Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[GlennB]

Sensational shift in Ladbrokes book

Article 50 Extended And UK Remains In EU After Oct 31
To happen on or before Oct 31 2019
1.33
Uk to leave EU with No Deal
To happen on or before Oct 31 2019
5.00
UK to leave EU with Deal
To happen on or before Oct 31 2019
9.00
UK to Revoke Article 50
To happen on or before Oct 31 2019
17.00

Brexit seems off

No, because all of those odds refer to "on or before Oct 31 2019". Brexit, with or without a deal, can happen at a later date.

Though this comment is probably a waste of effort as you don't seem to respond to comments about these odds that you post.

 

[Samson]

No, because all of those odds refer to "on or before Oct 31 2019". Brexit, with or without a deal, can happen at a later date.

Though this comment is probably a waste of effort as you don't seem to respond to comments about these odds that you post.

I totally agree and the point is the next delay requires a referendum with a specific Brexit deal. And another referendum is a shoo in for remain, the younger generation will be throwing the smug retirees off their balconies. See McHrozni's post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12846906&postcount=847.

 

[GlennB]

I totally agree and the point is the next delay requires a referendum with a specific Brexit deal. And another referendum is a shoo in for remain, the younger generation will be throwing the smug retirees off their balconies. See McHrozni's post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12846906&postcount=847.

What? Paddy Power has another referendum before end 2019 as a 1% chance.

And McHrozni's post is unrelated to anything you've written here.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The attempt to get a court to force BJ to send the letter has failed today. The court basically saying that he has promised he will. It goes to appeal but given BJ said in the Commons he wouldn't then it would seem he either lied to the court or to Parliament. Neither would be good.

 

[catsmate]

No, it's making a strawman argument like that while censoring my post in the hope that nobody will realized that you are making a strawman argument that is dishonest.

And the lies continue...

You claimed (here) that there is little popular support for a UK Republic". I pointed out that the polls showed a rather consistent level of support of ~30%, with occasional peaks over 50%.
You responded by claiming, without (as usual) supplying any evidence, that "support would quickly dwindle once it came down to the form of the alternative head of state". I called you on, yet another, unsupported assertion. You failed to provide any support for your assertion and tried to move the goalposts with:
Even if support for a republic exceeded 50% there is still the problem of what form the republic should take. Should a president be elected or appointed by parliament? Should the president head the executive (as in the US) or should he be largely ceremonial only?

A lot of people would rather vote for the status quo than vote for a republican model they didn't agree with. That's what happened in Australia in 1999.

I then pointed out the continuing denial and evasion, whereupon you accused me of dishonesty.
Kinda pathetic.

BTW you might want to learn what "strawman" actually means before you trying ans use the term.

 

[psionl0]

I pointed out that the polls showed a rather consistent level of support of ~30%, with occasional peaks over 50%.

So it comes down to whether 30% represents "little" support or "massive" support?

I have news for you. A referendum won't carry with just 30% support.

 

[Vixen]

Use Pounds to buy Euros prior to the no-deal Brexit. Swap them back for Pounds when you can get a dozen for a Euro, sometime next year.

McHrozni

It's only a by-product of market forces. The Fisher-Miller effect is that as one currency depreciates/appreciates, another appreciates/depreciates, with the net result of interest rates chasing currency rates. The net effect is that what you gain on the currency you lose on the interest.

So sure, whilst the pound is weak you can buy a lot of them cheaply. However, the banks will set the LIBOR to equalise loses/gains, which in any case are driven by the global free market forces.

 

[Lothian]

So it comes down to whether 30% represents "little" support or "massive" support?

I have news for you. A referendum won't carry with just 30% support.

I have news for you.
The mayor of London and the GLA was set up with the support of 24% of the electorate.
52% of the voters voted for Scottish independence in 1979 and the vote was lost.

 

[Vixen]

Others will be making good money shorting UK stocks (or possibly buying them).

Then there are the vulture venture capitalists who will be sifting through the wreckage of the UK economy to find some assets to strip sweat for profit.

To be fair, if you buy out a company (=invest your funds into it) of course you'll be looking for large returns (often venture capitalists will stipulate 35% net profit margin growth year on year) to make it worth their while, plus an agreed exit plan after about five years.

Bulls and bears. 'Twas e'er the way.

 

[Vixen]

That's also an option, yes. Basically bet against the country he swore to serve.

McHrozni

That is what hedging is all about.

 

[Francesca R]

whilst the pound is weak you can buy a lot of them cheaply. However, the banks will set the LIBOR to equalise loses/gains

Eh, no they won't.

 

[Darat]

Eh, no they won't.

Well at least this time they won't leave unencrypted messages about fixing it!

 

[catsmate]

I have news for you.
The mayor of London and the GLA was set up with the support of 24% of the electorate.
52% of the voters voted for Scottish independence in 1979 and the vote was lost.

More than 75% of voters in Belfast South didn't vote for Alasdair McDonnell in '15 yet he was elected their MP. Two years later his support was higher, yet he lost.

Support for removing the monarchy in the UK has been over 50% too.

But then psionl0 isn't interested in facts, especially ones that refute his opinions.

 

[lomiller]

Remainers in these threads try to argue that, and then in the next breath argue that leavers only voted the way they did in order to STOP free movement.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

Eh?

While you can’t retain free movement and stop immigration, there is no contradiction on the remain side for saying Brexiters were promising both. The Brexit campaign was guilty of making lots of mutually exclusive promises like this and Brexit voters were stupid enough to ignore the contradictions. Pointing out the lies and contradictions doesn’t make any of them Remains fault.

 

[lomiller]

I provided the links to back up my numbers. If you don't like them then you are welcome to put up your own - especially the ones that say the UK is a republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic

 

[psionl0]

I have news for you.
The mayor of London and the GLA was set up with the support of 24% of the electorate.

Simultaneously with the elections to the London Borough councils, a referendum was held on the establishment of the GLA in May 1998, which was approved with 72% of the vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London_Authority#Creation​

52% of the voters voted for Scottish independence in 1979 and the vote was lost.

The Scottish referendum of 1979 was a post-legislative referendum to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted "Yes" in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Scottish_devolution_referendum​

As I suspected, you didn't tell the whole story.

 

[The Don]

A band colleague recently shared a Facebook post in which it is clearly suggested that Jeremy Corbyn would immediately throw the UK back into the "Winter of Discontent" if elected and that instead we should all vote Conservative.

How ironic that the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said that a No-deal Brexit would push UK debt to a 50-year high:

Even a "relatively benign" no-deal Brexit would push UK debt to its highest since the 1960s, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said.

The think tank said borrowing was likely to rise to £100bn and total debt would soar to 90% of national income.

"The government is now adrift without any effective fiscal anchor," said IFS director Paul Johnson.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49961301

As usual, the government is complacent confident.

Meanwhile the damage already caused to the UK economy is becoming clearer:

Christian Schulz, the chief UK economist at Citi, which contributed to the report, said the country's economy had already shrunk by about £60bn since the EU referendum in 2016.

"Business investment is up to 20% lower than it would otherwise have been, hurting productivity and wage growth," he said.

However, Mr Schulz added that a further Brexit delay would create more uncertainty, denting investment and leaving growth at around 1% a year.

"From a growth perspective, a Brexit deal is a little better, leaving growth at 1.5%, but it would leave no chance of Brexit being cancelled," he said.

"A no-deal Brexit - even with a substantial stimulus - could mean no growth at all for the next two years. Remaining in the EU would be the best scenario for economic growth in the next few years."

...and remember, those effects are cumulative. The UK economy is £60bn smaller every year, and that gap is growing.

 

[psionl0]

More than 75% of voters in Belfast South didn't vote for Alasdair McDonnell in '15 yet he was elected their MP. Two years later his support was higher, yet he lost.

Par for the course under FPTP.

Support for removing the monarchy in the UK has been over 50% too.

Already discussed.

But then psionl0 isn't interested in facts opinions, especially ones that refute his opinions contradict the facts.

ftfy.

 

[Nessie]

There is nothing in the main stream news about EU plans regarding disclosure of income and hedge fund bets as a driving force behind Brexit for those in power. Is it just a CT?

 

[The Don]

There is nothing in the main stream news about EU plans regarding disclosure of income and hedge fund bets as a driving force behind Brexit for those in power. Is it just a CT?

Which bit is a possible CT ?

That there are a number of hedge funds which have taken a position on Brexit and that a number of those hedge funds have been generous donors to Boris Johnson's PM campaign.

OR

There are EU plans to force disclosure ?

AFAIK, the former is pretty well established and documented. I hadn't heard about the latter until you mentioned it.