Brexit

[Wheeze]

Look, anyone with half a brain would have ignored the braying of both sides on the divide when the initial vote took place. So, leaving that to one side, the voters gave their response to a binary question with no codicils or qualifiers. Leave or Remain. Both had their upsides and downsides either known or unknown. You cannot thrash around with "facts" that came to light after the watershed. None of them are relevant in the long term. Of the people who were able or interested enough to make a vote,a majority (insignificant in my view) voted to leave. By the terms of that vote it should (but not must) be enacted. And then we pick up the pieces where they fall.
For the record, I voted leave but I am unhappy that the terms of the referendum did not specify a meaningful majority. This puts me at odds with many of my friends and acquaintances who voted remain for perfectly valid reasons. We are all held to ransom by the 12 million who could have voted but abstained for whatever reason. Who knows what they wanted or cared about?

[Stolly]

Is Rees-Mogg about to fall prey to the 'let's compromise' trap? I really like him so I hope not.

Hmmm I wonder how bigger bets his hedge funds are taking against British retailers and EU dependent British industries on the back of Brexit chaos 🤔

[Witton Park]

Hmmm I wonder how bigger bets his hedge funds are taking against British retailers and EU dependent British industries on the back of Brexit chaos ��

he doesn't have any involvement in hedge funds

[shaunaneto]

Fund Management not Hedge Fund.

[shaunaneto]

Look, anyone with half a brain

There are significant portions of the UK electorate that stick to one news source, or at least news sources closely aligned. Then end up in echo chambers resulting in the frantic braying becomes accepted facts.

One of the other forums I watch is pretty much preparing for the rapture, not leaving the EU.

Then there are those that think the Daily Express is a balanced informative source of factual information.

[Witton Park]

Good points Chris. So let's leave remainers out of the argument briefly. The question remains: what sort of leave do we think the majority of leavers voted for? Or perhaps more pertinently, what sort of leave do leavers favour now?

This point is always brought up - by the Remain side.

The key pillars were take control of laws, trade and borders.

Mrs May tries to claim her arrangement honours that, but it doesn't.

On laws, there is ECJ jurisdiction in to the foreseeable future. If anyone wonders to what effect, just consider that in the last week the EU decided to extend A50 and as we are still members, they could do it without recourse to our Parliament and if our 2 Houses do not pass the SI tonight, it doesn't mean it falls, it means that the UK law is then contrary to International Law.
They have just changed the law of the land without recourse to Parliament.

On trade, Mrs May moves us in to a transition that can be up to 4 year, all under EU Commission, with tariffs, duties, policy, standards, financial regs all set by the EU with the UK having no say or Veto.
There is then the possibility of the backstop which maintains us in a regulatory aligned position until an agreement is reached.
How long? No one can tell.

On borders, freedom of movement will be maintained until....? No one knows. Subject to the negotiations.

So what I want Noel, and I suspect most leavers are the same, is a definitive date.

At the moment we have a withdrawal agreement dressed up as a deal, but it isn't a deal, other than for the UK to move from a position it can leave of it's own will, to a position it can't leave unless by agreement with the EU.
That is certainly not what we voted for.

I can accept a time limited transition/implementation.

If a FTA cannot be agreed in that time, that surely would be enough time for all to accept we cannot do it and just leave.

In effect that is what the Malthouse Proposal was. To leave on the 29th without the WA, adopt a holding arrangement under the GATT rules, continue to talk, meet our commitments, and if the talks cannot be progressed we leave the holding arrangement after an agreed notice period.

[shaunaneto]

Surely it doesn’t matter what the deal is. The EU is going to collapse after the next round of elections anyway ...

[shaunaneto]

Anyway WP. Sorry, I meant to respond to something the other day.

Greece in particular should never have joined the Euro. More to that they never should have been allowed to join. There’s a political decision over ruling an economic decision if ever I saw one.

I view that as hubris on the part of the EU. A word I attach to Brexit as well.

(Sorry, needed to get at least one dig in)

[Oracle]

Hmmm I wonder how bigger bets his hedge funds are taking against British retailers and EU dependent British industries on the back of Brexit chaos ��

The funds are there to see, see them for example on Hargreaves landsdown or Morningstar under" Somerset asset management" . Some are restricted to non public clients, some are blind as completely private individual asset management The much misreported " fund moves" by that illinformed idiot Corbyn in parliament were simply creating compliant wrappers and organisation for EU access via Eire.

Most funds have multiple wrappers for different client uses under different eg sedol codes, with different charge and commission structures, and different legal framework. Corbyn and McDonnell should be barred from speaking in the house till they learn even the basics of how finance works! They have misled too many people on far too many issues. They still don't understand QE as evident in even recent comments. Including McDonnells classic self contradiction 2 years ago " I don't want to borrow, I want to use bonds!!??" A man who wants to be chancellor!? The pair af them are dangerously stupid as their trillion pound lie of a manifesto proved.

As for Eire wrappers - It's how IFA abroad can offer clients access to them. In effect it is the way this industry " exports" by gaining ( what will be post Brexit) foreign investment in funds managed in London. Rees mogg didnt help much by calling Corbyns remarks " inexactitude " - instead of saying the more unparliamentary down right illinformed stupid, for which Corbyn should have apologised for misleading the house. Not hedge funds at all, but e.g. Such as emerging market funds. Shouldnt you know this?

[SCOOT]

The funds are there to see, see them for example on Hargreaves landsdown or Morningstar under" Somerset asset management" . Some are restricted to non public clients, some are blind as completely private individual asset management The much misreported " fund moves" by that illinformed idiot Corbyn in parliament were simply creating compliant wrappers and organisation for EU access via Eire.

Most funds have multiple wrappers for different client uses under different eg sedol codes, with different charge and commission structures, and different legal framework. Corbyn and McDonnell should be barred from speaking in the house till they learn even the basics of how finance works! They have misled too many people on far too many issues. They still don't understand QE as evident in even recent comments. Including McDonnells classic self contradiction 2 years ago " I don't want to borrow, I want to use bonds!!??" A man who wants to be chancellor!? The pair af them are dangerously stupid as their trillion pound lie of a manifesto proved.

As for Eire wrappers - It's how IFA abroad can offer clients access to them. In effect it is the way this industry " exports" by gaining ( what will be post Brexit) foreign investment in funds managed in London. Rees mogg didnt help much by calling Corbyns remarks " inexactitude " - instead of saying the more unparliamentary down right illinformed stupid, for which Corbyn should have apologised for misleading the house. Not hedge funds at all, but e.g. Such as emerging market funds. Shouldnt you know this?

I have read this and don't mind admitting that I have absolutely no Idea what it all means. Maybe I should go for a run and think about it.