Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Don said:
Yup.

There has been literally no effort to do anything else. This leads me to think that a no-deal Brexit and the associated turmoil is what the architects of Brexit had in mind all along and that the last three and a bit years have just been an exercise in trying to move the blame onto everyone else.

After all, if the architects of Brexit wanted anything other than a no-deal, they could have had the ERG vote in favour of Theresa May's deal and then moved the negotiations so as to get the kind of post-Brexit deal they thought ideal.

The real shame is that enough of the UK electorate have now been convinced that

  • Brexit is desirable/inevitable regardless of the type of Brexit
  • A no-deal Brexit would at worst be a slight inconvenience
  • The Labour Party are dangerous and must not form a government at all costs
  • Blame for a no-deal belongs somewhere else than squarely on the shoulders of the Brexiteers
Click to expand...

I've seen it said that there will be some benefit for some people from No Deal. Something to do with stocks or something.

As you can tell, I know very little about this so can't say how credible this theory is or not, but I've definitely seen it said that it could be entirely deliberate because it would benefit a very few rich people.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I've seen it said that there will be some benefit for some people from No Deal. Something to do with stocks or something.

As you can tell, I know very little about this so can't say how credible this theory is or not, but I've definitely seen it said that it could be entirely deliberate because it would benefit a very few rich people.
Click to expand...

Yes, a number of high profile Brexiteers, including Jacob Rees Mogg, have substantial interests in hedge funds. Hedge funds are investment funds which also take "bets" on the market and/or currencies. A lot of these hedge funds seem to be betting that the pound and UK stock markets will be going down in value over the next few months. The worse the effects of a no-deal Brexit, the further the pound and UK stock markets are likely to drop and the greater the return on those bets are likely to be. This is an example of the short-term benefits of a disorderly Brexit to a few rich individuals.

In the medium term there are some additional likely benefits. Many companies and/or individuals may find themselves in the situation that they need to dispose of assets in a hurry - and therefore below true market value. Rich people, especially those who have done rather nicely out of betting on the market going down, will be able to snap up those assets with a view to selling them on at a significant profit.

In the longer term, the UK economy will move to being a low-cost, low regulation, low-benefit economy competing with the developing world on price (rather than the developed world on quality and innovation). Many of those same rich people will benefit from an economy like this, because it tends to increase wealth inequality.

An ugly Brexit is likely to be gravy all the way for "vulture capitalists" :(
 
“The EU know our position. Lots of the detail has been talked through at both technical and political level, and actually the framework, as I have just described it, is very clear.

“Of course, the nature of these negotiations is that there will be a tendency to try and rubbish things we put forward in order to exact further demands. We’re not going to get involved in that.”

Raab argued that the EU’s complaints about a lack of detail masked an unwillingness in Brussels to move on its own positions. “We’ve been clear on all of this in the talks, and we’ll continue to flesh out and be able to respond to any questions.

“But of course at some point the EU is going to have to put up it hands and say: ‘OK, we know that there’s the requirement for some pragmatism and flexibility to get this deal over the line.’”
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...u-of-political-posturing-before-johnson-talks

Leavers can't just stop pushing these narratives of wishful thinking where it's up to the EU to be "flexible" and give into whatever the UK is offering, because not doing so would have negative consequences.

The backstop was Britain's idea of "solving" the Irish border issue and if they somehow object to their own ideas it's up to them to come up with another solution that does just that.

It's not the EU's responsibility to swallow whatever half-baked ideas the UK has hastily written down on a napkin just to come to an accord, nor is it the EU's responsibility to minimize the importance of the Irish border as if it was just an afterthought of no consequence.
 
angrysoba said:
Maybe Cummings isn’t nearly as smart as his reputation that’s been bolstered by his portrayal by Engelbert Humperdinck and been bought into by much of the media.
Click to expand...

I doubt he is, but I think the C4 drama did actually hint that in the coda set at the "future" inquiry, where he refused to accept his theory - about what would happen after the referendum but didn't - was wrong.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Yes, but how much suffering before this happens?

My own country had a similar "Constitutional Mess" back in the 1860's, and it was surmounted, but at a horrendous cost ,and we are still feeling the effects today.
Click to expand...

This does feel like a bit of lost cause give in, though. It is bringing up the idea that the civil war was a constitutional issue and really it wasn't the states rights issue the south's lost cause propaganda portrays it as. I mean they had already gotten it so that slavery was legal in all states by the time they had their fit over the rightful subjugation of the negro by the superior white race.
 
Arcade22 said:
The backstop was Britain's idea of "solving" the Irish border issue and if they somehow object to their own ideas it's up to them to come up with another solution that does just that.

It's not the EU's responsibility to swallow whatever half-baked ideas the UK has hastily written down on a napkin just to come to an accord, nor is it the EU's responsibility to minimize the importance of the Irish border as if it was just an afterthought of no consequence.
Click to expand...

I thought I'd just pop in to look at what was going on here about Brexit. Much the same as anywhere else, I discover. I'm actually fed up of having to counteract this nonsense. So here goes ... THE BACKSTOP WAS NOT PROPOSED BY THE UK. Look here - from an article from RTE, not famous for being a British institution ...

"The backstop was born on 8 November 2017.
It entered the world weighing just 66 words, one bullet point of six at the bottom of a "working paper" circulated that morning by Michel Barnier's team to officials from the 27 member states. "
 
mkg said:
I thought I'd just pop in to look at what was going on here about Brexit. Much the same as anywhere else, I discover. I'm actually fed up of having to counteract this nonsense. So here goes ... THE BACKSTOP WAS NOT PROPOSED BY THE UK. Look here - from an article from RTE, not famous for being a British institution ...

"The backstop was born on 8 November 2017.
It entered the world weighing just 66 words, one bullet point of six at the bottom of a "working paper" circulated that morning by Michel Barnier's team to officials from the 27 member states. "
Click to expand...

You should have read a little further:

'The bullet point read: "It consequently seems essential for the UK to commit to ensuring that a hard border on the island of Ireland is avoided, including by ensuring no emergence of regulatory divergence from those rules of the internal market and the Customs Union which are (or may be in the future) necessary for meaningful North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement." '

The nature of the backstop is the UK's responsibility, and so far we've signally failed to come up with a workable solution.
 
mkg said:
I thought I'd just pop in to look at what was going on here about Brexit. Much the same as anywhere else, I discover. I'm actually fed up of having to counteract this nonsense. So here goes ... THE BACKSTOP WAS NOT PROPOSED BY THE UK. Look here - from an article from RTE, not famous for being a British institution ...

"The backstop was born on 8 November 2017.
It entered the world weighing just 66 words, one bullet point of six at the bottom of a "working paper" circulated that morning by Michel Barnier's team to officials from the 27 member states. "
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that with only 18 posts, mkg isn't able to post links, so here it is:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1019/1005373-backstop-tony-connelly/

What the article makes abundantly clear is that the idea of an all-UK backstop was indeed the UK's - the EU would have been perfectly happy with a backstop just involving the island of Ireland.
 
mkg said:
I thought I'd just pop in to look at what was going on here about Brexit. Much the same as anywhere else, I discover. I'm actually fed up of having to counteract this nonsense. So here goes ... THE BACKSTOP WAS NOT PROPOSED BY THE UK. Look here - from an article from RTE, not famous for being a British institution ...

"The backstop was born on 8 November 2017.
It entered the world weighing just 66 words, one bullet point of six at the bottom of a "working paper" circulated that morning by Michel Barnier's team to officials from the 27 member states. "
Click to expand...

The article , if my skim reading is correct says the EU suggested a backstop with NI effectually remaining in the EU. The UK rejected that and amended the text so that the whole of the UK effectively remained in the EU. It was the UK proposal which made its way into the agreed paper.
 
mkg said:
I thought I'd just pop in to look at what was going on here about Brexit. Much the same as anywhere else, I discover. I'm actually fed up of having to counteract this nonsense. So here goes ... THE BACKSTOP WAS NOT PROPOSED BY THE UK. Look here - from an article from RTE, not famous for being a British institution ...

"The backstop was born on 8 November 2017.
It entered the world weighing just 66 words, one bullet point of six at the bottom of a "working paper" circulated that morning by Michel Barnier's team to officials from the 27 member states. "
Click to expand...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business...not-one-tabled-by-ireland-or-the-eu-1.3761566
 
The Don said:
Yes, a number of high profile Brexiteers, including Jacob Rees Mogg, have substantial interests in hedge funds. Hedge funds are investment funds which also take "bets" on the market and/or currencies. A lot of these hedge funds seem to be betting that the pound and UK stock markets will be going down in value over the next few months. The worse the effects of a no-deal Brexit, the further the pound and UK stock markets are likely to drop and the greater the return on those bets are likely to be. This is an example of the short-term benefits of a disorderly Brexit to a few rich individuals.

In the medium term there are some additional likely benefits. Many companies and/or individuals may find themselves in the situation that they need to dispose of assets in a hurry - and therefore below true market value. Rich people, especially those who have done rather nicely out of betting on the market going down, will be able to snap up those assets with a view to selling them on at a significant profit.

In the longer term, the UK economy will move to being a low-cost, low regulation, low-benefit economy competing with the developing world on price (rather than the developed world on quality and innovation). Many of those same rich people will benefit from an economy like this, because it tends to increase wealth inequality.

An ugly Brexit is likely to be gravy all the way for "vulture capitalists" :(
Click to expand...


Hedging isn't the sole preserve of the rich you know. If you import/export goods and you are worried about the pound value falling after 31 October even more drastically then you can buy a simple Forward Contract over the counter from your bank for as little as £30. This guarantees the money you receive or have to pay will be at today's rate even after 31 October.

A simple solution for businesses worried about value of assets is to sell the asset now at today's market value and simply take out a lease-back (Marks & Spencer did this) meaning you don't even have to move out but can pack up and leave whenever.

Going on holiday after 31 October and are worried about the uncertainty? Simple: buy your currency now, or hedge by buying half now and the rest later.
 
Johnson was soundly booed on his way in to and out of talks with Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, and he skipped out on the press conference afterwards. Bettel, OTOH, did not hold back during the conference - partly in his prepared statements, and especially in the Q&A afterwards: https://youtu.be/5Gb1Y1516Mc?t=1968

And, just in case you want the completely surprising headline - despite all his talk in the press, Johnson brought absolutely nothing new to the table.

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/1173600063408545794

My favourite episode of The Incredible Hulk is the one where a small group of people shouted too loudly so he ran away
Click to expand...
 
Arcade22 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...u-of-political-posturing-before-johnson-talks

Leavers can't just stop pushing these narratives of wishful thinking where it's up to the EU to be "flexible" and give into whatever the UK is offering, because not doing so would have negative consequences.

The backstop was Britain's idea of "solving" the Irish border issue and if they somehow object to their own ideas it's up to them to come up with another solution that does just that.

It's not the EU's responsibility to swallow whatever half-baked ideas the UK has hastily written down on a napkin Boris blurts out on a 'selfie' video just to come to an accord, nor is it the EU's responsibility to minimize the importance of the Irish border as if it was just an afterthought of no consequence.
Click to expand...

FIFY
 
I'm severely disappointed by the antics of several members here. The backstop, quite clearly, was invented by the EU. It matters not what any party attempted to do with it at a later date - the concept came from the EU.
Still, par for the course - even amongst skeptics, I find. Vertical is the new horizontal.

Lothian - precisely to which 'agreed' paper would you be referring?
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Johnson was soundly booed on his way in to and out of talks with Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, and he skipped out on the press conference afterwards. Bettel, OTOH, did not hold back during the conference - partly in his prepared statements, and especially in the Q&A afterwards: https://youtu.be/5Gb1Y1516Mc?t=1968

And, just in case you want the completely surprising headline - despite all his talk in the press, Johnson brought absolutely nothing new to the table.

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/1173600063408545794
Click to expand...

From Badscience - I *really* wish I had thought of this one:

liverpoolmiss said:
BREAKING: Boris Johnson manages not to tell a lie at a press conference
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Hedging isn't the sole preserve of the rich you know. If you import/export goods and you are worried about the pound value falling after 31 October even more drastically then you can buy a simple Forward Contract over the counter from your bank for as little as £30. This guarantees the money you receive or have to pay will be at today's rate even after 31 October.

A simple solution for businesses worried about value of assets is to sell the asset now at today's market value and simply take out a lease-back (Marks & Spencer did this) meaning you don't even have to move out but can pack up and leave whenever.

Going on holiday after 31 October and are worried about the uncertainty? Simple: buy your currency now, or hedge by buying half now and the rest later.
Click to expand...

Yes, functional hedging as you describe is pretty standard business practice.

What Rees-Mogg and his ilk are doing is speculative hedging, a horse of an entirely different colour.
 
EU makes offer to UK

UK makes counter-offer to EU

EU provisionally accepts counter-offer

conclusion: it's the EU's fault.

??

Plus, of course, the futility of being drawn into an argument about who's "fault" the backstop is as if the backstop is an idea to be ashamed of.
 
mkg said:
I'm severely disappointed by the antics of several members here. The backstop, quite clearly, was invented by the EU. It matters not what any party attempted to do with it at a later date - the concept came from the EU.
Still, par for the course - even amongst skeptics, I find. Vertical is the new horizontal.

Lothian - precisely to which 'agreed' paper would you be referring?
Click to expand...

The 14 November 2018 " draft Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union" agreed by the UK Prime Minister and her negotiating team.

As far as I am aware when people talk about 'the backstop', it is the backstop in that agreement that they are talking about. In particular when Boris says "the backstop is unacceptable" That is the backstop I believe him to be referring to . Are you aware of another?

The backstop in that document, which is the is the only one I believe that prime ministers from all 28 Member states have endorsed, came from the UK'. It is currently the only deal on the table albeit it remains unratified.

It may well have been the EU that pointed out that there may need to be a back up to the UK's plan for arrangements post the end of the transition period (lets cross our fingers and hope that by Dec 2020 technology can tell us exactly what goods have crossed a 310 mile line that has no physical equipment or personnel).

The actual back up plan settled on is the British one. That said I am not sure why it matters or why you think it important.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom