I don't think that spraying antisemitic graffiti in Hampstead is particularly new. And this performative stuff from Baddiel and the commentariat is insane. The difference between what his grandparents- (and mine saw) wasn't that antisemitic graffiti was painted on windows. it's that it was officially sanctioned.
"Free movement of people is terrible and we have to endure economic hardship to stop it! Wait, why don't you want to do a deal with us for free movement of people?"
We were told the world was queuing up to do deals with us.
Was that another untruth from Johnson? Surely not.
It's the free movement part that's the sticking point with Australia unprepared to agree to a more liberal arrangement. It's not a rejection of a trade agreement per se.
Originally posted by Nocturnal SubmissionView Post
It's the free movement part that's the sticking point with Australia unprepared to agree to a more liberal arrangement. It's not a rejection of a trade agreement per se.
I see. The free movement of people is a big red line for Johnson et al as we're all aware.
I know it's Australia not wanting this but it just shows the whole hypocrisy of this situation.
The system whereby service firms are considered to operate under functionally equivalent regulatory regimes and can therefore offer cross-border services as if they were domestic.
Yeah, within the EU/EEA, most financial services are passported, so if you are authorised in one member state you can sell your services in another. Technically I think passporting only applies where firms operate under the same (EU) regime, though there can be national differences. I don't think there's any passporting from 3rd countries or in areas where there's no EU sectoral regulation (which is where the passporting would be prescribed after all).
Conversely, most EU financial regulation blocks access to entities in 3rd countries (or, in practice, requires them to set up local entities subject to EU rules). The exception, in a relatively small handful of sectors, is where the EC, in is discretion, determines that the regulatory regime in the 3rd country is "equivalent" — this is basically what is known as "substituted compliance". At the moment this mainly affects insurance, but recently has been a point of contention with the (post-Brexit) UK and the US for derivatives clearing.
Comment