Even though the Financial Times positions itself as the saner, more measured reporter on Brexit matters compared to the rest of the UK press, it nevertheless carries the water in a major way for the UK financial services industry. For instance, we’ve noted that it has published articles that were a bit too obvious media plants by bank industry lobbyists, not just by virtue of clearly reporting on them as a wish list, but also by the failure to point out that the demands were wildly out of touch with reality.
The latest demonstration of how the UK remains in deep denial about how weak a hand it has in negotiating Brexit is the widespread screeching over a completely predictable EU requirement, that Euro-clearing either take place on the Continent or if it stays in the UK, it must be subject to EU rules. But you’d never discern that from the screechy Financial Time headline, Brussels set for power grab on London euro-clearing, or the copy. From the article:
Brussels is rushing out proposals to impose EU control on the City of London’s lucrative euro-clearing market, forcing UK operators to either relocate or be policed by European authorities.
In a provocative regulatory salvo fired as Brexit talks begin, the European Commission is preparing to issue legislative proposals in June that would heavily restrict London’s ability to host one of its flagship financial businesses.
The powerplay by the commission will be a setback for London, which fought hard for six years to fend off French-led attempts to relocate euro clearing to the single-currency area. Although French and German finance ministers have warned that Brexit makes London’s euro-clearing dominance unsustainable, this hasty intervention goes further, threatening a legal fait accompli to enshrine location restrictions even before Britain leaves the bloc.
The authors do calm down and describe some of the scope of the likely changes later in the piece. For instance:
There is lively debate in Brussels over the proposal due in June and the precise way to hand powers over clearing supervision to central banks and the European Securities and Markets Authority, the EU markets watchdog.
Officials are considering a system of thresholds to determine if a non-EU clearing house should face increased European oversight or other measures, according to people familiar with the debate. This could allow current EU-US agreements to remain unscathed, if transatlantic activity does not change significantly.
Clearing houses handling bigger volumes of EU business would at a minimum be subject to more intrusive EU supervision, including access to data so that European authorities can monitor risk. This may cover smaller operators in London.
This development should come as no surprise. The pink paper mentions in passing that France tried to get Euroclearing moved to Europe a few years back. What it failed to state is that the ECB joined this suit (puts a rather different spin on things, no?) and that the reason that France and the ECB lost that fight is that the European Court of Justice ruled that the ECB could not discriminate against an EU member. No EU membership and the old plan is back on.
Demanding that Euroclearing be relocated or at least EU regulated is completely reasonable. It is the ECB that will bear the bailout risk of a failure of any Euroclearing bank. The US requires banks that clear dollars to have those operations regulated here, with most foreign banks having a New York branch to achieve this end and the dollar clearing taking place through that entity.
The Europeans are being prudent to move quickly. Given that it is becoming more and more obvious (as we pointed out from the get-go) that there is a very large gap between the UK and EU negotiating positions, the odds of a disorderly Brexit are not trivial. However, financial firms with London operations have been making contingency plans as soon as they got over the shock of the Brexit vote, such as getting additional foreign licenses and scoping out office space in EU cities. The faster the Eurocrats put these plans in motion, the more time the affected firms will have to assess their options and adjust.
The stakes are not trivial. While the “€850 billion daily” figure sounds ginormous, it consists overwhelmingly of the notional value of derivatives, which is vastly larger than the economic value of those agreements. This is a better rough and ready metric:
A report by EY late last year estimated that there could be 83,000 related job losses in London over the next seven years if euro clearing was forced out of the City.
A less stringent alternative is to make this formal “location policy” mandatory only if the UK is unwilling to accept EU regulatory conditions, such as acceptance of its rule book and extraterritorial oversight.
An open question is how many front office jobs might follow a back-office relocation. The banks themselves might not feel the need to move anything more than supervisory personnel over, but one would expect that some third-party technical experts who would be well paid might wind up relocating as well.
For Brexit fans, this shows clearly that the sales pitch that the UK would regain national sovereignity was a Big Lie. The UK is a small open economy. If it is to export to other countries, it needs to comply with their regulations. The alternative is to become much more like an autarky, which given the size of the UK’s import and export sectors, would mean a vastly smaller GDP, imposing a big fall in the standard of living and losses in wealth upon UK citizens. But the current strategy, and it will probably work with the heavily-propagandized British public for quite a while, is to blame evil Eurocrats rather than reckless, opportunistic UK pols.
41 comments
Comments are closed.
The Brexiteers have been incredibly delusional. Britain has always looked down on the continent. The Brits live in time of Nelson, Wellington, and Churchill but largely ignore the fact that the only reason they weren’t overrun by Napoleon or Hitler is the English Channel. The Brexiteers believe that Europe will collapse into the Dark Ages without them and think the mere threat of them being out is a negotiating stance.
Moving clearing and more finance to the Continent might put a damper on the world’s largest money-laundering operation, but it appears that the EU members are falling all over themselves wooing the Goldmanites and other arch criminals to their cities.
In any case, Britain lobbying for clearing outside of the EU is non-sensical. Why not have clearing done in Lagos in that case?
Merci, Expat. Je suis d’accord.
It’s good that you mention Goldman. Sarko held talks with Michael Sherwood and Richard Gnodde, then co-heads of Goldman ex USA, last autumn, hoping to get them to move to Paris under his presidency, in return for tax breaks, and in a blaze of publicity. Les primaires de la droite and Frankfurt’s “douceurs” put paid to that plan.
It’s funny that you mention Lagos. Nigeria is often mentioned when continental bank(st)ers talk about dishonesty in banking etc. I chuckle as I have worked in banking around the world for 22 years and know just how crooked European banks are, when they are not being incompetent. Glass houses…
On a related note, I read over the week-end how BNP Paribas wants to build up its Swiss operations, especially to work with the commodity trader parasites who hide in Heidi country.
The Brexit is far more interesting than its reporting. It is all about banking imo. And the Brits are the A#1 world-class experts on the subject. So just look at where we stand today in the history of world economics. We are at the threshold of China. And I did read last year or so that British banking (high level laundry and clearing) had moved its operations first to Hong Kong and then to Singapore. So I can’t help but deduce that the laws in Singapore are the ones in deep conflict with the EU banking laws. And all the bluster about Brexit which makes the Brits look naive (not), is just that. The UK has chosen its path – it’s moving east (or west however you view it). And Theresa’s argument that the UK does not owe the EU 60Bn in back obligations as a member who derived benefits in advance (?) is almost a red herring – even though the UK could just bolt if they can secure their position with others. I dunno, I’m just reading between the lines.
not Singapore. They moved to Shanghai.
Good! Bankers up to their usual tricks might just buy themselves a ticket to that organ donor bus service that runs in China.
The EU are like winey teenagers complaining about their parents, blind to the fact they pay for everything.
The UK is the second largest contributor behind Germany, and the technocrats know that they are going to have to ask all the other members to step up financially if the UK leaves.
If the EU was not fearful of a poor outcome for them they would behave like adults.
“when it gets serious you have to lie”
Not just the channel Expat. The conqueror of both Napoleon and Hitler was Russia. That aside, I agree with your post but cave:
“A less stringent alternative is to make this formal “location policy” mandatory only if the UK is unwilling to accept EU regulatory conditions, such as acceptance of its rule book and extraterritorial oversight.”
Didn’t Greece avoid extra-territorial oversight for many years?
From the various whispers and media reports I’ve seen, I think the main European countries, Brussels, and the main European private sector players are at least 6 months ahead of the UK in their preparations and strategy. There has been an enormous amount of behind the scenes activity since last summer (the Irish PM recently talked about ‘400 separate meetings’ in a boast about how much work he’s been involved in). While not just London, but I think many of the UK big players have been either in denial, in chaos, or have taken a pretty passive ‘lets wait and see how things shake out’ approach. The UK have put themselves at a huge, and completely unnecessary, disadvantage in negotiations.
Thanks for that input. I had the sense the Europeans were rolling up their sleeves, but good to have confirmation.
And the UK has made its prep disadvantage worse by calling the June 8 election.
Yes the election costs valuable time right now, but it’s still the right thing to do for May: she needs the clear political support behind her negotiations.
So it’s an expensive but necessary step.
The UK has one big advantage in the negotiations: they have 4 countries (and can bully the other 3 scotland, ireland and wales) vs. 27 in the EU. 27 which have at least as deep animosities among each other and unlike the 3 above cannot really be bullied. All 27 with sometimes very different agendas.
Doesn’t mean it’s all roses for the UK: the overinflated City will have to “restructure” and the common market without the common shackles is a May pipe dream. Both which will create a lot of whailing in the streets in the years to come.
I don’t see how that is an advantage. It is just going to make it more difficult to get a trade agreement with the EU prior to divorce. In the meantime, things like Euro financial products and clearing will get relocated to the continent – why would the EU do anything else, especially since there is little physical infrastructure that requires relocation? They would have no reason to, as they will want to make it clear to the rest of the EU that you can’t just exit and instantly have something like NAFTA drop into place.
Huh? The UK is only one country for the purposes of negotiating Brexit. Per treaty it is the only party at the table.
The EU is also supposedly a single party at the the table, but the strategy of said party is made up by 27 different states.
The UK party is still made up of 4 different “countries”, cause it’s “united” after all, several kingdoms.
As you certainly know, the Scots have very very different views about the EU than England, Northern Ireland definitely wants a very special and porous border with the republic of ireland no matter how hard or acrimonious the Brexit gets. As you constantly writes, the City has its very different view too. If it were up to them, the Brexit would be immediately over and screw the pols.
Just cause it’s a single country, doesn’t mean that other very influential parties inside that country don’t have different views.
Thank you, PK.
I can confirm, too, from friends and former colleagues dispersed at trade associations, banks and governments, not just in the UK, but the EU27 and Japan.
I forgot to add that, in many instances, the output from the hard work being done by the Irish government and trade bodies is being used by UK counterparts. It beggars belief how the UK is going about matters. As Paul Greenwood, a regular on this blog, said on The Saker recently and about something else, “The UK is no longer a serious country.”
Ha! It’s serious enough for those of us living here with no escape route…
Thank you, Windsock.
I agree with you. I work in the City, but live in Buckinghamshire.
I am looking at escape routes, France and Mauritius, as I have origins in both and speak French.
My parents came from Mauritius in the mid-1960s, although they have Scots and Lancastrian ancestry, and reckon that Brexit has only highlighted a failure of management and voter negligence that have been building for decades.
Indeed. I wish I could remember an news article I read recently (probably French MSM) so that I could link to it.
In nutshell, by the time the UK handed in their notice to quit, the Brussels establishment at all levels (including the European Parliament) had done their homework and set out their “minimum requirements” that they all wanted from negotiations. A consensus, of all countries, was reached fairly easily; revealing that European strategists had been thinking long and hard about their position relative to the UK’s. (It’s no easy feat to bring 27 countries into line and agreeing to agree.)
On another note, I read yesterday where one of the chief honchos of UK agriculture scene is calling out May to behave responsibly and to use her anticipated large majority to reign in the more deluded colleagues. Many in the agricultural community know tough times are ahead if a deal is not reached.
The European have been very open about their positions, if somewhat quiet.
The level of denial and delusion expressed by the UK MSM is just breathtaking.
One can only hope that after the coronation of May in June that a sensible course will be foisted on the deluded.
Unbelievably, British farmers largely voted for Brexit. I think its slowly seeping through to them that they may well be the hardest hit of all sectors. Its not just losing subsidies, its that as export agreements to Asia, etc. on farm products are all negotiated through the EU, British products will have to be cut out of all supply chains. This is particularly so with dairy – the EU is a big exporter of milk products (such as baby formula) to Asia, so without an agreement there would have to be an absolute ban on importing UK products to the EU to prevent ‘contamination’. This will be devastating in particular to northern Ireland farmers.
TBH, my stance on this is now that they should have been more careful for what they wished for.. (and that doesn’t go just for the farmers, but retirees and a number of middle-class people who voted Leave for no good reason).
Thank you, Yves, for this piece.
Over the week-end, the BBC and Sky kept rabbiting on about how EU27 unity will soon shatter. Conjecture / opinion is dressed as fact. The only elaboration, or support, for that was the assertion that the all powerful German car industry will not want to lose the UK market. This nonsense has been addressed on this blog, so I won’t repeat.
The focus is also purely on Germany, as if this will be enough to scupper EU27 unity and get the rest of the EU to toe a line favourable to German metal bashers. At no time are the interests of other member states discussed. PK has posted about how the Visegrad Four have particular interests that have never made the UK headlines.
Late last week and as some bad economic figures emerged, a couple of City hacks suggested there could be another referendum in 2019 as the extent of the economic fall out becomes much more apparent.
Makes you wonder if May thinks she has some SAS embedded across the channel ready to pounce… or someone mumbled and it was taken wrongly… such are the way of things….
disheveled… I jest
Thank you, Skippy.
David Davis was an SAS reservist. As the UK is running out of money, there is talk of disbanding the two SAS reservist battalions and also most of the Royal Marines.
You may remember former Tory defence secretary Michael Portillo telling the Tory annual conference in the mid-1990s that SAS stood for “don’t mess with Britain”. One of his own backbenchers called the slogan cheap.
You all have seen no doubt the quotes in the German press about Juncker’s private meeting with May. It all sounds a bit of a disaster from the UK perspective, though the Tories are trying to spin it the best they can (cf Home Secretary interview on Radio 4 Today show this morning). From the Grauniad:
–The Guardian: May dismisses reports of frosty dinner with EU chief as ‘Brussels gossip’
Readers may https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/02/britain-complacency-brexit-humiliation–france-germany-eu-uk of interest.
The opening quote could equally apply the U.S. – its just that we haven’t figured out which of Trump’s gut impulses will ultimately become our Brexit. The lack of sane, reality-based voices in power certainly seems to parallel the UK. No one has a clue, and no one is willing to speak out the truth.
Most countries think they are special, but few have ever allowed their sense of exceptionalism to damage their interests in the way Britain is doing.
Fortunately, it seems like Trump’s reactionary impulses are getting counterbalanced by his tendency to parrot the opinion of the last person he talked to. Normally a character flaw, but in this case it means he’s starting to sound like the Washington insiders and Deep Statists he’s surrounded with now. So less Bannon-influenced alt right positions, more politics-as-usual. Which is still a problem, just a more predictable one.
May & Co. are at the other end of the spectrum. Doesn’t matter how many voices outside the homer UK press tell them they’re digging their own grave, they blithely carry on, convinced their pair of sevens is going to beat the EU’s full house.
Since Trump is exhibiting the discipline of a ball in a pinball machine, it appears that Congress is beginning to simply ignore him as we just witnessed in the budget bill. It looks like the House and Senate members of both parties just sat down and hashed out what they wanted that they thought could get enough votes from both parties to move the legislation through. They then put a stamp on the envelope and dropped it into the mailbox to get delivered to the White House for Trump’s signature. I am sure that the bill was designed to have enough votes in the House and Senate to override a veto.
It was also clear with McConnell’s addition of miner health benefits and Cole’s medical research funds that the House Freedom Caucus is wearing the welcome mat very thin. The continuing AHCA debacle in the House may mean that the House and Senate Republicans just start to negotiate with the Democrats for key pieces of legislation, leaving Obamacare and the Supreme Court as the only remaining lines in the sand.
It is possible we will simply have to wait four years for a President that will be involved with domestic legislation as Trump doesn’t seem to do anything other than show up with some pom poms and a megaphone occasionally.
Is London the Problem? by Dr Harald Malmgren and Mark Stys
Author’s note: This piece was written in response to a request from the UK Parliament’s 2013 inquiry into the JPM ‘Whale’ and the LIBOR fixing probes.
While in the US a broker dealer can hypothecate up to 140% of a client’s liability, there is no such limit in the UK. For example, use of client assets held by a prime broker to create a repo agreement in order to gain additional financing is limited by US regulations. But, if the same prime broker “trades” or swaps client assets with a London based subsidiary those client assets may then be re-hypothecated again and again. This process has been dubbed “hyper-hypothecation” and is widely practiced in London, particularly by primary brokers which manage their own custodial services. This provides a major share of the funding of worldwide shadow banking, as well as providing a source of robust profits in bank trading operations.
In the US, hypothecation can increase leverage by 40%, but in the UK it is not uncommon to see hypothecated leverage of 400%. According to IMF reports, US firms had increased funding to $4T on assets of just $1T in 2007, and most of that increased leverage came through London. Furthermore, at that time, over half of the funding of the shadow banking system was believed to come through London as well. This was possible due to the easing of collateral restraints that began during the Clinton Administration where previously only US Treasury, and state and municipal debt were allowed to be re-hypothecated. The rules have been continuously eased in subsequent administrations as financial engineering kicked into high gear at the same time that collateral became increasing toxic. At present, there is nothing illegal about using client assets as a means of boosting trading profits. It is the laxity or permissiveness of London’s regulations that allows huge amplification of trading leverage.
In the US, client assets are usually held by a large financial institution under obscure, technical custodial language that permits transfer of such assets to overseas branches. In London, it is legal for a “branch” to hyper-hypothecate.
http://linkis.com/com/Nj2kP
Clear out?
Of course they’re going to move to Paris, land of gov’t proscribed lack of bonuses and pay ceilings..
When they move the clearing ops to Lagos, they should take the U.N. with them.. Watch the
rats abandon that ship..
Failed experiment the brits just escaped intime for the bill to arrive.
Yep. What is interesting reading the comments here is the obvious pro EU stance. Including one where the EU have been thoughtful and prepared and got all of their ducks in a row! I guess there has to be a first time.
Simply, without their second biggest paymaster the EU is in trouble (hence the big divorce bill to fill the hole in their budgets). There is discontent spreading in the EU and they have to be seen to make leaving a non option or it will encourage others. For that reason the EU cannot let it be a success, they have to make the process painful and one which seeks to leave the UK at a disadvantage.
What most fail to recognise is that in a messy divorce the end game is not the achievement of the best outcome for both parties but mutual destruction.
In Junker we have a self confessed liar and someone who in not beyond being drunk at the controls. His stance is unlikely to lead to the UK buckling under his will as much as he would wish otherwise.
Question is, how long can the Tories, and handful of pro-Brexit Labour and Lib Dems, get away with that spin. It’s easy now, given that everything is still at the negotiating at the table stage. But when all this starts to become reality, this kind of posturing will start to look weak, rather than righteous indignation. Especially if Scotland and/or N. Ireland leave the UK as a result; not the best thing for history to remember you as the PM that lost Scotland.
Judging by the awful reporting by most of the UK media, I’d say they will get away with it for a long time. As CS mentions above, much mainstream reporting seems oblivious to the most basic knowledge of how decisions are made in the EU (i.e. that it will have to be unanimous), and the implications of this process. Just as one example, I’ve been told by east European friends that there has been widespread reporting and sharing on social media of examples of allegedly racist attacks on Poles and Czechs in England after Brexit – this has greatly reduced any public sympathy towards the UK position (even among eurosceptics in those countries) – and yet there has been virtually no coverage of this in the UK.
I honestly think that May is incredibly lucky. With no proper domestic opposition on Brexit, and a media seemingly incapable of coherent reporting, she is in a position to create havoc while bearing almost no blame, at least for the forceable future.
Never before did I agree with Juncker, but now I do – Brexit cannot be a sucess (not even sovreigny sucess, unless the UK wants to go the North Korea way, and even they have dependency on China). The odds are stacked way way against it.
It’s like the US elections last year – just a selection of bad or very bad options.
Never before did I agree with Juncker, but now I do – Brexit cannot be a sucess (not even sovreigny sucess, unless the UK wants to go the North Korea way, and even they have dependency on China). The odds are stacked way way against it.
I don’t think that’s quite what he meant (although I agree). I think he meant that Brexit cannot be seen to be a success, or it will make exit seem like a desirable outcome and encourage other countries to do it. Which, to me, sounds like a cue for May to offer to work the old Brer Rabbit briar patch trick with Juncker and the EU. In other words, if it’s important to you that Brexit look like a failure from the EU viewpoint then we might be persuaded to cooperate and make that easier for you to achieve, on one or two conditions…
Of course if she had in fact done that we wouldn’t necessarily know about it, so it’s barely conceivable, but I doubt Juncker would be throwing his toys out of the cot with such vigour if that had been the tone of the conversation.
Thanks Yves and other commenters. You have much to say that is interesting and clearly informed.
Just to take a thought for a walk, to use Stephen Fry’s phrase, I wonder if May is hatching a plan. The thought is provoked by the suggestion she referred to what she did on security matters vis-a-vis the EU, that is opt out and then opt back in.
Might the plan be formally to proceed with leaving the single market and customs union but replace those arrangements with a multiplicity of small agreements rather along the lines of those agreed between the EU and Switzerland? I know the EU have said they don’t want to go down this route but maybe they might change their minds if offered enough inducements? Largely financial I dare say.
The advantage from the EU perspective could be that although the UK would formally leave the EU, in practice current arrangements would be left unchanged in their real implications. From the UK perspective the advantage would be that the Government could say it had acted on the wishes of the electorate but couldn’t be pressurised by the press into holding further referenda. So it could seek one agreement on banking, another on investment services, a third on trade in cars etc etc . None of these could be argued to justify referenda on their own.
This would all take time to negotiate which may be why there is talk of a period being sought by the UK beyond 2019 during which it might continue to comply with EU requirements. A period of 3 years has been suggested.
So could the UK plan be to seek an extra 3 years beyond 2019, negotiate multiple small agreements with the EU to come into effect in 2022, which would have the practical effect of the UK still largely remaining in the single market and customs union without admitting this is what was happening?
There would need to be a fudge on immigration and the UK would have lost its voting rights of course, but that would be seen by the EU as an appropriate consequence of the folly of the English.
I know the talk at present is of a free-trade deal but the EU response seems pretty clearly to be that this can only occur if the UK abides by EU requirements in a range of areas such as environmental, regulatory issues etc which probably could not be got past the UK press if presented so starkly.
Until the election all UK comments will be directed towards the electorate of course so should be heavily discounted. Once it is out of the way, it may become clearer whether there is a half-sensible plan of action that has been concocted in Whitehall. As a Londoner I would like to think there might be.
The essential problem with a ‘piecemeal’ approach is that each would each need a unanimous vote from the EU27 (not to mention the various regions which have a veto). So all you need is one disgruntled member willing to use its veto and it would fall apart completely. The obvious issue where this could occur would be over the UK’s financial contributions. This is the number 1 issue for eastern Europeans and probably also for countries like Spain, all of which are very concerned that their contributions to Brussels will have to increase to cover the UK’s liabilities and the shortfall from contributions. Politically, it would be very difficult for May to cough up the billions required for this to happen, and nobody else is going to pay. So before you even start you will have a situation where there are multiple parties with an incentive to throw a spanner in the negotiations, and no real reason for them to compromise.
This doesn’t say, btw, that this isn’t Theresa May’s plan – its entirely possible that they still haven’t worked out just how difficult it will be to come to any agreement, and they certainly seem oblivious to the hostility Brexit has stirred up in the UK’s traditional allies in eastern Europe.
Sounds great – the UK will be screwed! Tell me more about how the EU will blossom after the Brexit! How the clearing will be clearer in Paris, how the German car industry will grow, and how Greece will flourish, how the Eastern Europe will thrive!
All the people talking about how unprepared is the UK but nobody about how amazing the EU will fare!
I’m sorry, but as a Brit, a business founder and owner for the last twenty five years , I don’t buy almost any of the optimism , or pessimism associated with Brexit. To stay in business these days whether you are a big, or small business you have to be open to change – big or small – and I have no doubt that ever since 23rd June last year my fellow business owners and managers have been working with this change . God know Unilever ( hardly a small player ) put up the price of Marmite ( because of Brexit ) even though the product is made entirely in Britain . And what’s more despite the resistance of the grocers initially – Tesco and the like – got away with it. Today I bought the biggest jar which pre-Brexit sold for £4.00 and in Sainsbury’s this morning it’s back on the shelves at £4.50 ( do the math ) . A nice tidy profit . There are just so many more factors in this complex situation than we care to think about that any amount of handwringing will turn out to be a waste of energy . Let’s stay alert and do what has to be done . We will survive.
Can I ask a simple question, given the background of greece ?
Is BREXIT bad, or the way BREXIT being handled by the UK govt. bad ?
in short, per nakedcapitalism.com, where are the fault lines….
Have not any reasonable idea of what downing street has in mind but from my lost time studying article 50 as a dual citizen(ellas), article 218 is badly written and specifically describes negotiating with a nation that is not in and is to enter…not for a negotiated disengagement…
as to a strategy, since the man in the wheelchair and his “svimvare evningvare” chancellor puppet imagine having less than ten market makers at the berlin bourse can somehow create a vibrant economy, the short term nuclear option seems the only route…
uk on june 12th must demand a full and complete offer from the 27 in writing within 30 days…this sipping wine nonsense “death by a thousand cuts” is a no win situation for the uk…
uk has a right to move to court of justice to force a specific current written offer…the treaty does not have a “we shall see when we get there clause” & requires good faith…
The purpose of getting a written first offer is to have the capacity to just accept it and short circuit the 2 year “drip and stab” concept being imagined by the good folks in brussels and Strasburg…
60 billion…here is a nice piece of paper…100 year bond, payable in sterling at 2 percent…would you like those pounds delivered monthly or annually…
The 27 are planning to run out the clock…one should not allow that if one does not intend to be the victim…