BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pinno

I see UKIP are imploding. So they lead enough people by the nose into voting for the quagmire that we are entering and then fold having had little to do with the EU and will have little to do with the Brexit negotiations.
When we have 'Brexited', perhaps they'll re form as... BNP?

Great innit?

Stevo_666

There are no import tariffs imposed on services. Only on goods.

The average tariff on goods across all classes of goods is approx 2.3%, which for exports would be more than outweighed by a more competitive exchange rate.

As for imports, quite often other factors such as cost base of location will make more difference than tariffs of the level above.

joelsim

Pinno wrote:

I see UKIP are imploding. So they lead enough people by the nose into voting for the quagmire that we are entering.

Great innit?

Not sure. Leave voters have been sold on promises that won't happen. If we don't Brexit obviously, if we do Brexit the sh!t will hit the fan and people will be poorer. Most Remain voters wouldn't p!ss on them if they were on fire already.


To me there's no way May & co can win out of this. UKIP will take a lot of the disgruntled Leavers.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

There are no import tariffs imposed on services. Only on goods.

The average tariff on goods across all classes of goods is approx 2.3%, which for exports would be more than outweighed by a more competitive exchange rate.

As for imports, quite often other factors such as cost base of location will make more difference than tariffs of the level above.

Let's just agree to disagree. This isn't just about currency and access (although hugely important), this is about the whole gamut. The world has been watching with an element of disgust.

joelsim

And since the Conference there has been a huge massing of collective forces. Many more people want to remain part of the single market than don't. That, and the divisive rhetoric was the turning point. All we need now is to see the economy gradually decline and for prices of household goods to rise which will happen. There's only so long business can absorb the additional costs of Sterling's crash.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

There are no import tariffs imposed on services. Only on goods.

The average tariff on goods across all classes of goods is approx 2.3%, which for exports would be more than outweighed by a more competitive exchange rate.

As for imports, quite often other factors such as cost base of location will make more difference than tariffs of the level above.

Let's just agree to disagree. This isn't just about currency and access (although hugely important), this is about the whole gamut. The world has been watching with an element of disgust.

I am making the ecomonic and financial argument.

As for what the world thinks, that's that's bit subjective. Watch out for that Italian referendum though, it may overshadow Brexit.
http://moderndiplomacy.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1723:will-italy-be-the-next-eu-member-nation-to-exit&Itemid=569

In a way this will be good for us as the likes of Hollande and the spiteful european politicians who are posturing about giving us a hard time will have to fight on several fronts then.

joelsim

This may interest you Steve.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

joelsim

And this. 59% of the public want to remain in the SM. The worm has turned.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

I am making the ecomonic and financial argument.

As for what the world thinks, that's that's bit subjective. Watch out for that Italian referendum though, it may overshadow Brexit.
http://moderndiplomacy.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1723:will-italy-be-the-next-eu-member-nation-to-exit&Itemid=569

In a way this will be good for us as the likes of Hollande and the spiteful european politicians who are posturing about giving us a hard time will have to fight on several fronts then.

The thing is, we were already at arms' length from the Euro, but we still gain(ed) by being part of the project. There's a strong element of the Brexit crowd that seems to want the whole EU project to fail, that seems to want to see a fractured Europe with 'nations' (whatever they are) trying to gain advantage European neighbours, with no concern for the overall well-being of Europe (which, surely, is in all our interests). I don't blame members of the EU looking at the UK and wondering why 'we' are imperilling the project by our ill-conceived actions, rather than trying to make the thing work better.

wallace_and_gromit

briantrumpet wrote:

I don't blame members of the EU looking at the UK and wondering why 'we' are imperilling the project by our ill-conceived actions, rather than trying to make the thing work better.

One could make the argument that we are trying to improve the "project" by promoting a looser political arrangement whilst maintaining the benefits of the trading arrangements that are in place. Just because political union seemed like a good idea 60 years ago doesn't mean it is a good idea now. But the concept seems to have acquired a status close to that of a religion, with all the open mindedness that that entails.

It seems obvious to me that in the absence of full political and fiscal union, a pure trade arrangement is optimum. The current halfway house where member states have conceded a lot of powers but the EU doesn't have the will/capability to act where the member states no longer (*) can is not really that good.

(*) e.g. Italians banks. The Italians aren't able to bail them out. The EU won't. So the problem lingers. Without the constraints imposed by the Euro (**) the Italians could sort their banks out with a bit of money printing and inflation, as they, others and the UK have done when required in the past.

(**) I acknowledge that the Eurozone isn't the EU, but since the Maastricht treaty in the early 90s that enabled the Euro, the Euro, its mechanisms and its implications have occupied so much time and effort that the two concepts are quite interchangeable.

surrey_commuter

Joelsim wrote:

And this. 59% of the public want to remain in the SM. The worm has turned.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Why % of the population do you think have a proper understanding of the single market?

Off the top of my head I could not tell you, other than using vague generalities. Give me 30 mins on Google and I would understand.

I am guessing no more than 10% of the population would be able to make an informed opinion on whether we should stay in the single market

joelsim

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

And this. 59% of the public want to remain in the SM. The worm has turned.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Why % of the population do you think have a proper understanding of the single market?

Off the top of my head I could not tell you, other than using vague generalities. Give me 30 mins on Google and I would understand.

I am guessing no more than 10% of the population would be able to make an informed opinion on whether we should stay in the single market

About 59% currently.

kingstongraham

Joelsim wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

And this. 59% of the public want to remain in the SM. The worm has turned.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Why % of the population do you think have a proper understanding of the single market?

Off the top of my head I could not tell you, other than using vague generalities. Give me 30 mins on Google and I would understand.

I am guessing no more than 10% of the population would be able to make an informed opinion on whether we should stay in the single market

About 59% currently.

And how many of them would be able to put a realistic value on that? I certainly couldn't.

joelsim

KingstonGraham wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

And this. 59% of the public want to remain in the SM. The worm has turned.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Why % of the population do you think have a proper understanding of the single market?

Off the top of my head I could not tell you, other than using vague generalities. Give me 30 mins on Google and I would understand.

I am guessing no more than 10% of the population would be able to make an informed opinion on whether we should stay in the single market

About 59% currently.

And how many of them would be able to put a realistic value on that? I certainly couldn't.

It was a joke, but I suspect that 59% will go up regarding the number of people who start to realise that not being in the single market is likely to adversely affect them financially. Whether they understand it is another question entirely.

surrey_commuter

Joelsim wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

And this. 59% of the public want to remain in the SM. The worm has turned.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Why % of the population do you think have a proper understanding of the single market?

Off the top of my head I could not tell you, other than using vague generalities. Give me 30 mins on Google and I would understand.

I am guessing no more than 10% of the population would be able to make an informed opinion on whether we should stay in the single market

About 59% currently.

And how many of them would be able to put a realistic value on that? I certainly couldn't.

It was a joke, but I suspect that 59% will go up regarding the number of people who start to realise that not being in the single market is likely to adversely affect them financially. Whether they understand it is another question entirely.

and I would like to win the lottery but that is not going to happen either.

The Single Market refers to the EU as one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services.

so to stay in the single market we would have to accept all EU regulation pertaining to goods and services - which is not going to happen. The EU would also have to let us restrict free movement of people and probably charge us - again this is not going to happen.

Or we could accept all EU regulation pertaining to goods and services, accept free movement of labour and pay in approximately what we were paying before - this sounds reasonable to me but does not sound like Brexit.

Stevo_666

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

It seems obvious to me that in the absence of full political and fiscal union, a pure trade arrangement is optimum. The current halfway house where member states have conceded a lot of powers but the EU doesn't have the will/capability to act where the member states no longer (*) can is not really that good.

^^^
This.

Unfortunately it's not going to happen without a bit of kicking and screaming and may take one or more seismic events plus some time to get there. The current set up is deeply flawed and IMO will not last in its current form. I can't see how full political union will ever happen in the foreseeable future.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

This may interest you Steve.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

And this may interest you Joel

http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

and probably charge us - again this is not going to happen.

I think the UK may potentially agree to pay in to the EU budget for access. Clearly this will be no one's starting position, but the loss of the UK's contribution will leave something of hole.

joelsim

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

And this. 59% of the public want to remain in the SM. The worm has turned.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

Why % of the population do you think have a proper understanding of the single market?

Off the top of my head I could not tell you, other than using vague generalities. Give me 30 mins on Google and I would understand.

I am guessing no more than 10% of the population would be able to make an informed opinion on whether we should stay in the single market

About 59% currently.

And how many of them would be able to put a realistic value on that? I certainly couldn't.

It was a joke, but I suspect that 59% will go up regarding the number of people who start to realise that not being in the single market is likely to adversely affect them financially. Whether they understand it is another question entirely.

and I would like to win the lottery but that is not going to happen either.

The Single Market refers to the EU as one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services.

so to stay in the single market we would have to accept all EU regulation pertaining to goods and services - which is not going to happen. The EU would also have to let us restrict free movement of people and probably charge us - again this is not going to happen.

Or we could accept all EU regulation pertaining to goods and services, accept free movement of labour and pay in approximately what we were paying before - this sounds reasonable to me but does not sound like Brexit.

You're quite right, it doesn't sound like Brexit. But every day there is a bigger number of worried people and the only thing that's hit so far is Sterling. And even that in reality hasn't hit the consumer yet unless they've been on holiday.

Inflation up 0.4 today. Stagflation on its way.

bobmcstuff

https://www.ft.com/content/2bd85650-952 ... f38d484582

ft wrote:

MPs will “very likely” be able to vote on the final Brexit deal, a lawyer for the government has said, in a statement that financial markets interpreted as slightly reducing the risk of a “hard” Brexit.

Theresa May has refused to allow parliament a vote on the decision to invoke Article 50, the EU exit clause, which she has said will take place by next March. But James Eadie QC told the High Court on Tuesday that the government’s view was that any deal negotiated under Article 50 would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

“Almost all treaties are subject to ratification,” he told the court.

Sterling had risen nearly 1 per cent against the dollar by midday London time, buoyed partly by the news. The currency has fallen sharply since the Conservative party conference in response to concerns that the country may opt for a Brexit deal that includes abandoning the EU’s single market.

Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the government must give parliament the opportunity to consider treaties that are subject to ratification. The House of Commons could block a treaty indefinitely by voting against it repeatedly; it cannot amend a treaty. The House of Lords cannot, on its own, delay or block a treaty.

wallace_and_gromit

Surrey Commuter wrote:

so to stay in the single market we would have to accept all EU regulation pertaining to goods and services - which is not going to happen.

It's entirely reasonable to be bound by the "local regulations" when selling to any foreign market. Stuff we sell to the US has to conform to US standards, and breaches of those are subject to sanction under the US legal system.

The key issue is whether EU regulations have to apply to businesses not selling to the EU. Currently they do. Without such a requirement, businesses may choose to adopt them, if they might export or sell to exporters or the UK might choose to leave certain laws in place, as they are actually quite sensible, but giving the UK the right to set it's own laws/regulations re the "local economy" feels like one of the easier issues to resolve.

My guess would be that only a few headline laws (e.g. food labelling at supermarkets; pricing in metric etc.) would be repealed, none of which would relate to the actual composition/nature of what might get exported for ease of demonstrating compliance with EU regulations.

joelsim

bobmcstuff wrote:

https://www.ft.com/content/2bd85650-9523-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582

ft wrote:

MPs will “very likely” be able to vote on the final Brexit deal, a lawyer for the government has said, in a statement that financial markets interpreted as slightly reducing the risk of a “hard” Brexit.

Theresa May has refused to allow parliament a vote on the decision to invoke Article 50, the EU exit clause, which she has said will take place by next March. But James Eadie QC told the High Court on Tuesday that the government’s view was that any deal negotiated under Article 50 would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

“Almost all treaties are subject to ratification,” he told the court.

Sterling had risen nearly 1 per cent against the dollar by midday London time, buoyed partly by the news. The currency has fallen sharply since the Conservative party conference in response to concerns that the country may opt for a Brexit deal that includes abandoning the EU’s single market.

Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the government must give parliament the opportunity to consider treaties that are subject to ratification. The House of Commons could block a treaty indefinitely by voting against it repeatedly; it cannot amend a treaty. The House of Lords cannot, on its own, delay or block a treaty.

Certainly looking that way. There'll be an appeal to the Supreme Court either way, but what it will do is give the scrutineers a filip.

TheBigBean

Joelsim wrote:

Inflation up 0.4 today. Stagflation on its way.

You have to be careful when looking at inflation as the reporting rarely provides the detail. Now, I fully expect the change in exchange rate to be inflationary, but today's data wasn't really that astonishing.

CPI in Sept 2015 was 101.2 whereas CPI in Sept 2015 was 100.2. I assume rounding in the index accounts for the difference between 0.9% which would be calculated on the above figures and the reported 1.0% annual inflation. This doesn't seem to happen with RPI, but that's a digression.

Anyway, the point is that the index increased as followed:

0.2 between April and May
0.2 between May and June
0.0 between June to July
0.3 between July and August.

On this basis the 0.2 increase between August and September is hardly a rampant change. So the question is, what has changed? The answer is the denominator. August to September in 2015 was a period of deflation (a drop from 100.3 to 100.2).

Some months are nearly always deflationary such as December to January (and June to July frequently seems to be), so calculating an inflation figure over a full year captures this and makes sense. So the next question is whether August to September is one of those periods. The answer is no, August to September was only deflationary in 2015 since CPI records began.

So, the real story with the big jump in inflation is that August to September in 2015 was a period of deflation. That's far less exciting, so let's just go with the Brexit story.

Note also that 1% inflation is still a long way below the target of 2%.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that I fully expect inflation to increase, I would just like it be reported when it happens though.

joelsim

TheBigBean wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Inflation up 0.4 today. Stagflation on its way.

You have to be careful when looking at inflation as the reporting rarely provides the detail. Now, I fully expect the change in exchange rate to be inflationary, but today's data wasn't really that astonishing.

CPI in Sept 2015 was 101.2 whereas CPI in Sept 2015 was 100.2. I assume rounding in the index accounts for the difference between 0.9% which would be calculated on the above figures and the reported 1.0% annual inflation. This doesn't seem to happen with RPI, but that's a digression.

Anyway, the point is that the index increased as followed:

0.2 between April and May
0.2 between May and June
0.0 between June to July
0.3 between July and August.

On this basis the 0.2 increase between August and September is hardly a rampant change. So the question is, what has changed? The answer is the denominator. August to September in 2015 was a period of deflation (a drop from 100.3 to 100.2).

Some months are nearly always deflationary such as December to January (and June to July frequently seems to be), so calculating an inflation figure over a full year captures this and makes sense. So the next question is whether August to September is one of those periods. The answer is no, August to September was only deflationary in 2015 since CPI records began.

So, the real story with the big jump in inflation is that August to September in 2015 was a period of deflation. That's far less exciting, so let's just go with the Brexit story.

Note also that 1% inflation is still a long way below the target of 2%.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that I fully expect inflation to increase, I would just like it be reported when it happens though.

Yep, appreciate this.

narbs

Joelsim wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

https://www.ft.com/content/2bd85650-9523-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582

ft wrote:

MPs will “very likely” be able to vote on the final Brexit deal, a lawyer for the government has said, in a statement that financial markets interpreted as slightly reducing the risk of a “hard” Brexit.

Theresa May has refused to allow parliament a vote on the decision to invoke Article 50, the EU exit clause, which she has said will take place by next March. But James Eadie QC told the High Court on Tuesday that the government’s view was that any deal negotiated under Article 50 would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

“Almost all treaties are subject to ratification,” he told the court.

Sterling had risen nearly 1 per cent against the dollar by midday London time, buoyed partly by the news. The currency has fallen sharply since the Conservative party conference in response to concerns that the country may opt for a Brexit deal that includes abandoning the EU’s single market.

Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the government must give parliament the opportunity to consider treaties that are subject to ratification. The House of Commons could block a treaty indefinitely by voting against it repeatedly; it cannot amend a treaty. The House of Lords cannot, on its own, delay or block a treaty.

Certainly looking that way. There'll be an appeal to the Supreme Court either way, but what it will do is give the scrutineers a filip.

I do love the way that Theresa May is blithely asserting that she won't allow Parliament to decide if Article 50 is invoked. It may not be her decision to make, as the High Court is currently hearing.

I've never followed a court case on Twitter before, it's quite interesting! Particularly now the Attorney General, who is supposed to be leading the Government case, seems to have done a runner.

bendertherobot

Either the AG needed a big poo or he's just become so %%&^&*% scared now that he's having one as a result.

narbs

bendertherobot wrote:

Either the AG needed a big poo or he's just become so %%&^&*% scared now that he's having one as a result.

I get the impression that he's ever so slightly out of his depth in current company.

bendertherobot

narbs wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Either the AG needed a big poo or he's just become so %%&^&*% scared now that he's having one as a result.

I get the impression that he's ever so slightly out of his depth in current company.

Bear in mind he's not even REALLY a QC, he got that as it comes as part of the role. At least his Polytechnic predecessor who lost to the Welsh Counsel General, was an actual QC.

rick_chasey

Have to say, as a snob myself, the quantity of snobbery about this guy's credentials is peculiarly British.

narbs

Rick Chasey wrote:

Have to say, as a snob myself, the quantity of snobbery about this guy's credentials is peculiarly British.

It's a serious point though. That an argument of this constitutional and political importance should be led on one side by someone with no courtroom experience of this type of law and precious little senior courtroom experience at all is quite strange.