2K bug.