Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

brickster69 wrote: »

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

The eurozone is a lot of countries. Kind of apples and oranges.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

What will the pound be worth come October 31st if it’s at parity with the euro now?
Will it bounce back before then does anyone know?

It would require some good news. Very good news. Not sure anything short of revocation would reverse the trend. Although a GE might give a fillip, but only if it's to happen before B-day 3.

Strazdas wrote: »

The talk that Johnson can hold a GE on November 1st but that nobody will have noticed the effects of No Deal is probably naive. Things would almost certainly be very chaotic in the fortnight up to October 31 and the pound will have fallen through the floor.

Yep. If he calls an election for any date after October 31st, that's it, game over, pound collapses and exporters will actually cease trading with the UK. Not necessarily because of freight or customs issues, but because of the currency losses that could ensue. Unless they insist on being paid in euros. Up front.

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.

Not too sure what media you're listening to but most of the reports I heard said it was due to the stockpiling ending.

Roanmore wrote: »

Not too sure what media you're listening to but most of the reports I heard said it was due to the stockpiling ending.

And the auto makes yearly maintenance periods moved forward from summer to April.

I think there may well be high economic activity up to a 'No Deal' as the auto makers and others try to get as many cars build and out of the UK, before Brexit day.

This may help in Q3, but the high activity may also be split over later Q3 and October and show up differently in the recession statistics.

Lars

brickster69 wrote: »

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

So your answer to the UK being in negative growth is to highlight the Eurozone experiencing positive growth?

briany wrote: »

It is my understanding (and could therefore be wrong) that there is no meaningful distinction to be made between joining and rejoining the EU. That would mean that the UK would not be able to regain its current opt-outs in the case that they applied to join again.

What this says, to me, is that staying in the EU, and joining the EU again, are two quite different conversations for the UK. It's also what makes the Brexiteer point of "...well, we can have another referendum in ten years, if Brexit is unsuccessful." a disingenuous overture to the Remain side, and I believe a very deliberate one, and you'd better believe that if and when the UK does leave, all campaigning to rejoin will be met with, "The UK will have to join Schengen - hello, completely uncontrolled immigration. The UK will have to join the Euro - so long, our Great British Pound. The UK will have to sign up to every bit of EU integration, etc. etc.". That's exactly what Farage and JRM, et all will pivot to on 1/11, and it'll fracture the Remain crowd into the hardcore, who Farage will make great sport of laughing at, and the disengaged.

So, the stakes are very high, if you're a Remain supporter in the UK. Things will never be able to go back to how they were, even if the UK wants to join again. It would be a much more desperate country that would be coming back to the table, and, really, would the EU even accept such a rogue state? Doubtful.

Good post. If you’re a young person in England right now you should be extremely active and disruptive in your protest. If you let this slip away it’s gone.

trellheim wrote: »

If I had a flux capacitor/DeLorean going back and getting Craig Oliver to throw a milkbottle at Cameron's head whenever the idea of a referendum came up "bad idea, yes I know you promised but so what it was just to other MPs, they don't matter and for sure there's more important stuff, lets get back to that wheeze of ruining the lib dems with tuition fees "

I wonder in reflective quiet moments does Cameron ask himself, "what the hell was I thinking?" Apart from anything else, he ruined his own political career. Not that I have any sympathy for him of course.

Water John wrote: »

I think people are more trying to figure out what Cummings/Johnson have in mind rather than stating what may or may not happen to the economy or supply lines before or after the 31st Oct.
Is the plan to have a GE before or after that date? All the signs are, that is the Plan.
Obviously things are likely to unravel. Whether that is before or after the 31st is another question. From the sterling fall it's beginning to look like the sh1t will hit the fan sooner than they thought or planned for.

Which is why I think they'll hold the election before b-day 3. Too risky otherwise.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

I agree that probably the majority of Labour would have voted according to the whip. But that just means that it was the Labour leadership had either questionable understanding or questionable motives as opposed to individual MPs. And let us assume for the sake of argument that internal and external party reasons are predominant in many MPs' decision making. Then this too points to a body that can't be trusted with important executive decisions. I don't want to singleout the UK parliament here. It is probably true of most parliaments which is why they elect a government.

Yes there's a degree of hindsight involved in this but I think even here in Ireland, well outside the world of Westminster politics there was a sense that when the first vote against the deal came in, that this was not good news. I think we could also tell back then that the ERG, seeking a more complete separation from the EU, were one of the happier groups at that time.

This comes back to the original question. When people propose solutions, who is it they imagine listening to those proposals and possibly carrying them out?

trellheim wrote: »

If I had a flux capacitor/DeLorean going back and getting Craig Oliver to throw a milkbottle at Cameron's head whenever the idea of a referendum came up "bad idea, yes I know you promised but so what it was just to other MPs, they don't matter and for sure there's more important stuff, lets get back to that wheeze of ruining the lib dems with tuition fees "

... He could have told the MPs that the exact form of brexit had to be decided beforehand by the MPs [Norway, Turkey etc.) - or that the vote itself would contain (say 5) options and that it would need to individually pass on all 4 countries within the UK and there would need to be a minimum 66% vote to change the status quo and that the vote would be held on a Friday (when students were more likely to vote) etc.
Lots of ways to even comply with his promise yet win.

Bit cynical wrote: »

There was a prediction that could be made however. If you voted for the deal then quite likely given that the UK government were proposing it, you could predict that it would be put into force. Voting against it you could predict uncertainty and the possibility of exiting with no deal.

The problem with the HoC and parliaments in general is that the buck doesn't stop anywhere with the decisions they make.

Like I say the reason I'm on about this is that when people post solutions, who are the suggestions aimed at? It seems to me that it can only be either Johnson's government or the UK parliament who could carry them out. Johnson has made his position fairly clear and the UK parliament can't make decisions.

The solution has to come from outside. But the same people are usually in favour of no change in outside forces: no change to EU or Irish stances.

The solution does not have to come from outside. The UK have spent three years painting themselves into a corner. Only they can get themselves out of it. Parliament is sovereign after all. And what solution can be offered that appeases all the cats in the bag? Abolishing the backstop has now been rejected as a solution and new obstacles presented.

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

What will the pound be worth come October 31st if it’s at parity with the euro now?
Will it bounce back before then does anyone know?

I'm very confident that anyone who knew for certain what Sterling is going to do between now and Oct 31st isn't posting on this thread, that's for sure!!!

fash wrote: »

... He could have told the MPs that the exact form of brexit had to be decided beforehand by the MPs [Norway, Turkey etc.) - or that the vote itself would contain (say 5) options and that it would need to individually pass on all 4 countries within the UK and there would need to be a minimum 66% vote to change the status quo and that the vote would be held on a Friday (when students were more likely to vote) etc.
Lots of ways to even comply with his promise yet win.

I really have to wonder if there was something more going on than met the eye with Cameron's approach. I just mean that he couldn't have been so dumb as not to consider the fractiousness invoked by Scotland voting very differently to England, for example. Or, yes, that the question on the ballot was much too simple, and that the conditions around the referendum were much too simple.

But Brexiteers will not hear any criticism whatsoever. They won't accept, for example, that remaining in the EEA would fulfil the 2016 ref to the very letter. They can't seem to process that the EEA and EU are not one and the same. They cannot process the idea that maybe, just maybe, there has been a massive political change incoming for pro-EU Scotland, such that they may have a case to review the question of independence. Oh, no. No, it's just Wee Jimmy Krankie stirring the pot.

The way to do Brexit was this: A simple majority throughout the UK, plus a majority of constituent countries. Why does this work? Well, it's a way to test the feeling of the UK, overall, but virtually every Brexiteer would at least claim to be a patriot of the UK, and therefore would be forced to stop and have a more sensible conversation if their plans meant the breakup of the UK. This would buy time to also talk about Brexit as a whole as well.

But the leaders of Brexit never wanted that. They wanted, and still do want, everything to happen as fast as possible before there's time to think about things too much. They know they're in a nose dive towards their goal and all they need to do is keep their fingertips on the stick until the 31st of October. Once they plummet into the ground, they'll stand up, smile, dust themselves off and become the 'reasonable' ones, since it will then be they who represent the new order in the UK.