The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Davkaus]

Sadly, I suspect that Jeremy will insist that it is his dog, he won it fair and square, and if he wants to starve it and kick it up the arse, he has a mandate to do so.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Risso said:

The BBC seems to have not reported that he thinks that the UK financial centre will remain globally important, and if there is any damage caused by Brexit this will have corrected itself within 2 to 3 years.  Also, the other bloke in the HoC committee said that only a third of the possible 1,000 jobs would be "front line" ie what people think of as "bankers".

Perhaps not, but the article did say

Quote

Mr Gulliver said his bank was in no rush, but added: "Specifically what will happen is those activities covered specifically by European financial regulation will need to move, looking at our own numbers.

"That's about 20% of the revenue," he told Bloomberg Television at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
But he added: "I don't see the foreign exchange market moving, the investment grade bond market moving, the equity market moving and the high-yield bond market moving"

which is kind of a similar point.

[HanoiVillan]

Labour will be polling in minus numbers soon. 

[Risso]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Perhaps not, but the article did say

which is kind of a similar point.

I don't think it is.  That's technical detail that would mean precisely nothing to 95% of readers.  The headline and article is designed to purely give the idea that there will be massive job losses, with very little other context provided.  The fact that he says certain departments are staying put does not give any information about the relative strength of those areas pre and post Brexit.

A decent and balanced headline would have been along the lines of:

"HSBC chief states up to 1,000 jobs will probably move to Paris, but the financial sector expects to replace those losses within three years."

[HanoiVillan]

14 minutes ago, Risso said:

I don't think it is.  That's technical detail that would mean precisely nothing to 95% of readers.  The headline and article is designed to purely give the idea that there will be massive job losses, with very little other context provided.  The fact that he says certain departments are staying put does not give any information about the relative strength of those areas pre and post Brexit.

A decent and balanced headline would have been along the lines of:

"HSBC chief states up to 1,000 jobs will probably move to Paris, but the financial sector expects to replace those losses within three years."

That probably would be a more accurate headline, but it's a bit long 

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, Risso said:

...A decent and balanced headline would have been along the lines of:

"HSBC chief states up to 1,000 jobs will move to Paris, but financial sector expects to replace those losses within three years."

Yeah, probably -  though as HV says it's a bit windy. And realistically in "News" terms the loss of 1000 jobs is "news" someone expecting them to be restored somewhere down the line isn't "news". Man bites dog v Dog bites man  etc.

It's nothing on the Heil and the Express etc. That "pound soars" one was a cracker. And neither of them have gone with any kind of line of "May to destroy Thatcher's single market legacy" I can't think why not.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Sadly, I suspect that Jeremy will insist that it is his dog, he won it fair and square, and if he wants to starve it and kick it up the arse, he has a mandate to do so.

He's not as stupid as he looks (or at least some of those around him aren't) because 90% of Labour held constituencies outside London voted Leave.

If he made a serious attempt to opppse A50 he'd be making his party's piss poor prospects in 2020 even worse. 

[Awol]

1 hour ago, meregreen said:

As per the last two question perhaps the questions should have been , " not try to remain in the single market /fail to negotiate a new trade deal" and " leave customs union / fail to make own trade deals. Both of which seem the most likely outcome at the moment. Those original questions were both loaded, in that the alternatives given were positive, when they are looking decidedly the opposite.

Out of interest do you have any reason to say it's likely we'll fail to reach any trade deals with countries outside the EU?

Seems an odd conclusion when we know that the Americans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis, Chinese, Brazilians, Indians, South Koreans, the GCC and others are expressing interest in making free trade deals with the UK. 

[HanoiVillan]

19 minutes ago, Awol said:

He's not as stupid as he looks (or at least some of those around him aren't) because 90% of Labour held constituencies outside London voted Leave.

If he made a serious attempt to opppse A50 he'd be making his party's piss poor prospects in 2020 even worse. 

What's stupid is not him, personally, opposing Brexit, or even making it the party position. The stupidity is in making it a three line whip when he must know that dozens of his MP's will rebel. It just makes him look even weaker. 

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, Awol said:

Out of interest do you have any reason to say it's likely we'll fail to reach any trade deals with countries outside the EU?

Seems an odd conclusion when we know that the Americans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwis, Chinese, Brazilians, Indians, South Koreans, the GCC and others are expressing interest in making free trade deals with the UK. 

We've heard that the disgraced Liam Fox says they are, which hopefully is the same thing.

But anyway, suppose that in 2 years + we do agree some sort of free trade deals with them (and hopefully others, too). My sort of question/itch is "what exactly are these deals going to entail that's suddenly going to make all those places buy loads more of our "stuff". I can see that currently the Eurozone place is struggling a bit, and so until it recovers the demand they have for our stuff has been a bit depressed, so we only now do 44% of our exports to them. I would imagine, seeing as Mayday has said we're not going to do single market with them any more to keep out the nasty foreigners, that our trade with them will dip further. How will all these other places fill in for, or overtake that drop off?

It just all seems a bit of a wing and a prayer to me. India has the hump because we won't give them decent immigration access (who'd a thunk it!), China is a protectionist, IPR stealing nightmare, America is going all protectionist, too (even more so than now) and the other places are mostly lovely but small.

We're just going to sit in the corner and scowl at everyone aren't we?

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

We're just going to sit in the corner and scowl at everyone aren't we?

Suspect very many bourgeois Remainers in the public eye will do exactly that. Having doubled down on the forecasts of doom they pretty much need things to be a disaster and so retain a shred of their credibility. 

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Suspect very many bourgeois Remainers in the public eye will do exactly that. Having doubled down on the forecasts of doom they pretty much need things to be a disaster and so retain a shred of their credibility. 

Can we at least wait to see if Brexiters mess it up before we start to blame remainers?

 

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

He's not as stupid as he looks (or at least some of those around him aren't) because 90% of Labour held constituencies outside London voted Leave.

If he made a serious attempt to opppse A50 he'd be making his party's piss poor prospects in 2020 even worse. 

First time I've ever agreed with you.

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

What's stupid is not him, personally, opposing Brexit, or even making it the party position. The stupidity is in making it a three line whip when he must know that dozens of his MP's will rebel. It just makes him look even weaker. 

That's been refuted. He said they'll be asked but not punished if they don't. So he's appealing to the core Labour support like so many on here say he should and then not being a hypocrite forcing his MPs when he was a rebel himself.

[OutByEaster?]

If I can speculate for a moment, for what its worth, I think we'll be able to sign reasonable deals with a number of countries - I think first we'll need to sign a fairly unreasonable one with the US which will include a host of measures to deregulate industries and the potential for opening up our schools and healthcare - once we've done that, I think we'll be able to expect some leverage in terms of negotiating with others.

The EU will be a particularly difficult deal if that's the way it goes, as the EU has fought against weakening of its laws on things like food production and health protections by US corporations for years, and once we're on the New Global American Standard (you can have that Donald) they'd need to lower standards in lots of areas to agree to trade with us - we can't really afford to have one set of products for our domestic and global market and another one for the EU. Whether the US will use the UK as a device to break those Euro-regulations and protections will be interesting and might in the short to mid term be how we negotiate our place in the world - that and deregulation and tax cuts for global banking institutions might see us economically okay (albeit leaving us as a societal shit tip.)

 

 

[markavfc40]

17 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

that and deregulation and tax cuts for global banking institutions might see us economically okay (albeit leaving us as a societal shit tip.)
 

That could have been in a Tory party manifesto but they've never had the balls to be so honest knowing it would never get them elected.

Suddenly though they think they have been given a mandate to enact their wildest dreams.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

If he made a serious attempt to opppse A50 he'd be making his party's piss poor prospects in 2020 even worse. 

2nd,  or 3rd ? Could Labour do that badly ?

[peterms]

45 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

 I think first we'll need to sign a fairly unreasonable one with the US which will include a host of measures to deregulate industries and the potential for opening up our schools and healthcare

That's the point.  The US will doubtless give us a trade deal, but it will be one which is based on terms that no-ons would want.  Fox is totally in bed with some very extreme US think tanks and lobbyists, and he will actively seek to destroy our NHS to please his masters overseas.

The deal will doubtless also include the right of corporations to sue us if we don't toe the line, like TTIP but worse.  Handing over power from our government to US corporations in that way looks to me like an act of treason, and I will be interested to see if there is backing for bringing such a case.

[Awol]

7 hours ago, darrenm said:

First time I've ever agreed with you.

Law of averages, you were bound to get something right eventually.

6 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

2nd,  or 3rd ? Could Labour do that badly ?

Not 3rd because of the TINA trap. There'll be a slack handful more seats for the Lib Dems on the back of their Remain positioning, but Farron is barely more credible than Corbyn. 

More likely the variable will be the size of the Tory majority, barring them having a complete meltdown over the next few years. 

[Awol]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Can we at least wait to see if Brexiters mess it up before we start to blame remainers?

 

Not blaming, laughing.

I can't recall the Establishment ever having a collective hissy fit on this scale, spewing angst and rage from various bully pulpits in the media and politics to absolutely no effect. Their impotence in the face of public opinion is chicken soup for the soul.

I genuinely believe many of them (a public "them" not a VT "them") will be gutted if the UK comes through this process okay. If we actually do well then change 'gutted' to 'inconsolable'.

Their entire perception of the world and their importance to it has been burnt to the ground in a bonfire of hubris and the public is cheerfully watering the ashes. 

Seriously, what's not to like?