Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation · 10-08-2019 10:42AM

Jizique wrote: »

Weapons.
Loads of shiny weapons to despots.
And coal, possibly.
And jam

Despots of Jam?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you living in the UK?

I was in Florence a few months after the referendum and was horrified when I was getting only about 98c for every £1 from the ATM's there. Obviously, there's rates and fees involved but it was still a shock.

Further to what Sam has said above grab something like Revolut as well for such trips. I use it all the time for Sterling transactions or trips north.

Borderhopper · 10-08-2019 10:50AM

Jizique wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

What are they going to export?

Weapons.
Loads of shiny weapons to despots.
And coal, possibly.
And jam

Both weapons and jam require imports. Especially the type of weapons despots want to buy

Shelga · 10-08-2019 11:11AM

I realise a second referendum seems to have completely fallen out of the discussion of potential solutions, and a GE is far more likely, but what about, as I heard someone (I think it was a Labour MP but not sure about this) a public vote where the only two options are no deal or remain?

Risky? Yes, very- but it seems no deal is extremely likely at this point anyway, so what do they have to lose. I also think now that sterling is plummeting and average British people are feeling it in their pockets, a higher remain vote is likely.

It also is the only option that would decisively shut up Farage and his cronies- after all, they say no deal is The One True Brexit, so if the result is 60/40 in favour of Remain, when faced with these two options, how can they ever say again that there is a decisive mandate for Brexit?

I never would have thought any government would ever put no deal on a ballot paper, but when the stakes are this big, you have to do something drastic.

*edit* and yes it would be divisive, but personally I'd prefer it to a GE where both main parties are dire beyond belief.

54and56 · 10-08-2019 11:18AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I've been considering booking 2020 holidays now to avail of the early prices, but looking at how sterling is tanking, I'm wondering if I'd be better holding off for a bit yet?

In my mind (for all that's worth:)) surely if sterling is going to reach parity with the euro (and possibly even fall below it) - then the cost of a foreign holiday to stg earners is going to become phenomenally expensive.

You would have to imagine that, in an effort to still be able to still attract the Brits, holiday operators will lower their euro prices to attract them?

Wishful thinking perhaps?

I'm doing exactly this for 2020. The holiday company I book with has .ie, .co.uk, .de etc websites all selling the same French campsite holidays and I'm hoping they will pare their UK pricing to the bone in order to keep that (substantial) part of their business thus allowing me to book and pay via Sterling. If there is a no deal Brexit I'm guessing end of Jan/Feb should be a good time to reap my own personal Brexit dividend!!!

54and56 · 10-08-2019 11:19AM

The reality of Brexit is beginning.

https://twitter.com/EuropeanPenguin/status/1159910714712178688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1159910714712178688&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Fcodq1r%3Fresponsive%3Dtrue%26is_nightmode%3Dtrue

Professor Moriarty · 10-08-2019 11:21AM

54&56 wrote: »

I'm doing exactly this for 2020. The holiday company I book with has .ie, .co.uk, .de etc websites all selling the same French campsite holidays and I'm hoping they will pare their UK pricing to the bone in order to keep that (substantial) part of their business thus allowing me to book and pay via Sterling. If there is a no deal Brexit I'm guessing end of Jan/Feb should be a good time to reap my own personal Brexit dividend!!!

You might want to factor in the odds on a No Deal Brexit on 31st October. You can get No Deal at even money today.

Seth Brundle · 10-08-2019 12:02PM

Shelga wrote: »

I realise a second referendum seems to have completely fallen out of the discussion of potential solutions, and a GE is far more likely, but what about, as I heard someone (I think it was a Labour MP but not sure about this) a public vote where the only two options are no deal or remain?

Risky? Yes, very- but it seems no deal is extremely likely at this point anyway, so what do they have to lose. I also think now that sterling is plummeting and average British people are feeling it in their pockets, a higher remain vote is likely.

It also is the only option that would decisively shut up Farage and his cronies- after all, they say no deal is The One True Brexit, so if the result is 60/40 in favour of Remain, when faced with these two options, how can they ever say again that there is a decisive mandate for Brexit?

I never would have thought any government would ever put no deal on a ballot paper, but when the stakes are this big, you have to do something drastic.

*edit* and yes it would be divisive, but personally I'd prefer it to a GE where both main parties are dire beyond belief.

The political landscape there is so toxic currently that it would not be an impartial referendum.
The Brits need an impartial referendum commission to inform people of the different impacts from each voting option in the same way that our Ref Comm does.
Without the voters being correctly informed, the whole event would be pointless and would probably end up with a no deal crash out.

Bit cynical · 10-08-2019 12:23PM

I presume these suggestions are being addressed at the UK parliament?

johnnyskeleton · 10-08-2019 12:24PM

Sitting in traffic on a bus this afternoon, reading the last few days musings by Brexiteers on how Ireland is foolish, arrogant, trying to trap Britain etc, I started wondering:

What if Ireland was leaving the EU and trying to find a solution to the border?

In such a scenario, I am as certain as could be that the UK would insist on a backstop type arrangement as a minimjm, and would probably try to go further. They would hiss and moan and rail against the sky about Ireland being unreasonable, just as they are now.

I say this because its clear to most here that no matter what happens, the British political establishment will try anger and bluster to try to get their way.

Also, I think it would be an interesting question to put to Brexiteers as to what they would do if Ireland was leaving, though they would probably lie and say that they would agree to what they are asking for at the moment!

murphaph · 10-08-2019 12:24PM

Borderhopper wrote: »

Both weapons and jam require imports. Especially the type of weapons despots want to buy

I'm guessing UK based arms manufacturers will price in dollars and so import prices are less of an issue and they can pay less for their workforce who will of course be paid in sterling.

Seth Brundle · 10-08-2019 12:27PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I presume these suggestions are being addressed at the UK parliament?

Nope, they're too busy enjoying their well earned holidays...
https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

20silkcut · 10-08-2019 12:29PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Sitting in traffic on a bus this afternoon, reading the last few days musings by Brexiteers on how Ireland is foolish, arrogant, trying to trap Britain etc, I started wondering:

What if Ireland was leaving the EU and trying to find a solution to the border?

In such a scenario, I am as certain as could be that the UK would insist on a backstop type arrangement as a minimjm, and would probably try to go further. They would hiss and moan and rail against the sky about Ireland being unreasonable, just as they are now.

I say this because its clear to most here that no matter what happens, the British political establishment will try anger and bluster to try to get their way.

Also, I think it would be an interesting question to put to Brexiteers as to what they would do if Ireland was leaving, though they would probably lie and say that they would agree to what they are asking for at the moment!

In 1920 they sent in the Black and Tans to stop us leaving.

In 1969 they sent in 30,000 troops to protect their union so I think we know the answer.
They would most definitely not make things easy for us and would create the hardest border possible between us.

Bit cynical · 10-08-2019 12:37PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Nope, they're too busy enjoying their well earned holidays...
https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/recess-dates/

True they are not in session at present but they will be.

It is just that when people suggest a second referendum or whatever, who are they imagining carrying out that suggestion?

If people think the UK parliament are wondering how to avoid a no deal brexit, why did this same parliament collectively vote against the deal when it was presented to them?

CelticRambler · 10-08-2019 12:41PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

In my mind (for all that's worth:)) surely if sterling is going to reach parity with the euro (and possibly even fall below it) - then the cost of a foreign holiday to stg earners is going to become phenomenally expensive.

You would have to imagine that, in an effort to still be able to still attract the Brits, holiday operators will lower their euro prices to attract them?

Only if the tour operator caters exclusively to the British market (and why would you want to spend your holiday with a load of Brits? :pac: ) Here in France, the number of British holiday makers is already noticeably less, partly due to Brexit, partly due to the heatwave/"good enough" weather back home.

The heatwave wasn't foreseen, but the impact of Brexit was, and hotels and EU-based tour operators have been taking steps to mitigate the effect of a Brexit-related downturn on their industry. Premium destinations will still attract well-off Brits who'll pay and do whatever to get their visas and pet healthchecks sorted out; bargain basement destinations operating on razor-thin margins will simply go out of business; in between, you'll see precious little change.

Shelga · 10-08-2019 12:43PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

True they are not in session at present but they will be.

It is just that when people suggest a second referendum or whatever, who are they imagining carrying out that suggestion?

If people think the UK parliament are wondering how to avoid a no deal brexit, why did this same parliament collectively vote against the deal when it was presented to them?

If parliament has voted against the only deal on offer, the only alternative is no deal. When parliament is stuck, surely the logical next step is to go back to the people. I don’t see how the loon Brexiters can argue if the only Brexit option on the ballot is the most insane one, preferred by them.

Professor Moriarty · 10-08-2019 12:46PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

True they are not in session at present but they will be.

It is just that when people suggest a second referendum or whatever, who are they imagining carrying out that suggestion?

If people think the UK parliament are wondering how to avoid a no deal brexit, why did this same parliament collectively vote against the deal when it was presented to them?

Ideology, Europhobia, Europhilia, intra-party politics and interparty politics.

brickster69 · 10-08-2019 12:49PM

Had to laugh at some of the posts about the UK going into recession. Remember when the UK in Q1 had an unexpected rise in GDP. Everyone was saying it was only because of stockpiling for 31/3.
Now it has fallen 0.2% for the first time in 36 months, the UK is being attacked by a swarm of locusts.

No one has suggested maybe stockpiling in Q1 was the reason for the fall in Q2. Another rise in Q3 is a certainty again due to stockpiling for 31/10.

Not one word about Germany's .2% fall also i notice.

Bit cynical · 10-08-2019 12:49PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ideology, Europhobia, Europhilia, intra-party politics and interparty politics.

If that is so, and assuming we think that the solution needs to be delivered by the UK parliament, why do we think that they are open to suggestions as a group?

Professor Moriarty · 10-08-2019 12:51PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

If that is so, and assuming we think that the solution needs to be delivered by the UK parliament, why do we think that they are open to suggestions?

Because the situation is so fluid and circumstances have changed utterly since the last WA vote.

10000maniacs · 10-08-2019 12:55PM

Borderhopper wrote: »

Was this not in part due to the introduction of QE in the UK? Just saying, this previous low was something under their control, whereas the current slide is in the hands of the markets, which are not known for their regards for national economies?

Reducing the feasible level of interest rates that is currently at 0.75% means that when the inevitable Brexit recession hits, the Bank Of England will have little scope for doing very much about it apart from printing more money.
You can only print so much money to run to stand still, but some economists have suggested negative interest rates could be the norm in the coming years in a no deal scenario.

Professor Moriarty · 10-08-2019 12:57PM

brickster69 wrote: »

Had to laugh at some of the posts about the UK going into recession. Remember when the UK in Q1 had an unexpected rise in GDP. Everyone was saying it was only because of stockpiling for 31/3.
Now it has fallen 0.2% for the first time in 36 months, the UK is being attacked by a swarm of locusts.

No one has suggested maybe stockpiling in Q1 was the reason for the fall in Q2. Another rise in Q3 is a certainty again due to stockpiling for 31/10.

Not one word about Germany's .2% fall also i notice.

Official government predictions state that Britain is going into recession. That recession will be greatly exacerbated by crashing out. Why not start a thread on Germany's economy.

Bit cynical · 10-08-2019 12:58PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because the situation is so fluid and circumstances have changed utterly since the last WA vote.

But parliament, through their vote against the deal brought about this situation. Although not everything could be predicted, it would have been generally known that voting against the deal would have rendered Theresa May's position untenable resulting in a leadership election. And, although the result of that election could not have been predicted exactly, Johnson would always have been among the frontrunners. Yet they voted against the deal, the deal we are saying is the only deal possible. And now we expect them to exhibit foresight as a group?

prawnsambo · 10-08-2019 01:06PM

brickster69 wrote: »

No one has suggested maybe stockpiling in Q1 was the reason for the fall in Q2. Another rise in Q3 is a certainty again due to stockpiling for 31/10.

So flatten it out over the two quarters and get a total of 0.3%. Not very pretty either. Your forecast for Q3 is pure guesswork based on nothing. Because if you read the assessments, there's no spare capacity for further stockpiling.

Professor Moriarty · 10-08-2019 01:07PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

But parliament, through their vote against the deal brought about this situation. Although not everything could be predicted, it would have been generally known that voting against the deal would have rendered Theresa May's position untenable resulting in a leadership election. Although the result of that election could not have been predicted exactly, Johnson would always have been among the frontrunners. Yet they voted against the deal. And now we expect them to exhibit foresight as a group?

When they last voted, May was PM. It was last March. Nobody could have or should have voted on the basis that Johnson might be elected PM in July. In fact, Johnson voted for the agreement in March.

Water John · 10-08-2019 01:21PM

A good example of, when zealots take control is the State of Kansas in the USA. Absolutely devastated its economy. Same is going to happen in the UK. Sterling collapse is just the tip of the iceberg.

Javid says'the fundamentals are sound'. I think we in Ireland are familiar with that phrase.

Bit cynical · 10-08-2019 01:22PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

When they last voted, May was PM. It was last March. Nobody could have or should have voted on the basis that Johnson might be elected PM in July. In fact, Johnson voted for the agreement in March.

I think however it is reasonable to assume that successive rejection of the deal would eventually lead to May going and a leadership election as a consequence and most MPs would have known this. And in parliamentary circles they may not have known who would win exactly but they would have know the type of Tory likely to win and Johnson himself did rate highly among the bookies.

But even without those assumptions, if you were a parliamentarian and your goal was to bring about a no deal brexit (such as the ERG), you would have voted exactly the same as parliament voted as a whole. Obviously. How else would you vote? And the fact that remainers like Grieve as well as remainers in the Labour party are voting the same way, even better! You would have fairly justifiable contempt for those other people.

Professor Moriarty · 10-08-2019 01:45PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think however it is reasonable to assume that successive rejection of the deal would eventually lead to May going and a leadership election as a consequence and most MPs would have known this. And in parliamentary circles they may not have known who would win exactly but they would have know the type of Tory likely to win and Johnson himself did rate highly among the bookies.

But even without those assumptions, if you were a parliamentarian and your goal was to bring about a no deal brexit (such as the ERG), you would have voted exactly the same as parliament voted as a whole. Obviously. How else would you vote? And the fact that remainers like Grieve as well as remainers in the Labour party are voting the same way, even better! You would have fairly justifiable contempt for those other people.

I don't agree for the reasons I outlined. Some people voted according to the whip. Some for internal and external party reasons. Some because they wanted Remain. Some because they wanted a hard Brexit. These people voted on what they knew then. Nobody knew what was going to happen. May could have called an election. The DUP could have flounced. She might have lost a No Confidence vote. Anything could have happened. Hindsight is 20/20 vision.

The contempt that MPs have for each other is pushing Britain along a very dangerous path. It's polarised more now than I can ever remember.

brickster69 · 10-08-2019 01:59PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

So flatten it out over the two quarters and get a total of 0.3%. Not very pretty either. Your forecast for Q3 is pure guesswork based on nothing. Because if you read the assessments, there's no spare capacity for further stockpiling.

You do know that the total 2019 forecast for growth for the entire Eurozone is 1.2%. Not that pretty either is it ?

Strazdas · 10-08-2019 02:01PM

I sense there is a fair bit more panic and alarm in the UK right now than there was in the run up to March 31. Ironically, the new hard Brexit government and Johnson's rhetoric seems to be spooking British people a lot more.

Larbre34 · 10-08-2019 02:15PM

Strazdas wrote: »

I sense there is a fair bit more panic and alarm in the UK right now than there was in the run up to March 31. Ironically, the new hard Brexit government and Johnson's rhetoric seems to be spooking British people a lot more.

With good reason.

All bluffs should now be called. Let them crash out, let Boris take them over the edge and end the careers of himself and Gove and JRM and Farage and Cash and Hoey and Leadsom and all the rest and after the riots and the constitutional crisis, the emergency government of national unity under PM Keir Starmer and deputies Swinson and Sturgeon can sign a deal returning the UK to the SM and CU prior to rejoining the EU on a 3 year fast-track process.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments