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

[Delphic Oracle]

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.

Plus there's a considerable difference in scale between "I can mitigate the increase in cost of my vacation I have planned for next year to the tune of a few hundred" and "I can make literally millions by taking advantage of how desperate and insecure everyone else is."

 

[GlennB]

I suspect this "Hulk" business might haunt Johnson rather like Rees-Mogg's lounging will haunt him

 

[catsmate]

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.

Oh look, a Brexiteer lying again.

 

[catsmate]

You should have read a little further:

But that would contradict what s/he desperately wants to believe.

 

[catsmate]

I'm severely disappointed by the antics of several members here.

Yes, it's terrible how people point out your pathetic lies.

The backstop, quite clearly, was invented by the EU.

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

It matters not what any party attempted to do with it at a later date - the concept came from the EU.

Wallpaper words and lies mixed.

Still, par for the course -

True, Brexiteers just can handle the truth.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

The article doesn't say anything like anything mkg claims either.

Brexiteers don't do reading or honesty.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

"Hedge funds" and "hedging" are two entirely different concepts (and have been for around two decades now, albeit "hedge funds" did have their origins in hedging, way back when). Hedge funds are nothing more than funds which tend to take higher-risk, higher-reward speculative positions, relying on a mix of quant analysis and intuitive market & political research. They came to prominence as the near-exclusive preserve of wealthy private individuals as investment clients, but increasingly the "traditional" banks and institutional money managers have been placing funds under this sort of management as well, where their investment rules permit it of course.


(Note to Don: ALL discretionary investment funds take "bets" on the market and/or currencies. It's sort of the fundamental point of investment. I virtually guarantee that a significant portion of your pension fund or your car/home insurance premium is being used to "bet" on the market and/or currencies....)

 

[LondonJohn]

The article doesn't say anything like anything mkg claims either.

Brexiteers don't do reading or honesty.

Uh, yeah it kind of does......


In any case, the NI/Ireland border is a 100% logically-intractable situation, if one wants the twin goals of a) the UK leaving the EU and b) the Good Friday (and subsequent) Agreement being honoured. Because:

1) Leaving the EU necessarily entails leaving the single market and customs union (otherwise it's very highly arguable that this doesn't constitute Brexit);

2) The GFA requires there to be no hard border between NI and Ireland, effectively in perpetuity;

3) There would therefore need to be, effectively in perpetuity, a de facto single market and customs union between NI and Ireland;

4) Therefore, at the very least, the NI part of the UK would effectively need to "half" remain in the EU in perpetuity;

5) Even if it were only NI which remained part of the single market and customs union, and the remainder of the UK were to do a "full" Brexit, this would necessarily entail a hard border between NI and the remainder of the UK, with customs checks and passport controls etc;

6) The only alternative to (5) would be for the whole of the UK to remain part of the single market and customs union, but this defeats (1); and

7) Both (5) and (4) above are in practice unworkable in any case.


So as far as I see it, the talks between the UK Govt and the EU can be as friendly and constructive as they like - and it can be any politician of any hue representing the UK Govt position: the NI/Ireland border situation cannot, and will not, ever be resolved within a Brexit scenario.

What I suggest this means in practice is that in effect the UK can now never leave the EU, so long as either a) the GFA stipulations remain in place, or b) Ireland remains within the EU.


So everyone, IMO, might just as well give up even trying now to make Brexit work. Of course the problem is that a largely-ignorant electorate was given this decision to make, and even a well-informed parliament might never have seen the giant bear trap that the NI/Ire border issue was going to create.

One enormous problem, indeed. And perhaps one that only ever has the chance of being solved (well, the least troublesome way of being solved, at least....) by means of a second referendum in which everyone had better pray the result turns out differently.........

 

[Samson]

Ladbrokes have another referendum becoming steadily more likely, and a no deal pretty unlikely. Reality is biting, I always thought Brexit would not happen.

Another UK EU Referendum before end 2020
Brexit Specials
2.50
UK to REVOKE Article 50 in 2019
Brexit Specials
3.75
UK to leave EU with no Brexit Deal before Nov 1st
Brexit Specials
4.00

 

[LondonJohn]

Ladbrokes have another referendum becoming steadily more likely, and a no deal pretty unlikely. Reality is biting, I always thought Brexit would not happen.

Another UK EU Referendum before end 2020
Brexit Specials
2.50
UK to REVOKE Article 50 in 2019
Brexit Specials
3.75
UK to leave EU with no Brexit Deal before Nov 1st
Brexit Specials
4.00

Well of course the odds of traditional bookies like Ladbrokes (and, for that matter, even the odds of betting exchanges) are largely predicated not on an analysis of the "factual" relative likelihood of events, but rather upon what betters' perceptions of the "factual" relative likelihood of events is.

But that aside, I would have thought that the smartest bet at this point (no such thing as a "smartest bet" on anything, but anyhow...) would easily be to back the "second referendum" option.

Because I simply cannot see the UK and EU - even, as I said, with the best will in the world on both sides and the hardest amount of effort - being able to solve this NI/Ireland border issue in a way that also effects Brexit for the UK. So even setting aside every single other potential sticking point, I don't see any way whatsoever in which the UK Govt will come back to parliament with any significant change to the current deal - let alone the UK Parliament ratifying such a deal. And without any form of resolution to the NI/Ire border issue, the UK Govt would automatically be breaking the promises made in the GFA if it went ahead and left the EU with no deal on 31st October (or on any future date).

So I simply do not believe that the UK Govt will enforce a no-deal Brexit. And I simply don't believe the UK Govt will ratify any form of deal - ever. That's a reasonably good example of a stalemate. And, as I said, one that can probably only ever get resolved to any degree of public satisfaction through a second referendum: one in which the majority is for "remain".

 

[Information Analyst]

Interviewed Kuenssberg, Johnson twists and turns like a twisty-turning thing, refusing to say exactly how he is going to take the UK out of the EU with no deal on 31 October, despite the recently-passed law supposedly preventing that.

Can I be the first person to say, "last-minute Order in Council"?

 

[Samson]

Well of course the odds of traditional bookies like Ladbrokes (and, for that matter, even the odds of betting exchanges) are largely predicated not on an analysis of the "factual" relative likelihood of events, but rather upon what betters' perceptions of the "factual" relative likelihood of events is.

But that aside, I would have thought that the smartest bet at this point (no such thing as a "smartest bet" on anything, but anyhow...) would easily be to back the "second referendum" option.

Because I simply cannot see the UK and EU - even, as I said, with the best will in the world on both sides and the hardest amount of effort - being able to solve this NI/Ireland border issue in a way that also effects Brexit for the UK. So even setting aside every single other potential sticking point, I don't see any way whatsoever in which the UK Govt will come back to parliament with any significant change to the current deal - let alone the UK Parliament ratifying such a deal. And without any form of resolution to the NI/Ire border issue, the UK Govt would automatically be breaking the promises made in the GFA if it went ahead and left the EU with no deal on 31st October (or on any future date).

So I simply do not believe that the UK Govt will enforce a no-deal Brexit. And I simply don't believe the UK Govt will ratify any form of deal - ever. That's a reasonably good example of a stalemate. And, as I said, one that can probably only ever get resolved to any degree of public satisfaction through a second referendum: one in which the majority is for "remain".

Ironically I think this is best for Boris Johnson. He seems to be a lazy type of individual, not interested in difficult tasks. I find it incomprehensible that he has so much support, he presents as some kind of village idiot.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ironically I think this is best for Boris Johnson. He seems to be a lazy type of individual, not interested in difficult tasks. I find it incomprehensible that he has so much support, he presents as some kind of village idiot.

Well, I certainly don't hold a candle for Johnson, or for Brexit. But at the same time, I can understand how his "anti-politician" flavour of breezy optimism and his big-picture-thinking perception, coupled of course with his position on Brexit, would have found favour amongst sufficient of the Conservative Party members who ultimately voted him into the position of party leader (and by extension, PM).

And (as with Trump), I can also see how this sort of perception might appeal to almost all Brexit voters (whom, we cannot forget, (somehow) constituted over 17 million, and a majority of those voting, in 2016....) whose perception is of a parliament trying to frustrate Brexit "against the people's will".

None of those things make it right, of course, that Johnson should occupy his present position and apparent levels of approval. But I think they are probably the best explanation.

 

[a_unique_person]

*Makes note to self. Boris is nothing like the Hulk*

 

[angrysoba]

*Makes note to self. Boris is nothing like the Hulk*

The thing is, we have seen how no matter how outrageous, Trump’s comments never seemed to cost him anything. Will this also be true of Boris?

 

[a_unique_person]

Boris, the Incredible Sulk.

 

[mkg]

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 ... ....

Well, we are in agreement upon which backstop is the case in point. However, it was not originally contained in May's discussion document - it was inserted by the EU negotiators. The resulting document was then presented to Parliament and rejected three times.
Since this complete and utter rejection by the legally-constituted and ultimate authority upon the acceptance or dismissal of that document, there has been an insidious attempt to legitimise it (by, for instance, calling it an agreement). It was never an agreement, and Mrs May's original document contained no reference whatsoever to a backstop in any form. The entire concept of the backstop is an invention of the EU negotiators and its continued presence in negotiations (and, I have to say, public discussion) is a sham.
Shades of the Ministry of Truth come to mind.

 

[Pixel42]

What I suggest this means in practice is that in effect the UK can now never leave the EU, so long as either a) the GFA stipulations remain in place, or b) Ireland remains within the EU.

The reunification of Ireland would also solve the problem.

Just sayin'.

 

[Lothian]

Well, we are in agreement upon which backstop is the case in point. However, it was not originally contained in May's discussion document - it was inserted by the EU negotiators. The resulting document was then presented to Parliament and rejected three times.
Since this complete and utter rejection by the legally-constituted and ultimate authority upon the acceptance or dismissal of that document, there has been an insidious attempt to legitimise it (by, for instance, calling it an agreement). It was never an agreement, and Mrs May's original document contained no reference whatsoever to a backstop in any form. The entire concept of the backstop is an invention of the EU negotiators and its continued presence in negotiations (and, I have to say, public discussion) is a sham.
Shades of the Ministry of Truth come to mind.

Let's see if we can find where we agree rather than disagee. Which if the following do you agree with.

(1)The original agreement did not contain any provision as to what would happen with the Irish border should a new agreement be reached in the transition period.
(2) The EU suggested a backstop
(3) The UK rejected that backstop and suggested their own
(4) The EU agreed to the inclusion of the UK version
(5) May endorsed the agreement and presented the version with the UK backstop to parliament.

 

[Lothian]

Uh, yeah it kind of does......


In any case, the NI/Ireland border is a 100% logically-intractable situation, if one wants the twin goals of a) the UK leaving the EU and b) the Good Friday (and subsequent) Agreement being honoured. Because:

1) Leaving the EU necessarily entails leaving the single market and customs union (otherwise it's very highly arguable that this doesn't constitute Brexit);
.........

There are countries outside the EU in the customs union and the single market. These options were widely discussed as potential future relationships by the members of the leave campaign. You are therefore wrong to argue that it wouldn't meet either the option on the referendum paper or even a looser definition.

As axiom 1 fails the conclusion is also wrong.