Brexit benefits

[sheldrake]

It’s a benefit for somewhere other than the UK.

No it isn't. The UK business won't move to the EU, because the whole point of the EU regs here is to shut out non-EU ownership. Keep up.

[plodder]

Would it bore people if I pointed out that Temptar already replied to that, and that it’s you who needs to keep up?

It’s boring me, for sure.

[sheldrake]

Would it bore people if I pointed out that Temptar already replied to that, and that it’s you who needs to keep up?

It’s boring me, for sure.

So you're letting me know that you are fully aware of something you raised already being discussed by Temptar and I, and Temptar agreeing that he saw no benefits for the company, and 'likely neutral for the EU', but you wanted to just be sure I read somebody else's post which also disagreed with you?

I'm not surprised you're bored. You must have so little to do at work today. This is pure trolling. You're not making any sincere attempt to discuss brexit benefits, either you or Temptar. You can question or disagree with something that was posted in the sincere belief it was a benefit, or start your own moaning thread, but please stop sh.tting up this one.

[temptar]

A) I did not agree with you and B) I am not a man. I don't intend to engage with you further than that.

[sheldrake]

I didn't say it was a Brexit benefit for the UK. For Ryanair it is an inevitable cost of Brexit and for the EU it probably may be neutral. For some brokers, there will be losses and gains, probably delineated geographically.

You agreed that this wasn't a benefit to the company, or the UK and was likely neutral for the EU. This is not a brexit benefit to any party you've identified but you just wanted to crowbar it in to a brexit benefits thread for some reason. Sorry for thinking you were a man.

[Bird on a Fire]

It's not clear to me either who's supposed to be benefitting from this, by the way. Seems like it's an all-round lose?

[sheldrake]

It's a pure troll.

[dyqik]

It's not clear to me either who's supposed to be benefitting from this, by the way. Seems like it's an all-round lose?

It's a net benefit to the stock exchanges that the stock moves to - both because it increases the total value of the trading on that exchange, and because it brings some status to that exchange to have a well known company traded on it, which may well attract other companies to it.

And that in turn is likely to have some knock-on benefits to the wider economy of the host country of the exchange.

[plodder]

It's not clear to me either who's supposed to be benefitting from this, by the way. Seems like it's an all-round lose?

It's a net benefit to the stock exchanges that the stock moves to - both because it increases the total value of the trading on that exchange, and because it brings some status to that exchange to have a well known company traded on it, which may well attract other companies to it.

And that in turn is likely to have some knock-on benefits to the wider economy of the host country of the exchange.

Yup.

[Bird on a Fire]

So it's potentially a benefit to the stock exchanges of Dublin and Brussels, and perhaps with time the Irish, Belgian and EU economies?

[plodder]

So it's potentially a benefit to the stock exchanges of Dublin and Brussels, and perhaps with time the Irish, Belgian and EU economies?

Yeah, and the cafes, bars and coke dealers near the stock exchange.

[sheldrake]

It's a net benefit to the stock exchanges that the stock moves to - both because it increases the total value of the trading on that exchange

Why? The customers won't move with the trading location, the whole point is to shed non-EU investment. Ryanair already trades in the EU, all that's happening is that they're finishing off the wind-down of London trading (they already started refusing non-EU investment). There's no new business involved, no new customers. I think you've completely misunderstood this news headline.

[Gfamily]

So it's potentially a benefit to the stock exchanges of Dublin and Brussels, and perhaps with time the Irish, Belgian and EU economies?

Yeah, and the cafes, bars and craic dealers near the stock exchange.

FIFDublin

[sheldrake]

You do all understand that Ryanair is already listed on Euronext and has been for some time, yes?

[dyqik]

You do all understand that Ryanair is already listed on Euronext and has been for some time, yes?

Oh, OK then, here's what I wrote adapted to take account of that:

It's not clear to me either who's supposed to be benefitting from this, by the way. Seems like it's an all-round lose?

It's a net benefit to the stock exchanges that formerly LSE based trading in the stock moves to - both because it increases the total value of the trading on that exchange, and because it brings some status to that exchange to have a well known company traded more often on it, which may well attract other companies to it.

And that in turn is likely to have some knock-on benefits to the wider economy of the host country of the exchange.

[sheldrake]

It's a net benefit to the stock exchanges that formerly LSE based trading in the stock moves to - both because it increases the total value of the trading on that exchange, and because it brings some status to that exchange to have a well known company traded more often on it, which may well attract other companies to it.

But what makes you think the LSE-based trading will move to Euronext? The whole premise of this move is that they want to shed non-EU ownership to comply with EU rules. They've been refusing orders in London on this basis for ages. They're literally turning away paying punters to comply with a cranky EU ownership regulation.

This is not a benefit to anybody except embittered EU politicians who are happy to destroy value just to say something is 'EU owned' and it really shouldn't be in this thread.

[dyqik]

It's a net benefit to the stock exchanges that formerly LSE based trading in the stock moves to - both because it increases the total value of the trading on that exchange, and because it brings some status to that exchange to have a well known company traded more often on it, which may well attract other companies to it.

But what makes you think the LSE-based trading will move to Euronext?

What makes you think I said it would move to Euronext specifically?

[sheldrake]

What makes you think I said it would move to Euronext specifically?

I think it would have to, in order to increase the share of EU ownership. They aren't likely to get that from their Nasdaq listing either.

ETA: To be clear, I think they're just going to lose non-EU custom rather than gain custom. They're ramping down London trading and already have a Euronext listing, so the London trade will just die rather than move.

[dyqik]

What makes you think I said it would move to Euronext specifically?

I think it would have to, in order to increase the share of EU ownership. They aren't likely to get that from their Nasdaq listing either.

ETA: To be clear, I think they're just going to lose non-EU custom rather than gain custom. They're ramping down London trading and already have a Euronext listing, so the London trade will just die rather than move.

If any of the trade at all moves, then my point stands.

[sheldrake]

If any of the trade at all moves, then my point stands.

Feel free to predict their trading volume a year from now?

[dyqik]

If any of the trade at all moves, then my point stands.

Feel free to predict their trading volume a year from now?

I'll feel free to not do so, thanks.

[sheldrake]

What makes you believe any of it will? This is a lose-lose situation imposed by EU regulators.

[Bird on a Fire]

Apparently it's not just us struggling to define what constitutes a "brexit benefit":

The UK Government proposed no measurable way to assess the success of Brexit, according to documents seen by Insider.

While other priority policies were given specific targets to meet, that could be judged to have succeeded or failed, the documents did not suggest anything concrete for assessing Brexit.

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-gove ... it-2021-11

Apparently they're going for "narrative reporting", which presumably means just them saying things are benefits?

Of course, just because the government are useless doesn't mean we couldn't come up with a set of objective measurable criteria against which to test claims.

[sheldrake]

Apparently it's not just us struggling to define what constitutes a "brexit benefit":

The UK Government proposed no measurable way to assess the success of Brexit, according to documents seen by Insider.

While other priority policies were given specific targets to meet, that could be judged to have succeeded or failed, the documents did not suggest anything concrete for assessing Brexit.

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-gove ... it-2021-11

Apparently they're going for "narrative reporting", which presumably means just them saying things are benefits?

Of course, just because the government are useless doesn't mean we couldn't come up with a set of objective measurable criteria against which to test claims.

For many people who voted for Brexit the success criteria were not economic metrics over some timescale but 'did Brexit happen', 'did it result in lost sovereignity being returned to the UK' etc..

For the purpose of this thread it has only seemed 'hard to define a benefit' when people have deliberately and mendaciously tried to crowbar something in which is obviously not a benefit to the UK (or any other party as far as we can tell). From my perspective this a passive-aggressive attempt to derail the thread and an obvious example of arguing in bad faith.

[Brightonian]

A former Yorkshire policeman, and a Scottish tech entrepreneur, welcome the chance to cast off EU red tape.