Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Hurrache · 30-03-2019 03:54PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, it's far beyond the quality level of what I'd expect an "article" to be. It isn't an article. It's a very observant analysis of the large arcs that influenced the day-to-day of what we all talk about here.

It's a taster for what I expect to be many books on the subject with lots of insider info.

Leroy42 · 30-03-2019 03:58PM

Nody wrote: »

Well first and foremost they got paid to be for brexit. Remember a lot of funding want through DUP to brexit campaigns to limit the funding breaches were they were given a cut.

And they got paid to give TM the backing after the GE 2017. You can bet that they were promised that they (Tories) knew what they were doing. No chance of a backstop (had it even been mentioned at that point?), German car makers would soon sort the EU out and everything would be back to normal except that DUP would have £1bn extra goodies to throw around to deliver more seats at the next assembly election.

Once in, as the Lib Dems found out, there is rarely a single event that allows you to get out, more a slow decline. The old 'frog in boiling water' example.

It is only recently that it becomes evident that the whole thing is a monumental disaster but it is almost too late to backtrack.

Mr.Nice Guy · 30-03-2019 04:01PM

Good article here from Professor John Coakley of QUB on what the British parliamentary system could learn from its Brexit experience:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/30/brexit-broken-british-politics-withdrawal-agreement

I'd be surprised if these ideas are taken on board even though I think they ought to be. I especially agree with the point on the FPTP system which has been shown to be past its sell by date. The traditional argument for it was that it returned strong, stable governments. Think we can put that one to bed now.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-03-2019 04:19PM

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47742899

Pharmaceutical industry leaders want a temporary ban on drugs exports to prevent the NHS being hit by shortages in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

... the industry body told BBC News that further action was needed to counter the risk that pharmacists and wholesalers with export licences could find it more lucrative to sell products in the Eurozone if the pound weakened.

...
The practice is legal but can give rise to what is known as arbitrage, that is taking advantage of varying prices in different markets.

The UK has all kinds of stuff stockpiled in warehouses up and down the country.

If there's a hard Brexit sterling will fall, and there's a lot of empty trucks heading back to the EU so makes sense to make a quick buck today when there's going to be uncertainty tomorrow.

More to the point the speculators know selling off stocks will lead to an artificial shortage so they can jack up prices.

Peregrinus · 30-03-2019 04:35PM

This is not a problem of speculation or speculators. It's a practice that Brexit encourages and, for some companies, more or less forces.

The problem is that not just drug companies but companies in many other industries stockpiled perishable goods against the possiblity of a hard Brexit yesterday.

But they can't now sit on their stockpiles against the renewed possibility of a hard brexit in 13 days time; these are perishable goods. They have to turn over the stockpile, selling out of their accumulated stock while simultaneously building up a new stockpile for 13 April.

This is costing them money, because they have to pay for the product they stockpile, but it generates no revenue until sold. So they have the cost of warehousing it - high, for perishable goods - plus the cost of financing it. This is mostly financed with borrowed money. The costs of this go up every time Brexit day is moved, since you have already incurred the cost of the stockpile that you have already built up, and now you'll have to inccur more costs to build up a new stockpile for the new Brexit date.

So there is a temptation, if you can profit from your existing stockpile by selling abroad and getting a good price because of the weak pound, to do exactly that. It's a rational strategy for mitigating Brexit-related costs.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 30-03-2019 04:35PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'd ask for some proof.

To get 70% you'd need to count Labour as a Brexit party, it's only Corbyn & Co that want Brexit and even they are ambivalent as the real goal is a General Election.

To get to 70% I counted 70% constituencies who voted for Brexit. Labour voting constituencies included. Yes.

Besides it already happened.

UKIP are the only party to stand primarily on Brexit as the big issue have exactly Zero seats in the House of Commons.

The public are Bored of Brexit.

They are bored in the sense that they either want it to go through, or something to happen. A GE if Brexit doesn’t happen won’t be business as usual.

Meanwhile the media is biased, we know something in the order of a million people marched for revoke. I still haven't seen a count for the leave march.

The media need to say what the ratio was otherwise they have given both marches the same prominence.

The numbers on marches are totally irrelevant. And the idea that the media is biased is a belief common to both sides.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 30-03-2019 04:40PM

This is why a second referendum is important. If it happens people will revert, probably, to traditional parties.

Without a referendum the only way to overcome a no Brexit is via the normal political process. Which would mean a Brexit party would appear. And be a permanent fixture.

For the record this party would be a disaster. All at once British politics would be nationalist/globalist and not capitalist/socialist.

So Brexit needs to not happen but the mechanism of rejecting it is important.

judeboy101 · 30-03-2019 04:47PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who else sees the UK eventually apply for full EU membership once the folly of their present actions is realised? Guy Verhofstadt says it's possible but they'll lose all the privileges they previously had e.g the Pound will have to go.

I thought I read that "new members" of the EU must sign up to euro and shengan. One could argue that if uk seeks to re join they would technically not be new members, but rather old past members.

Sam Russell · 30-03-2019 04:55PM

judeboy101 wrote: »

I thought I read that "new members" of the EU must sign up to euro and shengan. One could argue that if uk seeks to re join they would technically not be new members, but rather old past members.

The Euro problem could be sorted by the GB£ being hard pegged to the Euro, so the UK keeps the GB£ but it is really a Euro currency, which is how the Danish and Swedish Kroner work.

Schengen can be sold as a better security border, as this is how it has worked because of the greater international security it has afforded.

I think that neither would be a biggie for the desperate UK should they wish to rejoin. Of course, if they are not desperate, the that would be different.

Professor Moriarty · 30-03-2019 05:05PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Euro problem could be sorted by the GB£ being hard pegged to the Euro, so the UK keeps the GB£ but it is really a Euro currency, which is how the Danish and Swedish Kroner work.

Schengen can be sold as a better security border, as this is how it has worked because of the greater international security it has afforded.

I think that neither would be a biggie for the desperate UK should they wish to rejoin. Of course, if they are not desperate, the that would be different.

It's not a given at all that they would reapply or be allowed back in. After Brexit, they will diverge from the EU across a variety of regulations, laws and agreements (think chlorinated chicken). All of which, plus new ones in which they had no input, would have to be reinstated.

Furthermore, any country can veto an application and many will harbour a lot of resentment towards Britain not least because Britain will have become a competitor - nevermind the time and money Brexit has cost EU countries. Personally, I think if they go they're gone for good.

PropJoe10 · 30-03-2019 05:11PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who else sees the UK eventually apply for full EU membership once the folly of their present actions is realised? Guy Verhofstadt says it's possible but they'll lose all the privileges they previously had e.g the Pound will have to go.

I couldn't imagine that. The British Empire would never admit that it's made an error such as that!

trellheim · 30-03-2019 05:11PM

a 2nd referendum with a 52-48 result in the other direction would be just as bad, if not worse, than the current. You'd need a 75-25 or 2/3 to 1/3 in favour for it to have any chance of acceptance.

Given the votes on Letwin during the week there is no chance of any of that, assuming the HoC as a representative body.

Where is the "Art of the Possible" here ? i.e. the sensible people who know that a deal HAS to be done . For me this is the appalling outcome here that this aspect of it, the "yes its not perfect but its whats possible"

This is what politicians are paid to do, when the arguing is done . Ours are no different.

30-03-2019 05:13PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Euro problem could be sorted by the GB£ being hard pegged to the Euro, so the UK keeps the GB£ but it is really a Euro currency, which is how the Danish and Swedish Kroner work.

Schengen can be sold as a better security border, as this is how it has worked because of the greater international security it has afforded.

I think that neither would be a biggie for the desperate UK should they wish to rejoin. Of course, if they are not desperate, the that would be different.

That was tried before, remember the ERM when the pound was tied to the ECU, the markets bet against the pound and forced it out.

As it is, if the UK leaves, they'll never sign up for full membership, the political fallout from such a move will drop any future UK government.

Irish Praetorian · 30-03-2019 05:15PM

trellheim wrote: »

a 2nd referendum with a 52-48 result in the other direction would be just as bad, if not worse, than the current. You'd need a 75-25 or 2/3 to 1/3 in favour for it to have any chance of acceptance.

Given the votes on Letwin during the week there is no chance of any of that, assuming the HoC as a representative body.

Where is the "Art of the Possible" here ? i.e. the sensible people who know that a deal HAS to be done . For me this is the appalling outcome here that this aspect of it, the "yes its not perfect but its whats possible"

This is what politicians are paid to do, when the arguing is done . Ours are no different.

The present polling suggest something like a ten point lead of Remain over Leave, which might end up further bifurcated if something like May's deal was included as part of an AV system.

Ultimately though I think the problem is that whichever side 'wins' there is going to be massive unrest and disaffection amongst their opponents - that being the case perhaps it make sense to come down on the result that promises only popular unrest, rather than popular unrest AND an enormous reconfiguration in the economic and political landscape.

joe40 · 30-03-2019 05:19PM

trellheim wrote: »

a 2nd referendum with a 52-48 result in the other direction would be just as bad, if not worse, than the current. You'd need a 75-25 or 2/3 to 1/3 in favour for it to have any chance of acceptance.

Given the votes on Letwin during the week there is no chance of any of that, assuming the HoC as a representative body.

Where is the "Art of the Possible" here ? i.e. the sensible people who know that a deal HAS to be done . For me this is the appalling outcome here that this aspect of it, the "yes its not perfect but its whats possible"

This is what politicians are paid to do, when the arguing is done . Ours are no different.

I don't think so. A remain vote however slender means the status quo in relation to EU stands.
There might be plenty of bickering but at least the lies that leaving the EU would be easy have been resoundingly debunked.
Staying is a lot easier than leaving.

marno21 · 30-03-2019 05:23PM

A second referendum of one option where all in favour are generally on the same page vs a range of diverse options all whittled into an option called "Leave" would be even more foolish than the first. It's a total non runner.

This mess will only get worse when the opposition are facilitating such a dysfunctional shambles being ran by some of the most incompetent charlatans imaginable. Aside from Johnson or Rees Mogg or the other hardliners, the opposition should be tearing apart the likes of Liam Fox, Chris Grayling, Dominic Raab, Karen Bradley for both their actions and words over the last while.

Professor Moriarty · 30-03-2019 05:27PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The present polling suggest something like a ten point lead of Remain over Leave, which might end up further bifurcated if something like May's deal was included as part of an AV system.

Ultimately though I think the problem is that whichever side 'wins' there is going to be massive unrest and disaffection amongst their opponents - that being the case perhaps it make sense to come down on the result that promises only popular unrest, rather than popular unrest AND an enormous reconfiguration in the economic and political landscape.

Actually, the average lead in 2019 polls is just 6%.

Irish Praetorian · 30-03-2019 05:41PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Actually, the average lead in 2019 polls is just 6%.

Can I trouble you for a source on that?

Professor Moriarty · 30-03-2019 05:44PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Can I trouble you for a source on that?

No problem - Here

Franz Von Peppercorn · 30-03-2019 05:51PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The present polling suggest something like a ten point lead of Remain over Leave, which might end up further bifurcated if something like May's deal was included as part of an AV system.

Ultimately though I think the problem is that whichever side 'wins' there is going to be massive unrest and disaffection amongst their opponents - that being the case perhaps it make sense to come down on the result that promises only popular unrest, rather than popular unrest AND an enormous reconfiguration in the economic and political landscape.

Some prior polling to the original referendum had that kind of margin. Internal Tory polling had it at 60-40, which is why Cameron had no backup plan. They underestimated people who didn’t normally vote. This time of course the remainer vote might be underestimated as they might be more energised to vote than last time.

A 2nd referendum is still a better option.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 30-03-2019 05:54PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No problem - Here

The dont knows seem to be breaking to leave over time.

Edit. Read that wrong. It’s fairly even.

Professor Moriarty · 30-03-2019 06:05PM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The dont knows seem to be breaking to leave over time.

Edit. Read that wrong. It’s fairly even.

It's interesting in that you can filter by polling company for even more consistency. Also, polls for the first three months of 2018 showed a lead of 2% for Remain compared to 6% for 2019.

Sam Russell · 30-03-2019 06:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That was tried before, remember the ERM when the pound was tied to the ECU, the markets bet against the pound and forced it out.

If it was tied to the Euro, it would be a Euro currency backed by the ECB and its big bazookas. No betting against them would win.

The ERM was the snake, and it did not work because all the currencies could move against each other. If the GB£ was pegged, it would be pegged no matter what. The BofE would be of the same status as the Central Bank of Ireland, or any other central bank in the Euro zone.

An Ciarraioch · 30-03-2019 06:49PM

Tim Shipman really appears to be taking the hump over the backstop:

http://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1112025988811112450

30-03-2019 06:50PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it was tied to the Euro, it would be a Euro currency backed by the ECB and its big bazookas. No betting against them would win.

The ERM was the snake, and it did not work because all the currencies could move against each other. If the GB£ was pegged, it would be pegged no matter what. The BofE would be of the same status as the Central Bank of Ireland, or any other central bank in the Euro zone.

Loss of control of the currency was one of the red lines to joining the Euro before Brexit, zero chance of that now.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-03-2019 07:20PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is not a problem of speculation or speculators. It's a practice that Brexit encourages and, for some companies, more or less forces.

The problem is that not just drug companies but companies in many other industries stockpiled perishable goods against the possiblity of a hard Brexit yesterday.

On the day the UK was supposed to leave they realise that there might be problems ?

It's almost as if they didn't think the whole thing through before triggering Article 50.

Peanut Butter Jelly · 30-03-2019 07:21PM

After the last few weeks, my mind goes back to the election in 2017. How different would all this have been had it never happened? To go from a single party majority to being in with the DUP, strengthened Labour presence in HoC, and this mess we now have to deal with. It might not have made any difference, but it's hard to believe it could have been any worse

30-03-2019 07:45PM

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

After the last few weeks, my mind goes back to the election in 2017. How different would all this have been had it never happened? To go from a single party majority to being in with the DUP, strengthened Labour presence in HoC, and this mess we now have to deal with. It might not have made any difference, but it's hard to believe it could have been any worse

If that GE had not been called, May's deal would have most likely passed (just) as they had an absolute majority and the hard Brexiteers would have insufficient numbers to block it.

FrancieBrady · 30-03-2019 07:47PM

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

After the last few weeks, my mind goes back to the election in 2017. How different would all this have been had it never happened? To go from a single party majority to being in with the DUP, strengthened Labour presence in HoC, and this mess we now have to deal with. It might not have made any difference, but it's hard to believe it could have been any worse

We'd be well into them getting owned in trade negotiations.

Water John · 30-03-2019 08:25PM

What majority did the Tories have prior to the 2017 GE? Numbers were small.
Not enough to take it out of the grip of the ERG. The DUP have only been a sideshow as they objected to the backstop. The ERG would have other issues and would not have supported the present Deal.
May calling the election was a big error but we would still be in the same place.

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments