EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’... | Page 706 | Vital Football

EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’...

jokerman

Vital 1st Team Regular
I'll have one more go..
100 = Core Sample of voters.
Split 49/49 between Leave and Remain.
The other 2 (2%) are undecided.
One of them (Karen) who's mum is ill in hospital passes a big red bus telling her that if she votes leave the NHS will get £350 million a week. She decides to vote leave.
The other (Tony) picks up the Daily Express in the dentists waiting room that says if he votes leave he will stop millions of Turkish immigrants coming to the UK. Tony decides to vote leave.

Hopefully this demonstrates that just 2% of voters decided the referendum outcome.
It may also show how a couple of well placed lies might also have an effect but I admit that part is not as scientific!
The unflattering biographies of the undecided are unnecessary to the example. They seem to raise questions about who voted leave and, by implication, about who who should be entitled to vote -eg not people who are not smart and not people who have not made up their mind. That might be a working assumption in referenda planning at the Berlaymont, young man, but we're out.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
I'll have one more go..
100 = Core Sample of voters.
Split 49/49 between Leave and Remain.
The other 2 (2%) are undecided.
One of them (Karen) who's mum is ill in hospital passes a big red bus telling her that if she votes leave the NHS will get £350 million a week. She decides to vote leave.
The other (Tony) picks up the Daily Express in the dentists waiting room that says if he votes leave he will stop millions of Turkish immigrants coming to the UK. Tony decides to vote leave.

Hopefully this demonstrates that just 2% of voters decided the referendum outcome.
It may also show how a couple of well placed lies might also have an effect but I admit that part is not as scientific!
Superb
 

Tarian

Vital Squad Member
It is evidence that UK’s financial services is losing out from Brexit.

What about the >$75bn of insurance business that has transferred to the EU in preparation for Brexit? Is that not evidence either?
If you're going to make anti-Brexit comments, how about a bit more precision and context ?

£75billion was not "transferred to the EU".

The vast bulk transferred was policies at Lloyds transferred to Lloyd’s Insurance Co. SA (Lloyd’s Europe), Brussels.

I can imagine you saying "that's splitting hairs" ...but it isn't.
That Insurance business hasn't been spread around Italy, France, Germany etc, etc, etc.
It has been re-booked in the place that Lloyds thought best for Regulatory framework and cost.

How does any of this insurance business get routed back to London? Please enlighten me.
Perhaps you haven't encountered the concept of "pass-through" or "back-to-back" or "mirroring" ....
.....all terms for the bulk of a business being passed internally to an entity back in the UK - in this case Lloyds of London and all the ancillary entities.

Insurance premiums are invested - and claims are paid from those Investments.
This is particularly relevant for long tail Insurance (i.e. risks that allow claims years after the event).

The £billions of funds behind the Insurance policies transferred to Brussels remain managed in the UK.

But here's the context......
The reason why Lloyds transferred policies to Brussels was because of an EU Regulation.

EU-based Policy Holders are not allowed to receive pay-outs from claims if those pay-outs come from outside the EU.
Bizarre !!!

Some people at Lloyds thought this ridiculous.
That if the EU blocked payouts from claims, the EU would be challenged by Consumer Champions around Europe.
Some at Lloyds suggested doing nothing, paying claims as normal and seeing what would happen.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
I'll have one more go..
100 = Core Sample of voters.
Split 49/49 between Leave and Remain.
The other 2 (2%) are undecided.
One of them (Karen) who's mum is ill in hospital passes a big red bus telling her that if she votes leave the NHS will get £350 million a week. She decides to vote leave.
The other (Tony) picks up the Daily Express in the dentists waiting room that says if he votes leave he will stop millions of Turkish immigrants coming to the UK. Tony decides to vote leave.
Hopefully this demonstrates that just 2% of voters decided the referendum outcome.
It may also show how a couple of well placed lies might also have an effect but I admit that part is not as scientific!
The usual jaundiced one sided view.

What about Jim who buys the Guardian or follows Polly Toynbee on Twitter, or Rachel who watches George Osborne and Michael Heseltine on the BBC spreading nothing but misinformation and exaggerations, all in the cause of Project Fear - "We'll be doomed, doomed, I tells ya"

Isn't it just possible that quite a percentage only voted Remain through fear as they perceived it as the devil they know?

Whatever you think of Bojo, he did not call the referendum. A confirmed remainer, who then campaigned for remain, did.
 
Last edited:
I'll have one more go..
100 = Core Sample of voters.
Split 49/49 between Leave and Remain.
The other 2 (2%) are undecided.
One of them (Karen) who's mum is ill in hospital passes a big red bus telling her that if she votes leave the NHS will get £350 million a week. She decides to vote leave.
The other (Tony) picks up the Daily Express in the dentists waiting room that says if he votes leave he will stop millions of Turkish immigrants coming to the UK. Tony decides to vote leave.

Hopefully this demonstrates that just 2% of voters decided the referendum outcome.
It may also show how a couple of well placed lies might also have an effect but I admit that part is not as scientific!
Don't want to get into a discussion about who/what/when/why, but I do like to read what others have to say as there is so much passion around viewpoints and personal opinion.

I made my decision at the Referendum based upon my views, my knowledge, not current soundbites, as I do for all my decisions in life and stand by them for better or for worse. I have not indicated my way of voting (leave/remain) on here as it seems to open up oneself in certain situations to ridicule, argument and a right good ear bashing.

My point was a simple maths point, to which Trashbat responded/answered better than me.

I'll go back to reading/listening this thread only :surrender:
 

Vambogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
The usual jaundiced one sided view.

What about Jim who buys the Guardian or Rachel who watches George Osborne and Michael Heseltine on the BBC spreading nothing but misinformation and exaggerations, all in the cause of Project Fear - "We'll be doomed, doomed, I tells ya"

Isn't it just possible that quite a percentage only voted Remain as they perceived it as the devil they know?

Whatever you think of Bojo, he did not call the referendum. A confirmed remainer, who then campaigned for remain, did.
The unflattering biographies of the undecided are unnecessary to the example. They seem to raise questions about who voted leave and, by implication, about who who should be entitled to vote -eg not people who are not smart and not people who have not made up their mind. That might be a working assumption in referenda planning at the Berlaymont, young man, but we're out.
I know. I'm sorry I couldn't help myself.
Of course those two lies didn't really influence anyone.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
You’re not getting it.
AXA will continue doing business in the UK. But their UK entity won’t be able to write EEA risks like they used to. The tax lost for that alone is huge.
The fact that AXA is a multinational is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they are now writing a large chunk of their business in EU countries that would otherwise have been written in the UK. The loss to the exchequer is at least £7bn - best case scenario.
Why should AXA have ever used their UK entity to write EEA risks when their main office in Paris can do so?

Following your logic though, their UK entity/office has been set up partly because they can and will only write UK risks over here, and that would suggest that the tax would be paid on those over here.

You may be more learned on insurance matters but logic and science tells you that for any action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. What's good for the goose, etc.

Also, I have heard no complaints so far from our insurance sector to this perceived disaster, whereas in this past week we have had Jez Staley (boss of Barclays) and Andrew Bailey (BOE Governor) both being nothing but upbeat about the future for the whole City of London and the new Global opportunities. The amount of tax revenue that is likely to provide would dwarf any net tax loss we may make on the changes to tax positions regarding EEA risks.
 
Last edited:

Trashbat

Vital Squad Member
If you're going to make anti-Brexit comments, how about a bit more precision and context ?

£75billion was not "transferred to the EU".

The vast bulk transferred was policies at Lloyds transferred to Lloyd’s Insurance Co. SA (Lloyd’s Europe), Brussels.

I can imagine you saying "that's splitting hairs" ...but it isn't.
That Insurance business hasn't been spread around Italy, France, Germany etc, etc, etc.
It has been re-booked in the place that Lloyds thought best for Regulatory framework and cost.


Perhaps you haven't encountered the concept of "pass-through" or "back-to-back" or "mirroring" ....
.....all terms for the bulk of a business being passed internally to an entity back in the UK - in this case Lloyds of London and all the ancillary entities.

Insurance premiums are invested - and claims are paid from those Investments.
This is particularly relevant for long tail Insurance (i.e. risks that allow claims years after the event).

The £billions of funds behind the Insurance policies transferred to Brussels remain managed in the UK.

But here's the context......
The reason why Lloyds transferred policies to Brussels was because of an EU Regulation.

EU-based Policy Holders are not allowed to receive pay-outs from claims if those pay-outs come from outside the EU.
Bizarre !!!

Some people at Lloyds thought this ridiculous.
That if the EU blocked payouts from claims, the EU would be challenged by Consumer Champions around Europe.
Some at Lloyds suggested doing nothing, paying claims as normal and seeing what would happen.
You clearly don’t work in financial services - and that is fine. But don’t try and bullshit your way through it. I finished up on a Part VII project for one of the big City insurers - I know what I’m talking about.

Policies were bulk transferred to EU countries. They are written in a multitude of different EU countries. Lloyd’s Brussels is for Syndicate business but other EU countries are also insuring non-Syndicate EEA risks. It has been spread (despite the irrelevant point you were trying to make) - but that that is moot.

The reason for policies being transferred to EU countries is because the UK lost passporting rights. That was known all along through the process of the Brexit negotiation and the UK made a conscious decision to exclude services from the negotiations.

IPT is a tax. It is paid to the government. It is not invested by insurance companies. It is not a ‘pass through’. It is money that is a loss to the UK Exchequer to the tune of more than £7.2bn worst case scenario. The tax is now collected by EU countries. Those EU countries do not pay the IPT (or the EU equivalent) back to the UK. They keep it for themselves and use it to pay for schools, hospitals, roads.
 

Trashbat

Vital Squad Member
Why should AXA have ever used their UK entity to write EEA risks when their main office in Paris can do so?

Following your logic though, their UK entity/office has been set up partly because they can and will only write UK risks over here, and that would suggest that the tax would be paid on those over here.

You may be more learned on insurance matters but logic and science tells you that for any action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. What's good for the goose, etc.

Also, I have heard no complaints so far from our insurance sector to this perceived disaster, whereas in this past week we have had Jez Staley (boss of Barclays) and Andrew Bailey (BOE Governor) both being nothing but upbeat about the future for the whole City of London and the new Global opportunities. The amount of tax revenue that is likely to provide would dwarf any net tax loss we may make on the changes to tax positions regarding EEA risks.
Why would they complain? They can still insure EEA risks. Nobody is stopping them. They just write the risks in EU countries - reducing the IPT tax take here in the UK to the tune of £7.2m.

It is not a disaster for them. It is an inconvenience for them to change their processes / systems / legal entity structure.

The problem is for the UK who will no longer benefit from the IPT that these companies were paying to the Exchequer for the EEA risks that were being written in London.

Got it?
 

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
I'll have one more go..
100 = Core Sample of voters.
Split 49/49 between Leave and Remain.
The other 2 (2%) are undecided.
One of them (Karen) who's mum is ill in hospital passes a big red bus telling her that if she votes leave the NHS will get £350 million a week. She decides to vote leave.
The other (Tony) picks up the Daily Express in the dentists waiting room that says if he votes leave he will stop millions of Turkish immigrants coming to the UK. Tony decides to vote leave.

Hopefully this demonstrates that just 2% of voters decided the referendum outcome.
It may also show how a couple of well placed lies might also have an effect but I admit that part is not as scientific!
Very clever, I like it.

It's not right though is it? That's 51/49, not 52/48
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
We'll see if he's outed tomorrow, when we see what the score is. If the game's is off, we'll match him off to the ducking pond!
But we know what the score is. If what we "see" tomorrow is any different then it will be a fake. Only Trashbat knows the truth. I have incontrovertible evidence which is; Trashbat says so.
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
I scoured every paper this morning, looking for the 20 mile tailbacks at Dover.
None.
Project Fear or incompetence ?

I also checked the exchange rates given that Goldman Sachs told us that after the transition period ended, the GBP would be on par with the Dollar and Euro.
today - 1.40 for the dollar and 1.16 for the Euro
Project Fear or incompetence ?

I looked for evidence of the demise of the City of London and stumbled across this

"Almost 1,500 EU-based financial services firms have applied for permission to operate in the UK, with around 1,000 of these planning to establish their first office in the country, according to a Freedom of Information request (FOI) by financial regulatory consultancy Bovill. The FOI request from last year showed 1,441 firms had applied to the Temporary Permission Regime (TPR), with 83 percent of these on a services passport, meaning they would need to set up an office in the UK for the first time. Bovill repeated its FOI at the end of December, which found 1,476 firms have signed up to the regime and are awaiting FCA authorisation in order to operate in the UK. "
Project Fear or incompetence ?

I fully expect a remainer to counter this with ... but .. but a cheesemaker somewhere had said he's moving ten jobs to France.

The point really is, that so many have been suckered by 'experts' peddling Project Fear for years, and virtually none of their 'predictions' have come to fruition.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
It was always patently clear that there will be losers both sides of the channel and winners both sides of the channel.

Brexit may be the reason why some businesses will go to the wall if they do not adapt, but that happens organically anyway. Look at the mighty Philip Green or, more generally, the high street. Look at what Covid has done to business in Europe.

No huge pots of gold or sunlit uplands in the short term, but also no disaster or armageddon.

No real point in trying to decide whether Brexit has been a success for business until two or three years along the road.

No doubting that it has been a success politically and in the interests of independence though.
 

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
I scoured every paper this morning, looking for the 20 mile tailbacks

The point really is, that so many have been suckered by 'experts' peddling Project Fear for years, and virtually none of their 'predictions' have come to fruition.

Far too early to be drawing conclusions shotshy.

No queues so far as freight traffic is lighter due to pre brexit stockpiling. Lets see what the next few months bring as we activate all the checks

It is harder to import/export and it costs more. Just facts our company has experienced.

In time we will see if the cost of weekly shop increases that's what will count for most of us.

Much of it will be smoke and mirrors and hard to decipher the spin form whichever side chooses to.

Each of us will have to see how it affects us good and bad but far too early to tell right now.