Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[edprice1984]

"There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside" David Davis (10th October, 2016).

 

"The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want." Michael Gove (9 April, 2016).

 

"There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market". Boris Johnson (26th June, 2016)

 

"Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards". John Redwood (17th July, 2016)

 

"To me, Brexit is Easy". Nigel Farage (20th September, 2016).

 

"The free trade agreement that we will have to do with European Union should be one of the easiest in human history". Liam Fox (20th July, 2017).

 

Going back to immigration issue, which is likely to have been the main factor in many peoples minds when opting to vote Leave - clearly if you have concerns about immigration you are not automatically racist. However, I can talk from my own experience of speaking to friends, colleagues, family members that an element of racism played a large part in their decisions. I can remember having to explain on numerous occasions that leaving the EU would not stop people from Africa or India coming to the UK.

[Lord Duckhunter]

"There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside" David Davis (10th October, 2016).

 

"The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want." Michael Gove (9 April, 2016).

 

"There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market". Boris Johnson (26th June, 2016)

 

"Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards". John Redwood (17th July, 2016)

 

"To me, Brexit is Easy". Nigel Farage (20th September, 2016).

 

"The free trade agreement that we will have to do with European Union should be one of the easiest in human history". Liam Fox (20th July, 2017).

 

 

 

All true, although they didn’t think we’d have an incompetent Remainer PM, being advised by remain civil servants like Robbins. Remainer May has ****ed this up.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

All true, although they didn’t think we’d have an incompetent Remainer PM, being advised by remain civil servants like Robbins. Remainer May has ****ed this up.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Absolute gold. We could have had it all if only for May and her mandarin sidekick

 

The unicorns never existed. There’s no shame in admitting you were sold a pup pal.

Edited 21 September, 2018 by shurlock

[benjii]

Sorry, very London-centric as I live there or thereabouts - as do you don't you?

 

Either way that's the view as it is in London, and you can take out the LTV drop and just apply the rest to the rest of the UK if you like?

 

Fall in property prices in London is a good thing, no?

[benjii]

The cost of a barrel of oil. In 2012 it was $103. Now it's $69.

 

What do you think has made that difference? I'll give you a clue - it's in my post explaining why the country is poorer.

 

Are you saying Brexit has caused the wholesale price of oil to increase in the global market in dollar terms?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Fall in property prices in London is a good thing, no?

 

Not for those who own there, no.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Are you saying Brexit has caused the wholesale price of oil to increase in the global market in dollar terms?

 

No, how do you get to that conclusion?

[hypochondriac]

Not for those who own there, no.

Property owners in London are definitely the highest cause for concern when discussing poverty in the UK.

[benjii]

Not for those who own there, no.

 

You don't think London property prices are too high and that this has a negative impact on social mobility, young people's prospects and the future financial security of younger generations? Thought you like Corbyn?

 

Oh well, as long as those lucky enough to have got on the Big London Property Money Merry-Go-Round are OK then never mind all that.

[benjii]

No, how do you get to that conclusion?

 

You started quoting prices for "barrels of oil" in US dollars in the context of a debate about the impact of the Brexit vote.

 

Edit: sorry, I should have said "fallen", not "risen". I think I may also see what you are saying now. I think you're saying that our energy costs should be cheaper than they are. Maybe so, but there are a lot of complicating factors in relation to energy costs, besides currency-adjusted cost if hydrocarbons.

Edited 21 September, 2018 by benjii

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You don't think London property prices are too high and that this has a negative impact on social mobility, young people's prospects and the future financial security of younger generations? Thought you like Corbyn?

 

Oh well, as long as those lucky enough to have got on the Big London Property Money Merry-Go-Round are OK then never mind all that.

 

Since when do I like Corbyn? I'm one of his biggest critics. And you think everyone in London has tons of money from that? Wow, clueless.

Edited 21 September, 2018 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You started quoting prices for "barrels of oil" in US dollars in the context of a debate about the impact of the Brexit vote.

 

Edit: sorry, I should have said "fallen", not "risen". I think I may also see what you are saying now. I think you're saying that our energy costs should be cheaper than they are. Maybe so, but there are a lot of complicating factors in relation to energy costs, besides currency-adjusted cost if hydrocarbons.

 

Barrels of oil are always quoted in US dollars.

 

Now, try again to work out how petrol prices could be the same in this country now as in 2012, yet the cost of oil has decreased by 30%.

[benjii]

Since when do I like Corbyn? And you think everyone in London has tons of money from that? Wow, clueless.

 

I may have you confused with another poster. Similar avatar or something. Happy to admit to being wrong!

 

London property getting cheaper is not necessarily a bad thing though.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I may have you confused with another poster. Similar avatar or something. Happy to admit to being wrong!

 

London property getting cheaper is not necessarily a bad thing though.

 

I'm not saying it is, but in the context of people getting poorer, of course it is.

[benjii]

Barrels of oil are always quoted in US dollars.

 

Now, try again to work out how petrol prices could be the same in this country as in 2012, yet the cost of oil has decreased by 30%.

 

The cost of oil comprises about 25% of the pump price. Tax is the biggest component by far.

 

 

Ceteris paribus, you'd therefore expect a 30% fall in crude price to have approximately 8% corresponding impact on pump price but price fluctuations over the years are much more pronounced than that and due to a number of factors (of which currency rates can be one).

 

Look, it's legitimate to raise negative aspects of Brexit but I think the impact on petrol prices is a pretty immaterial consequence at the current time.

 

And it will all be a drop in the ocean compared to the industry 4.0 ****-storm.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The cost of oil comprises about 25% of the pump price. Tax is the biggest component by far.

 

 

Ceteris paribus, you'd therefore expect a 30% fall in crude price to have approximately 8% corresponding impact on pump price but price fluctuations over the years are much more pronounced than that and due to a number of factors (of which currency rates can be one).

 

Look, it's legitimate to raise negative aspects of Brexit but I think the impact on petrol prices is a pretty immaterial consequence at the current time.

 

And it will all be a drop in the ocean compared to the industry 4.0 ****-storm.

 

My point is that it's mainly due to currency rates - the 30% drop in the strength of the pound since the vote has led to this.

Edited 21 September, 2018 by Unbelievable Jeff

[whelk]

So does anyone actually know the truth?

 

It like a fcking riddle. #trottersup

[Lord Duckhunter]

Not for those who own there, no.

 

Cry me a ****ing river

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[whelk]

He really didn't. He's said from day 1 as a package its unacceptable. A few warm words about parts of it being okay have been built up by May as some kind of chink of light, a negotiating gambit ahead of the 27 caving in to the one.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/08/03/barnier-has-finally-killed-chequers-and-with-it-the-uk-gover

 

Political pundits seem to indicate it was an ambush.

[shurlock]

Political pundits seem to indicate it was an ambush.

 

From Dave Allen Green at the FT

 

 

If you are surprised by anything that happened at Salzburg then you have not been paying attention. The intensity of any shock or anger at the political drama of the EU summit is a mere register of how little knowledge or understanding you have about the process of Brexit.

 

The EU27 have maintained the same position since the very beginning of the Brexit process. In the days after the referendum vote, the EU stated plainly, and in English, that the UK would be treated as a “third country” on its departure. For the EU27 to reiterate this position in Salzburg was no “ambush”, as some excited politicians are contending. Or if it were an ambush, it was one which anyone with open eyes and ears would have known was coming years ago.

 

Theresa May, the UK prime minister, did seem taken aback. This was disappointing. Just because she was able to keep the majority of her cabinet together over the Chequers proposals was not, by itself, any reason for the EU to accept those proposals. From the day they were agreed by her colleagues, anyone who follows EU affairs would have known that the bloc would not and could not accept the UK position on the future relationship.

 

Mrs May appeared to believe that it would be enough to assert loudly that the Chequers plan was the only option, and to complement this with attempts to bypass Michel Barnier and his negotiating team with a strident article in a German newspaper and direct diplomacy. She would put her head down and charge. As it was, she fell flat.

 

She has little background or flair for negotiating with the EU. Her previous role as home secretary from 2010 to 2016 (one of the longest-serving occupants of that office) meant that her dealings with the EU were in the “pick and choose” area of justice and home affairs, where the UK could and did just opt in and opt out. Any home secretary would thus see the EU as being made of “cake” (a term which has entered the political lexicon, from the saying “having one’s cake and eating it”).

 

So if the prime minister does not herself know how to deal with the EU, it comes down to the advisers. And for Mrs May to have so visible a political setback in Salzburg means she is either receiving bad advice or is disregarding good advice (or a mixture of both). Perhaps the political team at Downing Street prevailed over diplomatic advisers. Perhaps anybody with wisdom has given up trying.

 

One recurring problem with the UK’s dealings with the EU is its belief that “more politics” is the solution to any problem. There are those who genuinely believe that former prime minister David Cameron failed to do better with the infamous “deal” before the 2016 referendum because he was not ambitious enough. In fact, the reason Mr Cameron did not and could not go further was the failure to grasp the extent to which the EU is a law-based and rules-based regime.

 

Yet the UK keeps on bringing the weapons of propaganda and posturing to battles where the EU comes armed with process and patience. And it still keeps wondering why it fails. There is no reason for the UK to fail, as for 45 years it has managed to influence and shape the EU. The single market itself owes a great deal to the practical skills of British politicians and officials.

 

Mrs May and those surrounding her have excluded those who they needed the most. The early loss of Ivan Rogers, the former UK permanent representative to the EU, was significant, but he was not the only one. Had such people stayed and been involved, the UK approach to the negotiations would have been far less inept.

 

All this said, however, Salzburg is not that significant for Brexit. The UK is still on course to leave the EU by automatic operation of law on March 29 2019 (unless something exceptional and not currently in sight happens). The EU and UK are still likely to finalise a withdrawal agreement, and will find the means to deal with the Irish backstop issue. Most of the Chequers proposals are not about the terms of exit but about the future relationship between the UK and EU. And so for the EU to be emphatic in its rejection of those proposals does not directly derail the departure, but instead makes the destination less clear.

 

 

Salzburg therefore changes little of substance. The EU stood by its settled position. The UK demonstrated again why its Brexit policy is not working. The Brexit caravan moves on. If the Salzburg summit is remembered for anything, it will be for showing that on Brexit the prime minister and perhaps her advisers had not been paying attention.

 

[whelk]

From Dave Allen Green at the FT

 

They ambushed our Teresa. I cannot forgive them.

 

I am no expert and swallow whatever Robert Peston tells me

[shurlock]

They ambushed our Teresa. I cannot forgive them.

 

I am no expert and swallow whatever Robert Peston tells me

 

I saw Pesto on Hampstead Heath the other week, dressed like a mid-80s Smiths fan. Floppy-haired, melodramatic tit.

[buctootim]

Political pundits seem to indicate it was an ambush.

 

I honestly think they were trying to do Britain a favour - to snap May out of her delusion whilst there is still time to actually come up with a workable deal for approval in November.

 

None of what they did was new, they simply restated collectively what has been said individually for two years. Barnier even wrote pieces for all the major newspapers in the EU stating Chequers was a non runner. Still May didnt listen. May's problem was that she thought she could pick them off one by one. She was wrong and has always been wrong.

 

 

This is from early August:

 

"So, it has finally happened. Theresa May’s genius plan for Brexit, the fabled Chequers deal, is finally dead.

 

A couple of days ago on this website I outlined the government’s chaos and predicted that EU negotiator Michel Barnier would finally kill Chequers after the summer break. Everyone deserves a holiday, after all. But it turns out I was being too optimistic about it. The Frenchman only went and butchered it yesterday. Just in time, cheeky observers may note, for May’s meeting today with President Macron in the south of France.

 

In an op-ed published in twenty European newspapers, Barnier wrote: “Some UK proposals would undermine our Single Market which is one of the EU's biggest achievements. The UK wants to keep free movement of goods between us, but not of people and services. And it proposes to apply EU customs rules without being part of the EU's legal order. Thus, the UK wants to take back sovereignty and control of its own laws, which we respect, but it cannot ask the EU to lose control of its borders and laws.”

 

No need to ask for whom that bell tolls, prime minister. It was loud, clear and humiliating enough for everyone to understand. This parrot is so dead it is hard to ascertain if it was ever even born. The Chequers plan was always going to be unacceptable because it flatly ignored two of the EU’s mile-deep red lines: no special treatment for the UK and no cherry-picking of EU rules. The customs plan would have involved the EU surrendering control of tariff collection, at vast economic, technical and bureaucratic cost, simply so the UK could have its cake and eat it with its own (inferior) trade deals. The ‘common goods rulebook’, meanwhile, demanded that the EU give the UK key benefits of the single market while letting it scrap the free movement of people.

 

To be fair to May, it is possible that she did not hear EU leaders when they told her repeatedly for two years that the UK could not implement one freedom of the single market (goods) without implementing the other three (services, capital and people). But that never referred to a specific UK plan. Now it does. And May has no plan B.

 

So what now? For the moment, nothing changes. The UK government’s Brexit delusions have been slain and zombified many times before now. The usual response in London is to either feign deafness or blithely re-state Britain’s negotiating position, as though the EU will finally agree to an unacceptable proposal if if the UK can simply repeat it often enough.

 

But this moment does feel different, and more serious. In the past the government could say that it was an ongoing negotiation. But our negotiating partner has now categorically rejected the UK’s formal document, on which, to boot, May has effectively staked her premiership. She will either have to agree to a full single market and customs union, or a Canada-style trade deal which splits the UK’s own single market with a regulatory border in the Irish Sea. Needless to say, she cannot survive either - but neither she nor any successor will ever have better cards to play.

 

Barnier initially appeared reluctant to dismember the corpse of Chequers too early in case he brought down May’s government with it. Perhaps he now reasons (correctly) that this government is finished anyway. Or maybe it was just too embarrassing to pretend that something so dead was in fact a little bit alive. But rest assured, it is dead, and with it the government’s only plan for Brexit. The post-mortem will be lengthy, brutal and exhausting".

Edited 21 September, 2018 by buctootim

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Cry me a ****ing river

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It's not the people that can afford it that it affects though...

[Jonnyboy]

Not for those who own there, no.

 

Only if you own more than one property there, in which case screw you.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Only if you own more than one property there, in which case screw you.

 

I agree, those with multiple properties aren't the issue. The ones who are struggling are normal people, who don't get paid megabucks, yet are expected to live a decent life in one of the most expensive cities in the World.

 

This just compounds it.

[aintforever]

I agree, those with multiple properties aren't the issue. The ones who are struggling are normal people, who don't get paid megabucks, yet are expected to live a decent life in one of the most expensive cities in the World.

 

This just compounds it.

 

To be fair I think a bigger problem is people stuck in rented unable to get on the ladder. Falling house prices is fantastic news for them.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

To be fair I think a bigger problem is people stuck in rented unable to get on the ladder. Falling house prices is fantastic news for them.

 

I'm not saying its not. The comments are in response to people being poorer in real terms, which they are.

[scotty]

Property owners in London are definitely the highest cause for concern when discussing poverty in the UK.

 

:lol:

[Batman]

I'm not saying its not. The comments are in response to people being poorer in real terms, which they are.

 

like your point about property price falling, are you still on about London? you are very London-centric

[hypochondriac]

I agree, those with multiple properties aren't the issue. The ones who are struggling are normal people, who don't get paid megabucks, yet are expected to live a decent life in one of the most expensive cities in the World.

 

This just compounds it.

 

Oh those poor unfortunate London property owners burdened by the expectations of living a decent life. How will they survive? Maybe they'll have to downgrade their venti latte to a smaller one. My heart bleeds for them.

 

What it comes down to is that those without property currently living in London may be more able to get a foot on the property ladder if we see a drop in the ridiculous house prices in London. I and I suspect the majority of the public's sympathies are going to lie with those people and you're going to be hard pushed to convince anyone that we should really be caring more about those who already have a substantial asset in the form of property in London. Or should we be wishing for London house prices to continue to climb because it makes middle class home owners a little bit more comfortable?

Edited 22 September, 2018 by hypochondriac

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Oh those poor unfortunate London property owners burdened by the expectations of living a decent life. How will they survive? Maybe they'll have to downgrade their venti latte to a smaller one. My heart bleeds for them.

 

What it comes down to is that those without property currently living in London may be more able to get a foot on the property ladder if we see a drop in the ridiculous house prices in London. I and I suspect the majority of the public's sympathies are going to lie with those people and you're going to be hard pushed to convince anyone that we should really be caring more about those who already have a substantial asset in the form of property in London. Or should we be wishing for London house prices to continue to climb because it makes middle class home owners a little bit more comfortable?

 

Sigh, read back through the thread, I'm not going to repeat myself. I've never said this is about the rich or middle class, this is about those that are on low wages in the capital trying to make ends meet.

 

But that's fine, continue to sneer at the poor the way you like to do. I'm sure when you're charging people massive amounts to send their kids to your nursery you sit back and laugh at the poverty.

[hypochondriac]

Sigh, read back through the thread, I'm not going to repeat myself. I've never said this is about the rich or middle class, this is about those that are on low wages in the capital trying to make ends meet.

 

But that's fine, continue to sneer at the poor the way you like to do. I'm sure when you're charging people massive amounts to send their kids to your nursery you sit back and laugh at the poverty.

 

Absolutely hilarious that you think having less sympathy for property owners in London than renters or those with no property assets amounts to sneering at "poor" people. If owning a property in London is your idea of poor then you need to get a clue and maybe get out of London. The only person treating the real poor with disdain are people like yourself by trying to lump the privileged home owners in with them. It's not particularly surprising that you're so ignorant of real poverty considering how you blanket dismissed millions of people as thick racists just because they disagreed with you. And your comment about nursery just proves you know precisely nothing about how nurseries are funded. Get a clue.

Edited 22 September, 2018 by hypochondriac

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Absolutely hilarious that you think having less sympathy for property owners in London than renters or those with no property assets amounts to sneering at "poor" people. If owning a property in London is your idea of poor then you need to get a clue and maybe get out of London. The only person treating the real poor with disdain are people like yourself by trying to lump the privileged home owners in with them. It's not particularly surprising that you're so ignorant of real poverty considering how you blanket dismissed millions of people as thick racists just because they disagreed with you. And your comment about nursery just proves you know precisely nothing about how nurseries are funded. Get a clue.

 

Where do I have less sympathy with home owners than renters - find me the post. In fact, if you read it, my earlier post acknowledged those issues. But of course you did read that post.

[Weston Super Saint]

I'm not saying its not. The comments are in response to people being poorer in real terms, which they are.

 

If you're not planning to sell your house in London, then you aren't 'poorer in real terms' as a result of the drop!

 

Besides, what are you comparing this 'poorer in real terms' to? If you owned the same home 10 years ago, then surely you would in nett terms be way better off (on paper) than you were when you bought the property?

[hypochondriac]

Where do I have less sympathy with home owners than renters - find me the post. In fact, if you read it, my earlier post acknowledged those issues. But of course you did read that post.

No that's what you are accusing me of! Learn to read. Oh dear you've embarrassed yourself haven't you by laughing at me for not reading your post whilst embarrassingly failing to read mine properly... Edited 22 September, 2018 by hypochondriac

[Cabbage_Face]

Leave U Jeff alone, he is poorer than us all. Do you have a gofundme going? I'll give you a tenner.

[Batman]

Leave U Jeff alone, he is poorer than us all. Do you have a gofundme going? I'll give you a tenner.

 

Jeff is so poor he Gave up his BMW M3 ffs

[aintforever]

I’ll chip in, this ‘slightly higher LTV’ sounds awful.

[hypochondriac]

I’ll chip in, this ‘slightly higher LTV’ sounds awful.

He's practically destitute. I heard that in his last trip to America he could no longer afford to travel business class ffs!

[Batman]

He's practically destitute. I heard that in his last trip to America he could no longer afford to travel business class ffs!

 

Also, in recent years he has downgraded his BMW M3 to a Merc, now to a Volvo estate.

 

 

The struggle is real!!!

[shurlock]

Also, in recent years he has downgraded his BMW M3 to a Merc, now to a Volvo estate.

 

 

The struggle is real!!!

 

Is his driveway still blocked?

[Cabbage_Face]

Jesus sounds destitute. Soon he might have to buy a Jag or Lexus. Seriously if you need to borrow some cash I can help out, low interest rate. #prayforJeff

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plastic]

Also, in recent years he has downgraded his BMW M3 to a Merc, now to a Volvo estate.

 

I thought that was to fund the classic car collection? Luckily those beauties are recession proof.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just out of interest, where did I say I was struggling? Thia is not about me. The fall in house prices make no difference to me, I'm living in my house for the next 20 years, not looking to make any money out of it.

 

Look, you can all gang up and try to criticise me when I am making a point about hard working Londoners, our nurses, our junior doctors, our social care workers having money knocked off the price of their 1 bed Lambert flats, but sneering at me won't make any difference.

 

If you all think that there has been no effect to the cost of living post Brexit, which is what I was arguing, then you are massively mistaken. There is factual evidence to the contrary, so frankly can't understand why you're arguing it.

Edited 22 September, 2018 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Leave U Jeff alone, he is poorer than us all. Do you have a gofundme going? I'll give you a tenner.

 

I'll set one up if you're going to give me free money. Are you going to give me free money? I do need it, honest.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Absolutely hilarious that you think having less sympathy for property owners in London than renters or those with no property assets amounts to sneering at "poor" people. If owning a property in London is your idea of poor then you need to get a clue and maybe get out of London. The only person treating the real poor with disdain are people like yourself by trying to lump the privileged home owners in with them. It's not particularly surprising that you're so ignorant of real poverty considering how you blanket dismissed millions of people as thick racists just because they disagreed with you. And your comment about nursery just proves you know precisely nothing about how nurseries are funded. Get a clue.

 

My youngest's nursery is a £2.5m Manor House with 6 acres of land. They seem to deal with their funding fine.

[hypochondriac]

My youngest's nursery is a £2.5m Manor House with 6 acres of land. They seem to deal with their funding fine.

That doesn't address the funding issues at all. Your conformable middle/upper class nursery is not the norm I assure you. Here's a link you may find illuminating:

 

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D0Zm-mYA6XpQ&ved=2ahUKEwim9byw3s_dAhXCDcAKHYabDn4QwqsBMAJ6BAgJEAU&usg=AOvVaw2GAZVGZ-06kskO8qD0dg8q

Edited 23 September, 2018 by hypochondriac

[Lord Duckhunter]

If Sadiq Khan gets another term, those poor downtrodden Londoners may see their property prices fall further. And God help them if Corbyn gets in, he’ll have his eye on all that equity they’ve built up over the years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

If Sadiq Khan gets another term, those poor downtrodden Londoners may see their property prices fall further. And God help them if Corbyn gets in, he’ll have his eye on all that equity they’ve built up over the years.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh noes. How will UJ afford his gold plated chopsticks then???