Typically excellent piece from @dsquareddigest The exponential insight is especially neat. Think of it a little like fishing...today you can’t export oysters to the EU (because you simply aren’t allowed to), tomorrow you don’t have a fish exporting business (to the EU).

The extremely small minority of people who known anything about this who think that Brexit will be good for the City make a number of arguments which I shall address in turn...
1. They need us more than we need them. This is a variant of the German carmakers argument. And we know how that went...Business will follow the profit opportunity and if that has moved then so will the business...
And what do we mean by us / we. We’re not talking about massed ranks of Euro investing / trading etc blue blooded British institutions.
Au contraire. We’re talking about the London based subs of US, Asian and indeed European capital markets players...As soon as they think the profit opportunity has moved then so will they...it’s a market innit...
2. The Europeans will never act in a way that might be economically sub optimal.

I refer you to Brexit. But kidding aside, the balance between economic optimality and, to coin a phrase, taking back control is not at all straightforward.
I bet a bazillion notional shillings that many people might consider the benefits of taking back control over a vital national function far far far outweigh an additional economic cost.

I refer you to the financial crisis.
3. But but THE EU IS GOING TO FALL APART IT’S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME

Good luck with that.
4. But the U.K. is a speedy fast turning speedboat and the EU is a ponderous sea tanker of weighty regulations.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The U.K. regulators are extremely tough. Arguably tougher than the EU. I refer you to ring fencing. Or the U.K. conduct regime (very scary). The idea that any of this is going to be materially relaxed is for the birds.
5. Freed from the dead hand of Europe, we shall exploit all sorts of wonderful new opportunities.

Well. Maybe. London has a v substantial scale / incumbency advantage. But ofc (as Dan points out) that does not mean that those new opportunities will necessarily arise in London.
The bottom line is that London ain’t going anywhere any time soon as a leading financial services capital.

BUT. There is no way round the fact that Brexit has impaired London’s competitive position. This is an apple falling, water flowing downhill point.

It’s not a debate.
Over time, the damage will range from significant to really quite bad. The possibility of the latter depends on the EU getting its act together re CMU...if it does (debatable) then watch out...

/ends

More from Yet Another Columnist

I tend to agree with this - of course many things can still go wrong...but (certainly on the UK side) as the list of outstanding issues decreases and as the cost of no deal becomes more apparent deal momentum will increase.


I find it most amusing that people invest so much value in public statements, briefings, tabloid headlines, the tweets of obscure backbenchers etc. Cherchez les fundamentals!

There is a deep vein of analytical pessimism in one particular direction, which, whether correct or not, is noteworthy. On the one hand, a firm belief in the fundamentals - gravity exists - but on the other hand those fundamentals are not meaningful to the final decision.

But gravity does exist! Whether one likes it or not. We do not have wings. Or feathers. And the realisation of the fundamentals will impact the political calculation (though timing differences may apply).

You don’t have to invest any particular optimism or see any virtue in the principal players to make this point.
A quote from this excellent piece, neatly summarising a core impact of Brexit.

The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.


Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.

It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.

In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.

But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.

More from Government

Remember the government wanting to "follow the science"? It is remarkable how far it is ignoring scientific advice on this new ultra-infectious variant of #Covid-19 by keeping schools open... both SAGE and @imperialcollege issuing warnings on school closures. Stay with me. /1

First the @imperialcollege paper, which finds that the new variant is still being ultra-infectious despite November lockdowns - link here, but cases of new variant trebled in SEast, even under lockdown /2

https://t.co/fdvuVX3OkW


The paper then notes (given schools were open and under 20s are most infected): "A particular concern is whether it will be possible to maintain control over transmission while allowing schools to reopen in January 2021." /3


This echoes what govt science advisory SAGE cmme told ministers on Dec 22...that it was "highly unlikely" the R number can be kept below 1 (cases falling, it is currently 1.1-1.3) with schools open /4

https://t.co/yV5qcSkErJ


But on Dec 30 Gavin Williamson announce primaries would go back, and secondary schools would have staggered return while testing regime (lateral flow, not that sensitive) was set up - see statement here
If you're curious what Trump's defense will look like, all you have to do is turn on Fox News. My latest at @mmfa

The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.

And in fact, this predates Trump.

In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop


That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the

In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.

You May Also Like

@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the


chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project

starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".

P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!

https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?