By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EnricoPallazzo said:

- EU started as an economic bloc and with time became a political bloc. When people voted to join EU back in early 70's (if Im not wrong) it was to join an economic bloc which is absolutely amazing and definitely (almost) nobody would be against it. With time the integration just became more complex, it transformed into a political bloc with almost no power to each country population to make any change on it. Yes there is a parliament but even if, let's say, evil conservatives in england elected 100% of the british representatives in EU parliament, well there is nothing you can achieve, it's just a couple of votes. With time that leads to even grater insanities such as creating an EU army and fiscal union (which will need to happen to keep euro alive).

- Since british people have no say in EU decisions, or at least almost no say since it is just a couple of votes, that leads to creation of several rules and regulations and laws that well you just need to suck it up and accept it, like for example the fishing quotas or environmental regulations that the british people may not agree with and need to follow anyway.

A few issues with this part.

Firstly, the UK had quite a bit of say actually. It was more than "just a couple of votes". The number of seats in the EU parliament is based on population, IIRC the UK had the 3rd biggest population in the EU (behind Germany & France?) so they effectively had the 3rd most say. And much more so than a lot of the other members. Also, how is that different from any other democratic system? I mean, the residents of say Newcastle have "just a couple of votes" in UK politics. So the residents of the UK having "just a couple of votes" in EU politics is pretty similar, no? Although I'd argue that the EU gives people relatively more say than the UK since it's based on population and uses proportional representation rather than being based on borders drawn by the government in a winner takes all system.

Secondly, IIRC the European parliament doesn't actually have that much power. The European council (made up of the national heads of each member country, and since the UK people are the ones that elected the UK Prime Minister they certainly did have some say there) and the commission (which is appointed by the council, so again the UK had say there through their election of the Prime Minister) are more important.

I do agree that it grew too fast and added countries that probably weren't ready for it too quickly though. And that's largely what led to the immigration issues too.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

- EU started as an economic bloc and with time became a political bloc. When people voted to join EU back in early 70's (if Im not wrong) it was to join an economic bloc which is absolutely amazing and definitely (almost) nobody would be against it. With time the integration just became more complex, it transformed into a political bloc with almost no power to each country population to make any change on it. Yes there is a parliament but even if, let's say, evil conservatives in england elected 100% of the british representatives in EU parliament, well there is nothing you can achieve, it's just a couple of votes. With time that leads to even grater insanities such as creating an EU army and fiscal union (which will need to happen to keep euro alive).

- Since british people have no say in EU decisions, or at least almost no say since it is just a couple of votes, that leads to creation of several rules and regulations and laws that well you just need to suck it up and accept it, like for example the fishing quotas or environmental regulations that the british people may not agree with and need to follow anyway.

A few issues with this part.

Firstly, the UK had quite a bit of say actually. It was more than "just a couple of votes". The number of seats in the EU parliament is based on population, IIRC the UK had the 3rd biggest population in the EU (behind Germany & France?) so they effectively had the 3rd most say. And much more so than a lot of the other members. Also, how is that different from any other democratic system? I mean, the residents of say Newcastle have "just a couple of votes" in UK politics. So the residents of the UK having "just a couple of votes" in EU politics is pretty similar, no? Although I'd argue that the EU gives people relatively more say than the UK since it's based on population and uses proportional representation rather than being based on borders drawn by the government in a winner takes all system.

Secondly, IIRC the European parliament doesn't actually have that much power. The European council (made up of the national heads of each member country, and since the UK people are the ones that elected the UK Prime Minister they certainly did have some say there) and the commission (which is appointed by the council, so again the UK had say there through their election of the Prime Minister) are more important.

I do agree that it grew too fast and added countries that probably weren't ready for it too quickly though. And that's largely what led to the immigration issues too.

I agree with you, saying its just a couple of seats is a terrible exaggeration from my part. But still, it can be easily outvoted by the other countries which should be normal in a democracy. The problem is that it's "easier" from a person from say Newcastle understand he was outvoted because London people decided for a different outcome on a certain subject because at the end of the day there is a certain unity between them, they are all English.

But on an European view it is much easier for these people to get pissed off they can't do a certain thing because England was outvoted on EU parliament, because at the end of the day they don't see themselves as European. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that I understand where the frustration comes from, specially if you are looking for a scapegoat for your frustrations.



EnricoPallazzo said:
JRPGfan said:

A joke reply.
But its a very real situation.... and I ment it as a real question.

What happends if the UK leaves the EU, and cannot even get WTO membership?

Said I was going to go back to it and forgot it, sorry.

Since you are a very strong supporter of stay let me just tell you what I think so you can, maybe, understand me better.

I do not think brexit was a good idea. For me it would be MUCH BETTER if stay had won, as I'm a latin american with EU citizenship living in Britain. So, yeah I'm one of the directly impacted by the brexit decision. I am also against simple majority people votes. A result of 52-48 should not be a definitive result and on those votes, in my opinion, a minimum threshold of 55% or even 60% should be used when making such decision. 52-48 just means the country is divided and probably if you had another note 6 months down the road there was a good chance the result would be inverted. The same goes for people's votes on independence and other decisions that can impact a country decades or even centuries down the road. I am also against the decision that made  (2 million?) british citizens living outside england to not be able to vote, although that was the rule and if I'm not wrong you also cant vote for normal elections. At the end of the day you left the country.

The best option would have been for the EU to tackle the problems and criticisms people have on EU, face the problem, discuss it with society. Instead what everybody did was just shame people who had a different opinion. A few problems:

- EU started as an economic bloc and with time became a political bloc. When people voted to join EU back in early 70's (if Im not wrong) it was to join an economic bloc which is absolutely amazing and definitely (almost) nobody would be against it. With time the integration just became more complex, it transformed into a political bloc with almost no power to each country population to make any change on it. Yes there is a parliament but even if, let's say, evil conservatives in england elected 100% of the british representatives in EU parliament, well there is nothing you can achieve, it's just a couple of votes. With time that leads to even grater insanities such as creating an EU army and fiscal union (which will need to happen to keep euro alive).

- Since british people have no say in EU decisions, or at least almost no say since it is just a couple of votes, that leads to creation of several rules and regulations and laws that well you just need to suck it up and accept it, like for example the fishing quotas or environmental regulations that the british people may not agree with and need to follow anyway.

- Inclusion of a lot of countries in the EU that not necessarily were properly prepared for it or that have a very different cultural and economical approach

- And last but not least the real reason for brexit but it cannot be mentioned by british people as they will be shamed, immigration. I dont wanna go on this subject but it definitely is a problem in britain especally with the huge mass immigration that happened in the country. While most left leaning people dont care and actually support mass immigration, there is a lot of people that thinks there should be a limit to it and that despite the economical growth in GDP it brings, it also creates a lot of cultural problems and a strain in infrastructure. Immigration wasnt a huge issue in Britain during the 80's and 90's but once you start to have 500k people arriving per year and even reaching 700k in one year, well a lot of people thinks the problem must be discussed. And since the problem cannot be discussed the only place where you can safely give your opinion besides the pub or the dinner table, will be the ballot box.

- Then you have the elections and the campaign with SO MANY LIES from both sides, the shaming of everybody that did not agree with the Guardian, the ridculous approach on BBC and iTV of always bringing to the discussion from the conservative side a very stupid person to give the impression the conservatives are ignorant and racist, and all the projections and predictions about the economy that just didnt make any sense at all, totally project fear. As if britan would not survive outside EU, like if britain could not be just a regular country like many other first world countries. Predictions that just didnt happen, and now stay supporters are just creating more updated predictions that really cannot be trusted at all. And in the end the left always defend that economic growth should not be the end game of all decision but that is exactly what the left did with brexit. And it didnt happen, why should why believe it will happen this time. How can I trust the predictions, the people that makes the predictions, how do I know if they are considering everything necessary in the calculations, considering not only risks but also opportunities? Once you loose trust it is really difficult to get it back.

- After the voting, the british had ALL THE CHANCES to stay in EU in an unofficial way through Theresa May deal. She could not get the votes as the tories were tore in two, but labour could have accepted it. They could have voted with May. The deal was AMAZING for those who voted to stay. All Karl Marx Corbyn wanted was power and another election. Time and time again they could have helped and put the interests of those who voted to stay in first place but no. In the end he got the election he wanted and well, the results were not good. For him.

So considering everything, I understand and respect the will of the british people and maybe I would have done the same if I as british.

Just to finish, the press also tried to put fear that we Eu citizens would be mistreated, shuned, would be deported etc. Of course nothing happened and the process to get the right to stay was easier than paying a car parking bill.

"Said I was going to go back to it and forgot it, sorry."

Thats quite all right.


"The best option would have been for the EU to tackle the problems and criticisms people have on EU, face the problem, discuss it with society. "
the thing is when theres 27-28 nations, that all want differnt things, have differnt issues, no one is going to all be equally happy with outcomes.
Also they did discuss things, and voted for them.

Also note that in about 98% of the votes on everything, that EU put to a vote, the UK agree'ed with it.
So we re talking about 2% of the time, the UK wasnt happy with the choices of the EU.

Like I said, you cant have everyone always equally happy with every single outcome of a vote.
And yet, more often than not, the UK agreeed with basically everything the EU put to a vote.

So why, did they run the Brexit campagne? what was it run on... lets circle back to the reasons, since their at the heart of what your talking about.

Sovereignty:
that 2% of the of the times, votes went against UK intrests. (49% of voters for brexit, put this as main reason).
Why should things voted for, by 28 nations, effect us in the UK? We're the british! kings of the world, rulers of the sea's, we had a empire the sun never set on!
We're exceptional and great, and cant be put on equal terms with others! Even when we get special privilages, we can't accept sometimes things arn't in our favor (2% of the time). This is too much!

When you then ask them (the common man, that voted for brexit), if theres a specific instance, of something agree'ed on in the EU, that the UK voted against, they can't name anything. Yet their quick to say "we want our sovereignty back!" dispite not haveing knowledge of a single instance of such.  The brexit voters are quick to spout propaganda and slogans by politicans, without knowing anything about them.

Immigration:
(33%+ of those voteing for brexit, put this as their main reason for voteing it),

Tighter border controll, and immigration. UK felt too many immigrants went from other nations in EU, into the UK.
Fair enough.

"The Economist concluded 'High numbers of migrants don't bother Britons; high rates of change do.' Consistent with that notion, research suggests that areas that saw significant influx of migration from Eastern Europe"

1) *south park voice* "They took our jobs!"
2) cultural change = ei. non christian.  aka too many muslims.

So the avg. brexit voter is worried about low payed, unqualified work, and muslims. So get brexit done, and lets stop that.


These are like the 2 biggest things about Brexit.
There was some lies about how much it cost, to be a member (which apparently wasnt fact checked).
There was russian trolls on the internet spouting propaganda.



"Since british people have no say in EU decisions, or at least almost no say since it is just a couple of votes, that leads to creation of several rules and regulations and laws that well you just need to suck it up and accept it, like for example the fishing quotas or environmental regulations that the british people may not agree with and need to follow anyway."

Democracy works like that... the minory gives way to the majority.
UK has a representative say, and could argue its points and find other nations in the EU that support its views, and thus that way get results.
This goes back to that 2% part, 98% of the time, the UK voted in favor of whatever was put to a vote.

UK choose to leave, but not on those reasonings.
All you have to do is go back and look at the brexit campagne.
The issue wasnt about a EU army, or the Euro, as you mentioned.
Alot of it was just immigration, and lies about membership costs.


"Then you have the elections and the campaign with SO MANY LIES from both sides, the shaming of everybody that did not agree with the Guardian, the ridculous approach on BBC and iTV of always bringing to the discussion from the conservative side a very stupid person to give the impression the conservatives are ignorant and racist, and all the projections and predictions about the economy that just didnt make any sense at all, totally project fear. "

The conservatives, called all the arguements from the otherside "project fear".
And yet their playing out right now.

Remember what a "hard brexit" was unthinkable, because of the economical damage it would do?
Dont worry, it wont come to that... promised Boris.
Its just project fear! .... whats happend?  No deal is like 99.9% certain now.

"they need us, more than we need them" (we have leverage, so dont worry, dont fear us getting "no deal", I promis you that wont happend)

Sure... that FTA is gonna happend.... your not gonna crash out, without any agreement, and maybe not even be able to get WTO membership!



Remember when they promised, there was no issue with the Irish Border? they could get around that, even with brexit.
Dont worry, its just project fear.
What happends? theres gonna be a border.


How many lies has the brexiteers group now been caught up in?
So many things they said, wouldn't happend, are now happending.


"from both sides,"

"project fear" was conservatives way of ignoreing reality, and fooling the masses into ignore them as well.

They are playing out now. 

Also from both sides? lol no.... the lies have been proven to come mainly from 1 side (the brexiteers).


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The important part is below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LAST but not least....

YOU DIDNT ANSWEAR MY QUESTION! lmao.

I asked what happends, if UK crashes out hard, and cannot even get WTO membership?


You gave me your opinions on why, the UK had Brexit.

I asked you a question about the future of the UK and its economy.
What is the UK without trade with the EU (without a FTA, as boris promised), and without potentially even a WTO membership.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 20 July 2020

EnricoPallazzo said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I agree with you, saying its just a couple of seats is a terrible exaggeration from my part. But still, it can be easily outvoted by the other countries which should be normal in a democracy. The problem is that it's "easier" from a person from say Newcastle understand he was outvoted because London people decided for a different outcome on a certain subject because at the end of the day there is a certain unity between them, they are all English.

But on an European view it is much easier for these people to get pissed off they can't do a certain thing because England was outvoted on EU parliament, because at the end of the day they don't see themselves as European. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that I understand where the frustration comes from, specially if you are looking for a scapegoat for your frustrations.

This is the problem, and why its probably for the best (of the EU) that the UK left.

British exceptionalism.

Even with speical privilages, and rebates...., the UK couldn't see itself as a part of europe.
The UK saw itself as being a member, for enriching itself only, not as being a part of a united europe.

All this dispute about Fishing rights too (from the UK side, was why they cant agree with a FTA is BS too).
You realise that fishing is about 0.1% of the UK's economy right?

Basically the UK has like 25-30% instead of ~50%.
But they have a market to sell the fish too.

Now, you ll have your 50%, but no one to sell your fish too.

And this is about 0.1% of your economy.... but your fine overlooking the ~61% of trade (50% from EU + 11% through them), you get through the EU?

Its soooo stupid, the same with UK not agreeing with "equal protected rights" for workers.
Competeing on fair terms... why is that such a issue for the UK? your willing to give up 61% of your trade..... so you can make sure your workers are paid less? treated worse than EU workers?  Huh?

Its all non-sense to me.... "give me WTO instead" over such minor things? UK has lost it.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 20 July 2020

EnricoPallazzo said:

- EU started as an economic bloc and with time became a political bloc. When people voted to join EU back in early 70's (if Im not wrong) it was to join an economic bloc which is absolutely amazing and definitely (almost) nobody would be against it. With time the integration just became more complex, it transformed into a political bloc with almost no power to each country population to make any change on it. Yes there is a parliament but even if, let's say, evil conservatives in england elected 100% of the british representatives in EU parliament, well there is nothing you can achieve, it's just a couple of votes. With time that leads to even grater insanities such as creating an EU army and fiscal union (which will need to happen to keep euro alive).

the political union is meant as a complement extension to the economic union, and gave a big boost to things like human rights and the environment, gave to Europe a stand against US, Russia, China that individual countries could never achieve, plus fast-track growth to East Europe countries, co-operation in things such as technological advancements and funding multi-country projects that would be too much of a waste otherwise etc etc.... I don't say none of this wouldn't be possible without, but if we want to optimize time, money and resources, it is definitely worth it as far

- Since british people have no say in EU decisions, or at least almost no say since it is just a couple of votes, that leads to creation of several rules and regulations and laws that well you just need to suck it up and accept it, like for example the fishing quotas or environmental regulations that the british people may not agree with and need to follow anyway.

fishing is 0.1% of UK GDP, why the obsession

- Inclusion of a lot of countries in the EU that not necessarily were properly prepared for it or that have a very different cultural and economical approach

agree, Poland for example should have waited a bit more, Greece and Italy should have never entered the Euro due to corruption :/

- And last but not least the real reason for brexit but it cannot be mentioned by british people as they will be shamed, immigration. I dont wanna go on this subject but it definitely is a problem in britain especally with the huge mass immigration that happened in the country. While most left leaning people dont care and actually support mass immigration, there is a lot of people that thinks there should be a limit to it and that despite the economical growth in GDP it brings, it also creates a lot of cultural problems and a strain in infrastructure. Immigration wasnt a huge issue in Britain during the 80's and 90's but once you start to have 500k people arriving per year and even reaching 700k in one year, well a lot of people thinks the problem must be discussed. And since the problem cannot be discussed the only place where you can safely give your opinion besides the pub or the dinner table, will be the ballot box.

thank you, the referendum took place at the peak of the migrant crisis which gave it a good enough boost, combined with the Leavers presenting the EU as the evil dictatorship that ruled everything and where all the bad was coming from, but all good was Britain, it is normal that people would vote for this

Brexit facebook ad, despite the UK always being Turkey's traditional supporter and ally



ironic when you think Boris's 'global Britain', bye to EU people of similar culture, welcome people from very different cultures, many of who will not integrate into the UK society at all, but rather join their already closed and growing societies instead....

- Then you have the elections and the campaign with SO MANY LIES from both sides, the shaming of everybody that did not agree with the Guardian, the ridculous approach on BBC and iTV of always bringing to the discussion from the conservative side a very stupid person to give the impression the conservatives are ignorant and racist, and all the projections and predictions about the economy that just didnt make any sense at all, totally project fear. As if britan would not survive outside EU, like if britain could not be just a regular country like many other first world countries. Predictions that just didnt happen, and now stay supporters are just creating more updated predictions that really cannot be trusted at all. And in the end the left always defend that economic growth should not be the end game of all decision but that is exactly what the left did with brexit. And it didnt happen, why should why believe it will happen this time. How can I trust the predictions, the people that makes the predictions, how do I know if they are considering everything necessary in the calculations, considering not only risks but also opportunities? Once you loose trust it is really difficult to get it back.

Remainer predictions were almost assuming a no-deal the next day of the result, very unrealistic, they used the scare tactic which is psychologically expected to work, bad tactic for this kind of matter

I get the impression the EU was rarely promoted to the public in the long term, that UK politicians always presented everything good as their own accomplishment, and blamed everything bad to the EU

- After the voting, the british had ALL THE CHANCES to stay in EU in an unofficial way through Theresa May deal. She could not get the votes as the tories were tore in two, but labour could have accepted it. They could have voted with May. The deal was AMAZING for those who voted to stay. All Karl Marx Corbyn wanted was power and another election. Time and time again they could have helped and put the interests of those who voted to stay in first place but no. In the end he got the election he wanted and well, the results were not good. For him.

truly sad, you can also blame the morons Jo Swinson and N. Sturgeon for this, Leave parties were smart and united and won the election by 80 seats despite 53% of the public voting for 2nd ref./Remain parties... such broken politics

sometimes I understand Britain's decision, they know something's not right but they are doing it wrong, I am a big EU supporter and a big critic, in general I get the impression that the UK is blaming all side-effects of globalization onto the EU


the way things have come to now, I prefer a no-deal just to end the matter for good, UK has become a toxic parasite for the EU, better to detach it completely and hurt now, rather than having it undermine EU laws and unity all along in the future


p.s. I find it sick how many Brexit nationalist maniacs are waiting for the EU to break up and they are sure about it, they think the world revolves around the UK, such selfishness and misery, they will probably get old waiting :S

added some of my views in bold :P



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

Around the Network

Gosh thats too much stuff, I will come back here after a couple of days hahaha
But thanks for the discussion, always nice to see people discussing politely.



JRPGfan said:

Its all non-sense to me.... "give me WTO instead" over such minor things? UK has lost it.

That reminds me of something else I've been increasingly seeing of late - people saying that the only reason to go with a deal was to prevent the economy from being damaged, and since the economy's most likely going to be trashed anyway by COVID-19, the UK might as well just terminate negotiations and go full-thrust into a no-deal WTO-only scenario.

I mean, maybe I don't understand all the nuances of this, but isn't that like saying "Well, it's an icy night, driving's going to be dangerous no matter what... so I might as well drink five beers and have a whisky chaser before I get behind the wheel!"



Remember the rumors of the US intrests in the NHS, and how a deal would come at the cost of the NHS?
Dont worry, UK isnt moveing towards privatised NHS, profit driven by the US, sold off part by part.... that'll never happend...

TORIES VOTE DOWN AMENDMENT TO PROTECT NHS FROM FOREIGN CONTROL IN BREXIT TRADE DEALS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4mPwzeiYSg


Remember how easy trade deals would be? You wanted to take back controll! to have better oversight!

Brexit MPs Vote to Give Up Control Over Trade Deals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRvozOlxIE

*

A trade deal with a NDA, that parlament will have 0 knowledge about what contains? that the public will never know what is in?
Sounds great! We have no issues waiting 5-10 years to it runs out Boris! We trust you.... right UK?


A youtube commenter wrote:
"Why would you have an NDA for a trade agreement? Only if you have something to hide."

And I agree, Boris is about to make a really sketchy deal of some sort, with the US.
Sadly the UK wont know about it, for another 5+ years.

EnricoPallazzo said:
Gosh thats too much stuff, I will come back here after a couple of days hahaha
But thanks for the discussion, always nice to see people discussing politely.

Whats your take on this bit of news?

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 21 July 2020

Didn't really keep up with the news (except the no-deal option getting more likely) but saw an article earlier and did some digging. Nothing unexpected though, just some reality.

France To Get €150 Billion Richer By End Of 2020, Thanks to Brexit

"[...] Francois Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Bank of France, told a private event that he expects financial firms to move approximately €150 billion from London to Paris by 31 December, when the poxt-Brexit transition ends and the U.K. will leave the EU.

Villeroy de Galhau, as reported by The Local, said that some of this money would be by French firms who are simply “moving assets home” but the others would be by U.K.-based entities to ensure they can keep trading in France. [...]"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/10/12/france-to-get-150-billion-richer-by-end-of-2020/?sh=5b789dec3b58

City of London's Brexit Departures Are Speeding Up

"[...] Take JPMorgan Chase & Co. The biggest U.S. bank is moving the equivalent of $230 billion of assets from the U.K. to its EU hub in Frankfurt, Bloomberg News has reported. That represents one-tenth of the Wall Street giant’s total assets and more than a third of the assets it holds in the U.K., its latest accounts show. About 200 employees are moving to continental Europe in what one executive described as a “first wave” of relocations.

The potential impact on JPMorgan’s revenue is even more striking. In a recent interview with Bloomberg Television, the bank’s top European executive, Viswas Raghavan, said 25% of the wholesale revenue generated by the firm in the U.K. could be headed elsewhere. “It’s a reasonable start,” he said.

This sense that a quarter of the City’s investment bank business might be in play is shared by other London financiers involved in Brexit preparations. Morgan Stanley is looking for a new headquarters in London that could be 25% smaller than its current space there.

Where larger firms go, smaller ones will follow, as will the ecosystem of lawyers and consultants around them. For a country that derived 12.3 billion pounds ($16 billion) in corporation tax from financial services in 2019 — 22% of all government receipts — the stakes are phenomenally high.[...]"

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-06/brexit-news-the-city-of-london-s-banker-exodus-is-gaining-momentum

Brexit bank relocations to Germany expected to create 2,500 jobs

"Germany is the most popular EU destination for banks leaving London following Brexit, with financial institutions expected to move €675 billion in assets and create 2,500 jobs, the Bundesbank said Monday.

The German central bank expects lenders to transfer €397 billion more than the €278 billion it has already moved from Britain post-Brexit, it said in a study, as negotiations intensify surrounding the conditions for the UK's new relationship with the European Union.

The European Central Bank estimated in August 2019 that €1.3 trillion in assets would be transferred to the eurozone from Britain ahead of Brexit.

[...]

The Bundesbank study confirms banks' preference for Germany as a base for operations away from London, estimating a total of €675 billion in relocated assets.

By comparison, around €150 billion of assets will be moved to France by the end of the year, France's central bank governor said.

Sixty-four financial institutions have applied for banking licences in Germany, with 40 so far having been approved, and the remainder pending.

Financial institutions moving operations out of the City of London should boost bank workforces in Germany by as many as 2,500 positions. [...]"

https://www.thelocal.de/20201102/germany-top-destination-for-brexit-bank-relocations



Economical upsides were never going to be a reason to leave EU.