BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Bobbinogs wrote:Joelsim wrote:... Everything that was predicted by the 'experts' is actually happening...
I wouldn't say that. There is some market volatility but that could be attributed (in no small part) to DC resigning without sorting anything out.
I said before the vote that DC, as PM, should never have led the Remain campaign as it effectively put everything on the one horse whereas the country needed a strong leader whatever the outcome.
I can see things settling down when we get the Art 50 issue sorted, a PM announced and a decent opposition in place rather than running around trying to get their resignations in via Twitter.
When do you think Article 50 will be sorted?
At the absolute very earliest in the late Autumn when we will have already lost hundreds of billions from our economy and seen the country develop into a cesspit of racism. The poorest will have seen plenty of job losses and they face further cuts too (once it's politically possible to do so).
Unless we find a money tree in the meantime.0 -
mrfpb wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mrfpb wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:How could the Govt plan for Brexit?
How could they not?
When the 2010 GE looked like it would result in a hung parliament, the civil service let it be known they were drawing up plans for supporting negotiations with every different permutation of coalition they could think of. They did this to help steady and reduce the inevitable market jitters. This referendum had only two possible outcomes, so where was the pre-planning and the assurances that the markets needed. All we got from Gov't was a promise to invoke Article 50 immediately and plans for a "punishment" emergency budget. Both have been abandoned in 72 hrs - though the budget was dead in the water the day it was announced.
I meant specifically what should they have done? and how do you know they are not quietly buying pounds and providing liquidity to banks? it is like poker, they would be mad to show their hand. Always remember the markets have far ore clout than the Govt or central bank.
And let's move away from market jitters to market sentiment
Lets make another comparison. In 1975 Heath offered the country a vote on EEC membership. Everyone knew his views as he spent 10 years ten years trying to get us in. However he stepped back form the debate and said that as pm he would be ready to do the countries will. This at least gave the wider community a sense that a pragmatic statesman was at the helm.
Cameron chose instead to take a side and put out worst case scenario stories about Brexit, which would only cause more instability in the event of an exit vote. Osborne did the same. They should have been able to give a message that they would pursue continuity and stability even if they would not share all the details. They should have, for example, been able to talk about a negotiation process that they would actually be willing to stick to if the vote went against them.
Only one side of this debate actually had responsibility for governing this country on June 24th and they let us down big time.
They took expert advice, and advised the country of the folly of voting Leave. Plenty didn't listen.0 -
mrfpb wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mrfpb wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:How could the Govt plan for Brexit?
How could they not?
When the 2010 GE looked like it would result in a hung parliament, the civil service let it be known they were drawing up plans for supporting negotiations with every different permutation of coalition they could think of. They did this to help steady and reduce the inevitable market jitters. This referendum had only two possible outcomes, so where was the pre-planning and the assurances that the markets needed. All we got from Gov't was a promise to invoke Article 50 immediately and plans for a "punishment" emergency budget. Both have been abandoned in 72 hrs - though the budget was dead in the water the day it was announced.
I meant specifically what should they have done? and how do you know they are not quietly buying pounds and providing liquidity to banks? it is like poker, they would be mad to show their hand. Always remember the markets have far ore clout than the Govt or central bank.
And let's move away from market jitters to market sentiment
Lets make another comparison. In 1975 Heath offered the country a vote on EEC membership. Everyone knew his views as he spent 10 years ten years trying to get us in. However he stepped back form the debate and said that as pm he would be ready to do the countries will. This at least gave the wider community a sense that a pragmatic statesman was at the helm.
Cameron chose instead to take a side and put out worst case scenario stories about Brexit, which would only cause more instability in the event of an exit vote. Osborne did the same. They should have been able to give a message that they would pursue continuity and stability even if they would not share all the details. They should have, for example, been able to talk about a negotiation process that they would actually be willing to stick to if the vote went against them.
Only one side of this debate actually had responsibility for governing this country on June 24th and they let us down big time.
Bobbinogs called it right - Cameron and probably Osborne should not have led the Remain campaign. I still believe his position was untenable and he had to go - if not it would have created more uncertainty. In an ideal world he should have made Boris Deputy PM then 5 mins later step down. That way Boris could have got on with negotiations whilst they decide the new leader of the Tory party.
I don't see how you can negotiate on somebody elses behalf when you don't know what they want. Surely the negotiation process has to come from Leave as they should know what they want. I am amazed they did not have a team, a goal and a strategy ready to kick into place0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:
Bobbinogs called it right - Cameron and probably Osborne should not have led the Remain campaign. I still believe his position was untenable and he had to go - if not it would have created more uncertainty. In an ideal world he should have made Boris Deputy PM then 5 mins later step down. That way Boris could have got on with negotiations whilst they decide the new leader of the Tory party.
I don't see how you can negotiate on somebody elses behalf when you don't know what they want. Surely the negotiation process has to come from Leave as they should know what they want. I am amazed they did not have a team, a goal and a strategy ready to kick into place
Meh, leave didn't know what they wanted. Just to be "out"
It worked well as a campaign strategy, allowed everyone to pick out their least favorite part of the EU, then campaign against that...avoiding answering any difficult questions on precisely how you exit the Union. If they'd have tried to come up with a coherant plan for leaving, I don't think it would have worked.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0
-
I typed my reply before bobinogs was posted.
Gove actually is in the cabinet - as is Chris Grayling. Maybe not the best example of ministers, but they have some authority, why not hand it to them. One of Cameron's untruths was insisting that Remain was the gov't position (and putting civil service reources into "campaigning before the campaign") when there was a clear chunk of the government campaigning for Leave. Another reason for stepping back.
It is also clear to many who follow politics that Cameron was elected Tory leader on a Eurosceptic-lite ticket, and a lot of people did not buy his ever more Europhile pronouncements.0 -
Jez mon wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Bobbinogs called it right - Cameron and probably Osborne should not have led the Remain campaign. I still believe his position was untenable and he had to go - if not it would have created more uncertainty. In an ideal world he should have made Boris Deputy PM then 5 mins later step down. That way Boris could have got on with negotiations whilst they decide the new leader of the Tory party.
I don't see how you can negotiate on somebody elses behalf when you don't know what they want. Surely the negotiation process has to come from Leave as they should know what they want. I am amazed they did not have a team, a goal and a strategy ready to kick into place
Meh, leave didn't know what they wanted. Just to be "out"
It worked well as a campaign strategy, allowed everyone to pick out their least favorite part of the EU, then campaign against that...avoiding answering any difficult questions on precisely how you exit the Union. If they'd have tried to come up with a coherant plan for leaving, I don't think it would have worked.
Clearly the Leave plan was akin to a cyclist wanting to lose weight in order to climb better cutting off a leg.0 -
As well as Sterling being at its lowest ever level against the dollar and several other currencies...
https://next.ft.com/content/22ead913-2e ... e3f12838970 -
0
-
Joelsim wrote:
Clearly the Leave plan was akin to a cyclist wanting to lose weight in order to climb better cutting off a leg.
Nah, more like a climber drinking the contents of his water bottle before a big climb...you know it won't make any difference but, in the lack of having anything else credible or positive, you have to chose hope above all else :-)0 -
Jeepers Joelsim - I hope there are no sharp knives or excess medicines close by!
You really did buy Osborne's doomsday scenarios didn't you!
The FTSE100 is where it has been for much of the last year, yes the FTSE250 is down quite a bit, and the pound has weekended, but the bottom has hardly fallen out. Our borrowing costs are down, not up (at the moment). Have you ever watched financial markets before?
No one anywhere knows what will happen over the next few months. The EU bureaucrats are soon off on their holidays so Junckers is speaking out of his @rse and he is exactly the type of creature most of the European population detest.
Merkel, her finance minister and Hollande are trying to be sensible and realistic, but the eurocrats like Junckers just can't understand that others hold a different view to them.
The political vacuum we have at present certainly won't help speed matters along, one way or another, but unless you have the only crystal ball on the planet that works, everyone is guessing.
Perhaps had the Remainers put across a positive campaign of the benefits of EU membership rather than the extreme scare stories we might not be in this situation.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Perhaps had the Remainers put across a positive campaign of the benefits of EU membership rather than the extreme scare stories we might not be in this situation.
And perhaps had the EU actually listened to some of peoples concerns and had given Cameron something tangable instead of sending him away with what amounted to nothing, we might have seen a different outcome.A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0 -
Bobbinogs wrote:Joelsim wrote:
Clearly the Leave plan was akin to a cyclist wanting to lose weight in order to climb better cutting off a leg.
Nah, more like a climber drinking the contents of his water bottle before a big climb...you know it won't make any difference but, in the lack of having anything else credible or positive, you have to chose hope above all else :-)
It was pretty clear that there was a 'hope' choice and a 'doomsday' choice. Just that some people chose to ignore it.0 -
That's a shame, he sounded very plausible in interviews of the last few months.PBlakeney wrote:
I wish. Tony Benn was a man of principle even if you did not agree with him.Bo Duke wrote:I think it very important to have a strong opposition - 2 strong parties are better than one.
Who are they likely to choose to replace Michael Foot's dad?
Hillary Benn impresses, but does his dad lurk inside?
Hillary is just like the rest these days, looking out for number one.
Tony B, I agree, a very principled man but seemed content to see industry become uncompetitive and decline rather than reform unionism and curb it's excesses. Very impressive man, but don't let him out alone.'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0 -
mrfpb wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:mrfpb wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:How could the Govt plan for Brexit?
How could they not?
When the 2010 GE looked like it would result in a hung parliament, the civil service let it be known they were drawing up plans for supporting negotiations with every different permutation of coalition they could think of. They did this to help steady and reduce the inevitable market jitters. This referendum had only two possible outcomes, so where was the pre-planning and the assurances that the markets needed. All we got from Gov't was a promise to invoke Article 50 immediately and plans for a "punishment" emergency budget. Both have been abandoned in 72 hrs - though the budget was dead in the water the day it was announced.
I meant specifically what should they have done? and how do you know they are not quietly buying pounds and providing liquidity to banks? it is like poker, they would be mad to show their hand. Always remember the markets have far ore clout than the Govt or central bank.
And let's move away from market jitters to market sentiment
Lets make another comparison. In 1975 Heath offered the country a vote on EEC membership. Everyone knew his views as he spent 10 years ten years trying to get us in. However he stepped back form the debate and said that as pm he would be ready to do the countries will. This at least gave the wider community a sense that a pragmatic statesman was at the helm.
Cameron chose instead to take a side and put out worst case scenario stories about Brexit, which would only cause more instability in the event of an exit vote. Osborne did the same. They should have been able to give a message that they would pursue continuity and stability even if they would not share all the details. They should have, for example, been able to talk about a negotiation process that they would actually be willing to stick to if the vote went against them.
Only one side of this debate actually had responsibility for governing this country on June 24th and they let us down big time.
All very sensible and I agree. The one thing I would add however is I think the onus should be on those wanting to change the status quo to have an aim and strategy of how to achieve it first. Unfortunately the leave campaign seems to just be a ramshackle collection of people who want out without a really coherent idea of why and how.0 -
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.0 -
bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
either that or it is impossible to negotiate on somebody's half when you don't know what they want.
As an example say that on Friday morning Cameron invoked A50 and the EU had made him a one off deal exactly the same deal as Norway ? he would have said no as it guarantees free movement of labour.
Meantime Boris would be banging his head against the wall as free movement of labour is something he does not care about.0 -
bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0 -
bramstoker wrote:bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.
Not when the people (many of whom don't have the faintest idea of the ramifications as they don't show that on Gogglebox) have been hoodwinked by a collection of total liars.0 -
I don't really dispute that, maddening as it is. It was more that Cameron & co never really expected the vote to go this way as they thought that, for all the noise, in the end people would vote rationally. It worked for him through two general elections, it worked for him in the Scottish referendum, he thought it would work for him this time.bramstoker wrote:bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.
Of course, the other side thought that as well.0 -
bramstoker wrote:bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.
or is it the duty of our leaders to lead... in this case away from the wheels of the bus0 -
Joelsim wrote:bramstoker wrote:bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.
Not when the people (many of whom don't have the faintest idea of the ramifications as they don't show that on Gogglebox) have been hoodwinked by a collection of total liars.
Welcome to the world of politics Joel! They all lie a lot.
Do you seriously think the Remain campaign didn't lie too?
Democracy isn't just about getting your own way and that seems to be something the self-styled intellectual elite can't grasp.
Part of the problem now is that no one knows what type of ongoing relationship with the EU has been voted for. However it is up to all the decent and reasonable people to get on with life and work out a solution that we can all live with.
Sadly the last few days have shown that there are still a lot of very nasty people in the country, and they sit on both sides of the debate.0 -
Joelsim wrote:bramstoker wrote:bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.
Not when the people (many of whom don't have the faintest idea of the ramifications as they don't show that on Gogglebox) have been hoodwinked by a collection of total liars.
So who do we not allow to vote ? People who earn less than you do? People who don't live in london? Perhaps if your over 45 you cant comprehend the choice so ban them as well?
"hoodwinked by a collection of total liars" You never met a politician ?A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0 -
bramstoker wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Perhaps had the Remainers put across a positive campaign of the benefits of EU membership rather than the extreme scare stories we might not be in this situation.
And perhaps had the EU actually listened to some of peoples concerns and had given Cameron something tangable instead of sending him away with what amounted to nothing, we might have seen a different outcome.
Like what? The only thing that would have satisfied the UKIP mob was a removal of freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is non-negotiable...
Cameron's mistake was talking up the reformsYou live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:bramstoker wrote:bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.
or is it the duty of our leaders to lead... in this case away from the wheels of the bus
Who is to say which direction they should lead? In a democracy you have to have regard to the will of the people. Sadly too many our elite can't grasp that any more. Look at some of the EU treaty ratifications - the politicos kept their population voting until they got the result they wanted.
The leaders need to choose the best route to the destination the electorate have chosen, otherwise let's just live under a dictatorship.0 -
Jez mon wrote:bramstoker wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Perhaps had the Remainers put across a positive campaign of the benefits of EU membership rather than the extreme scare stories we might not be in this situation.
And perhaps had the EU actually listened to some of peoples concerns and had given Cameron something tangable instead of sending him away with what amounted to nothing, we might have seen a different outcome.
Like what? The only thing that would have satisfied the UKIP mob was a removal of freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is non-negotiable...
Cameron's mistake was talking up the reforms
and do you really think that there are 17 million in this UKIP mob?
The sooner a large number of Remainers learn that not everyone who voted out is either old, thick or racist the sooner we can move on and find a solution.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Joelsim wrote:bramstoker wrote:bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.
Not when the people (many of whom don't have the faintest idea of the ramifications as they don't show that on Gogglebox) have been hoodwinked by a collection of total liars.
Welcome to the world of politics Joel! They all lie a lot.
Do you seriously think the Remain campaign didn't lie too?
Democracy isn't just about getting your own way and that seems to be something the self-styled intellectual elite can't grasp.
Part of the problem now is that no one knows what type of ongoing relationship with the EU has been voted for. However it is up to all the decent and reasonable people to get on with life and work out a solution that we can all live with.
Sadly the last few days have shown that there are still a lot of very nasty people in the country, and they sit on both sides of the debate.
Would you like to suggest what sort of solution we will be able to live with?
There doesn't appear to be one.
And if you'd thought about it beforehand then you would've known that before you voted. I did.0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Jez mon wrote:bramstoker wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Perhaps had the Remainers put across a positive campaign of the benefits of EU membership rather than the extreme scare stories we might not be in this situation.
And perhaps had the EU actually listened to some of peoples concerns and had given Cameron something tangable instead of sending him away with what amounted to nothing, we might have seen a different outcome.
Like what? The only thing that would have satisfied the UKIP mob was a removal of freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is non-negotiable...
Cameron's mistake was talking up the reforms
and do you really think that there are 17 million in this UKIP mob?
The sooner a large number of Remainers learn that not everyone who voted out is either old, thick or racist the sooner we can move on and find a solution.
There isn't a solution that the Leave voters voted for. Period.
(Unless we are willing to accept economic suicide).0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:bramstoker wrote:bompington wrote:
Another way of looking at it is kind of the opposite - they overestimated their intelligence and underestimated just how perversely they would vote...bramstoker wrote:Perhaps its just the arrogance of the ruling classes showing through in that they never believed for one second that the great unwashed would have differing views to them.
All very true, but they are there to enact the will of the people, if the people want to throw themselves under a bus they need to find the bus and guide it to the people.
or is it the duty of our leaders to lead... in this case away from the wheels of the bus
And as always other people know what i think and what i should be thinking better than i do.(not @ you Surrey Commuter)It seems to be why so many people voted they way they did.A feather is kinky, a whole chicken is just perverse.0 -
Joel - I voted to remain but knew it was likely to be close. However I don't buy into the doomsday scenario that was put across pre-vote by Boy George which clearly you have done.
It is essential in a democracy to respect the will of the people and that other hold different views to others. the sooner more remember this the sooner we can start to move forward.0
