UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 329

On April 28 2017 22:23 Zaros wrote:


Leave it where it is if you don't want to pay.

On May 04 2017 18:45 BurningSera wrote:


first of all, where the hell did you get that 400 years of dominance from? that's exactly the kind of delusion that caused all the brexit shit, 1700 is 300 years from today, stretching it, and that's only the west side of the world, where you were pulling Irish and you first landed america and you killed people without guns.

it was then near 180 years ago, you and European countries (that's first time in the world history, that one and only time Europe actually work together, called eight nation alliance, look it up mate, that ugliest page of history is only half page long on Wikipedia) go east and blow up the East so hard. Mate, China dominated the technology, education, economy, human resources for 4800 years on this planet; you want to talk about dominance, mate?

so ya, Europe didn't make London London, but they make you the international hub to the rest of world, because of the development in history, not because you are special or 'dominant the world'. They can fuck with you anytime if they want to, all the companies (EU or rest of world) come to UK in the past 40 years because you are in EU, simple fact.

and please don't even remind that you needed American help during ww2, just, stop.

On May 04 2017 21:03 Reaps wrote:
Yea was wondering same thing.. what relevance does "needing American help in ww2" have to do with what Kwark said. It's the kind of comment i expect from Mythical, "England sucks, where i come from is better so take that!".

On May 04 2017 21:37 Ghostcom wrote:


If I am to guess based on reading rather heavily between the lines the WW2 comment likely stems from a "if you truly were as dominant as you think, then why did you need the Americans to defeat Germany?" thought-process.

However, disregard all that, the post still has a point in that London wouldn't have been this prosperous today without EU making it the de facto entry into EU (firms have to have a branch within the single market to conduct business) and allocating it important regulatory institutes such as EMA and EBA. You have to be a special kind of delusional to think that London did not hugely benefit from EU and would've turned out the same because of some kind of special British dominance (which after WW2 was frankly only a shadow of it former self if not downright non-existent by comparison).
Following Brexit London is no longer within the single market and thus all the third-country firms have to establish a new subsidiary within the single-market (likely Frankfurt or Paris) if they still want access (which they do). There is obviously no direct cost for the UK involved in this. However, the question is whether or not the London affiliation is going to hold the same power as it used to (having a European HQ in London is nonsensical if London can't give access to the EU market). The opinions seem to be divided on this topic based on what I can read - mostly because no one is certain what the negotiations will lead to.

On May 04 2017 22:07 bardtown wrote:
London got some benefit from being an entry point to the EU, but that does not explain why it is the financial capital (of the world, by the way, not just Europe). Businesses that wanted an entry point could have chosen any city in the EU. The expertise and capital gap between London and its European competitors is not something that can be bridged any time soon. For example, there are more people employed in London's financial sector than live in Frankfurt. People who think that the EU is essential to London's success might want to look at the companies which have invested and relocated there since the vote.

On May 04 2017 18:45 BurningSera wrote:


first of all, where the hell did you get that 400 years of dominance from? that's exactly the kind of delusion that caused all the brexit shit, 1700 is 300 years from today, stretching it, and that's only the west side of the world, where you were bullying Irish and you first landed america and you killed people without guns.

it was then near 180 years ago, you and European countries (that's first time in the world history, that one and only time Europe actually work together, called eight nation alliance, look it up mate, that ugliest page of history is only half page long on Wikipedia) went east and blew up the East so hard. Mate, China dominated the technology, education, economy, human resources for 4800 years on this planet; you want to talk about dominance, mate?

so ya, Europe didn't make London London, but they make you the international hub to the rest of world, because of the natural development in history, not because you are special or 'dominated the world'. They can fuck with you anytime if they want to, all the companies (EU or rest of world) come to UK in the past 40 years because you are in EU, simple fact.

and please don't even remind me that you needed American help during ww2, just, stop.

On May 04 2017 21:37 Ghostcom wrote:


If I am to guess based on reading rather heavily between the lines the WW2 comment likely stems from a "if you truly were as dominant as you think, then why did you need the Americans to defeat Germany?" thought-process.

However, disregard all that, the post still has a point in that London wouldn't have been this prosperous today without EU making it the de facto entry into EU (firms have to have a branch within the single market to conduct business) and allocating it important regulatory institutes such as EMA and EBA. You have to be a special kind of delusional to think that London did not hugely benefit from EU and would've turned out the same because of some kind of special British dominance (which after WW2 was frankly only a shadow of it former self if not downright non-existent by comparison).
Following Brexit London is no longer within the single market and thus all the third-country firms have to establish a new subsidiary within the single-market (likely Frankfurt or Paris) if they still want access (which they do). There is obviously no direct cost for the UK involved in this. However, the question is whether or not the London affiliation is going to hold the same power as it used to (having a European HQ in London is nonsensical if London can't give access to the EU market). The opinions seem to be divided on this topic based on what I can read - mostly because no one is certain what the negotiations will lead to.

On May 04 2017 22:41 KwarK wrote:

The United States is part of the Anglosphere. In this case the child has vastly outgrown the parent but you can't deny that London benefits from the economic, cultural and social ties with the United States and that being the European Nexus of trade with the New World greatly boosted the importance of London. Who would win in a fight between the US and UK isn't at all relevant to whether London only exists as a trade hub because of the EU. Surely you can all see the irony of a collection of people from around the world arguing on the forum of a Dutch clan about whether the English dominated the modern world in English. It's not just a favour the EU granted us to be friendly, it's the historical reality that the Anglosphere currently dominates the world and has for some time.

Financial hubs aren't created, they grow in a positive feedback loop. Clients bring banks, banks bring clients, clients bring more banks. Businesses need access to accounting firms and accounting firms need business and nowhere was this feedback loop stronger than in London, the hub of the global economy from before there was a global economy. The days of Empire are over but one cannot simply declare an alternate hub and make it so. Given enough time London will probably fade and others will grow but the EU certainly did not make London a financial centre. London made London and defined the very concept of a financial centre around itself.

On May 05 2017 01:09 Ghostcom wrote:


Ok? Now go back and read what I actually wrote, because you seem to be arguing against something which only exists in your head.

On May 05 2017 01:20 KwarK wrote:

First paragraph was adding to the point that the disconnect between the US and the UK doesn't make sense unless for some reason you're trying to argue that the US isn't a part of the English dominated modern world. Wasn't arguing with you friend.

Second paragraph was disagreeing with the idea that financial hubs can simply be moved on transferred. London was still the hub of the single biggest trade zone in the world at the end of WWII, despite your protestations to the contrary (the Empire/Commonwealth trade agreements had yet to be ended), and was comparatively untouched compared to the devastation on the continent. Sure, London benefited from the proximity to Europe. It also benefited from North Sea oil. But the EU didn't make London important, no more than the EU made Antwerp a hub for the diamond trade.

On May 05 2017 01:51 Ghostcom wrote:


1) I certainly didn't argue that financial hubs can simply be moved or transferred.
2) Post WWII UK had NOTHING on 1800s UK in relevance. I never stated that post WWII UK wasn't still a significant force in the world. Please be honest in your presentation of my arguments.
3) I never argued that any single thing made London important (because that would be wrong). I'm arguing that London benefited from EU and the large services industry that has grown there grew in part because it gave people access to the EU's internal market (Obviously there were other reasons as well such as ability to attract skilled labour over e.g. Frankfurt because London is a nicer place to live - another thing where City of London might suffer from BREXIT). As a consequence of BREXIT London has lost part of its attractiveness and as such might lose some its relevance depending on negotiations.

On May 05 2017 02:01 KwarK wrote:


London was always going to be a financial hub for Europe, EU or no EU, because London is London. There simply was not, and is not, an alternative to it within Europe. One may slowly grow over time and London probably will slowly decline over time but London being in the EU was a mutually beneficial arrangement. To contest that point depends upon arguing that a rival hub could have been created to take the role that was taken by London.

On May 05 2017 01:51 Ghostcom wrote:
EDIT: Are you aware that you are incredibly annoying to discuss anything with? I'm never quite able to tell whether you consider everyone else an idiot or if you actually do think we are all about 5 years old who need the most obvious shit explained on a step by step basis. I get your argument. I got it from the very first post of yours. What you are arguing (Why London initially rose to importance) is just not really a relevant response to what I posted (Access to single market was one of the important benefits of having a subsidiary in London for third-country firms).

On May 05 2017 02:06 KwarK wrote:

When you make claims like that London in 1945 was a shadow of its earlier self, as if World War II wasn't the single greatest exercise in acquisition, coordination and transportation of resources in the history of civilization and as if London wasn't the hub that the majority of that logistical operation was conducted from then I'm somewhat forced to correct you. WWII was London's Swansong. If you feel like sometimes I talk to you like you need simple things explained to you then I'm sorry, sometimes it feels like you need simple things explained to you. But if you hadn't said the thing that was very wrong then I wouldn't be here trying to tell you why it was so wrong.

On May 05 2017 02:14 Ghostcom wrote:


Maybe, if I didn't have to spend 90% of my post on correcting your complete and utter lack of reading comprehension, I could spend more time on expanding what I mean by a secondary sentence in a parenthesis in a way which would satisfy you. I'm sorry, but if you were actually able to read a 10 line post without getting nearly every argument presented in it wrong, then I wouldn't have to spend the next posts explaining to you.

EDIT: For example, I never stated anything concerning London in 1945. I stated something about the state of the British Empire in 1945. There is an important difference, but again your reading comprehension barely rivals that of a 2.nd grader so of course you would miss it. Talk about getting the simple things wrong. But I guess nearly going bankrupt in 1946 was an excellent example of the pinnacle of the British dominance?