Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Roanmore

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.

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is also the question of stuff that's transshipped.

Whatever about exemptions for stuff in direct transit if there's a Hard Brexit....

'No Deal'
The UK must use their WTO MFN tariffs from day one on all arrivals in the UK.
Some of the announced/planned UK import tariffs are zero, some are identical to the EU MFN tariffs.

Shipping from e.g. Rotterdam to the UK will not come under EU tariffs and I believe there are older rules for transit for goods on lorries as well.
Remember it's only EU rules that ceases to exist at Brexit day.

In the WA the transitional period(s) will follow after Brexit and make almost everything 'stay the same' until a trade agreement (the PD in legal form) takes over.

Lars

reslfj

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

trellheim

Yeah as I said above used car sales at the moment from UK to ROI should be going great guns for the next few weeks but after that it will be interesting.


One point above ref weakness of other EU economies - yes to some extent, but you still dont see them putting in an A50 notice, Greece had every opportunity to do so and did not, and neither did any of the PIGS including Ireland , better in the tent than out

I think the Tories with the referendum tried to solve an internal issue to deal with the anti-EU cabal but instead opened Pandora's box and in so doing changed the face of the UK political system forever. They cannot go back to the old ways in any shape or form .

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 "

LuckyLloyd

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

Larbre34 wrote: »

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.

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.

LuckyLloyd

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.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

Indeed, the moment No Deal is confirmed, panic starts to set in. This could be a full two or three weeks before October 31. The idea that things will be nice and calm up to that day is clearly nonsense.

trashcan

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

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.

prawnsambo

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.

Stop moaning ffs

So the de facto PM Cummings lived in Russia for three years and this...not suspicious at all.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1160083630473064448?s=21

Bit cynical

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?

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

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.

But that's the problem with the HoC. A government without a majority, an opposition that seems to turn a blind eye to members defying the whip (similar on the government side to be fair) and a significant number of MPs who don't know the basics of what they're debating or deciding and even voting the wrong way by accident. It's quite the perfect storm. So making predictions about anything that might come out of there is a fool's errand.

One thing of note though. Each time the WA was put to a vote, the margin of its defeat decreased exponentially. I joked at the time that a fourth attempt would carry, but it was just 32 votes (iirc) at the end. That's pretty close in the circumstances.

fash

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

prawnsambo wrote: »

But that's the problem with the HoC. A government without a majority, an opposition that seems to turn a blind eye to members defying the whip (similar on the government side to be fair) and a significant number of MPs who don't know the basics of what they're debating or deciding and even voting the wrong way by accident. It's quite the perfect storm. So making predictions about anything that might come out of there is a fool's errand.

One thing of note though. Each time the WA was put to a vote, the margin of its defeat decreased exponentially. I joked at the time that a fourth attempt would carry, but it was just 32 votes (iirc) at the end. That's pretty close in the circumstances.

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.

prawnsambo

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.

54and56

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.

Correct.

The EU are concerned about the effects of a no deal Brexit but have planned well and know that they have the strength to manage it and pull through.

The UK on the other hand, despite bluster and bravado, know deep down the effects will be devastating and whilst Mays threats about no deal rang hollow now that the ERG are running the country and BoJo is their puppet the markets and population in general are beginning to panic.

54and56

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!!!

Stop moaning ffs

54&56 wrote: »

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!!!

We can all probably safely predict it’ll fall ever further through the floor I’d guess

briany

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.

prawnsambo

briany wrote: »

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.

I read somewhere that he didn't anticipate winning the election outright and having to form another coalition with the LibDems. So in what he's pleased to call his mind, he was making a promise that he thought he would never have to keep. But events dear boy, events...

MrMusician18

54&56 wrote: »

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!!!

They mightn't have known for certain but if the rhetoric continues (and there is every expectation that it will), Sterling will continue to slide and go into a full blown currency crisis as no deal is cemented at the conservative party conference.

Just because posters may not have the means to bet against Sterling, or the appetite for the risk, doesn't mean that posters cannot see where this is going.

I suspect that if there is any strategy, it will be based on pushing the value of Sterling as low as possible and just before an announcement that either a deal has been agreed or Brexit is cancelled/postponed, they'll buy up as much as possible to dump a few days later at a significantly higher price.

So anything that deviates from the expected no deal path will be a real roller coaster ride for Sterling.

briany

prawnsambo wrote: »

I read somewhere that he didn't anticipate winning the election outright and having to form another coalition with the LibDems. So in what he's pleased to call his mind, he was making a promise that he thought he would never have to keep. But events dear boy, events...

Even if there had been another coalition, I highly doubt that Conservative voters would have forgiven him, or the general party by extension, if he'd let the Lib Dems take Brexit away. With the party haemorrhaging support to UKIP at the time, Brexit was not an issue that was going to go away so easily.

In any case, he mustn't have read any polling data before the 2015 GE, if he thought the LDs were even viable. He and his party had spent that whole term basically castrating the LDs, and they crucially made the LDs renege on a crucial promise around tuition fees, which really hurt them with younger voters. Opinion polls before the 2015 election showed their support in free-fall as opposed to 2010.

Leroy42

Even if Cameron was caught out by the election result, look at what they did with the election system ref they pulled over the Lib Dems.

There was so many ways they could have delivered on the promise but has things turn out differently.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

I read somewhere that he didn't anticipate winning the election outright and having to form another coalition with the LibDems. So in what he's pleased to call his mind, he was making a promise that he thought he would never have to keep. But events dear boy, events...

Even allowing for his 'pledge', he could have delayed the referendum for a year, changed the wording on the ballot paper, refused to rule out a second referendum etc. He made mistake after mistake after mistake.

He told the UK public the referendum was binding (a barefaced lie), the result would be implemented no matter what and there could be no second referendum....and promptly effed off the moment the result came in.

Joe_ Public

Another incredible thing is that there was no implicit mechanism for hedging their bets. Even if he 1. never thought the referendum would ever happen and 2. they'd win it anyway, any amateur would cop that, as a last resort, you give yourself an out and the out in this case was specifying the need for a confirmatory vote on whatever deal they subsequently concluded. Even Dominic Cummings conceded this was the likely path before the vote. But arrogant Dave assures the public it'll be a once-off vote and whatever they decide will be enacted by the politicians.

Stop moaning ffs

The chancellor of the exchequer has announced millions of 50p brexit coins are to be minted. Truly madly deeply bonkers. All of it.

https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1160248095583735808?s=21

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Another incredible thing is that there was no implicit mechanism for hedging their bets. Even if he 1. never thought the referendum would ever happen and 2. they'd win it anyway, any amateur would cop that, as a last resort, you give yourself an out and the out in this case was specifying the need for a confirmatory vote on whatever deal they subsequently concluded. Even Dominic Cummings conceded this was the likely path before the vote. But arrogant Dave assures the public it'll be a once-off vote and whatever they decide will be enacted by the politicians.

He could have said something like 'I won't hold a second referendum but of course I can't rule out what my successor or future PMs might do'. His arrogance was off the scale.