Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There are four Brexit options and Remain is the least likely

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 1 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There are four Brexit options and Remain is the least likely

Brexit ignorancis is a nasty little disease. Symptoms include the sufferer becoming breathless, exhibiting undue certainty in their pronouncements, asserting without evidence, disregarding evidence that’s inconvenient, suffering a loss of hearing and developing a fondness for tweed. Unfortunately, not only do mild cases not develop immunity but they leave the victim more prone to further, and more serious bouts.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,332
    The First to admire Mr. Herdson’s handiwork?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,634
    JohnO said:

    The First to admire Mr. Herdson’s handiwork?

    Indeed. And I am the second.

    Thank you Mr H.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750
    There is plenty of time for a GE or referendum if A50 is withdrawn or suspended.

    This is a process created by legislators that can be stopped the same way.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,352
    Morning Cyclefree.

    Not sure whether to recommend this article to you or not;

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/26/deported-rogue-trader-kweku-adoboli-first-time-free-seven-years-home-office-ghana

    But I think you may find it - of interest, as long as your blood pressure can take it.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,890
    Well articulated as per usual by Mr Herdson.

    All hangs on May’s response following the loss of the first vote, which I think is baked in.

    Will she announce some superficial changes to the Deal to allow the Tory nayers to back down?

    A referendum to pass the deal with cross party support?

    Or pivot to EFTA for same?
  • Foxy said:

    There is plenty of time for a GE or referendum if A50 is withdrawn or suspended.

    This is a process created by legislators that can be stopped the same way.

    That’s not quite accurate. The process for leaving was created by legislators *with the support of the government*. Reversing that process requires government support too, and I don’t see how that is going to be forthcoming.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,754
    Two straws in the wind.

    Michael Gove's Mail piece is ostensibly aimed at Brexiteers -- support May's deal or risk no Brexit. That might be read as an appeal to Remainers to vote down May's deal for the same reason.

    Second is that Theresa May's behaviour over the last six months looks as if she is preparing for a general election, let alone a second referendum.

    Though as David Herdson's OP (and most recent threads) make clear, we are in uncharted waters.
  • David Herdson says "In other words, European law will cease to have effect in the UK after 29 March next year (that date can be amended by a minister but only in the context of a different exit date being agreed; it cannot simply be deleted)."

    Doesn't that mean that repeated can kicking over the exit date is written into legislation and can be used?
  • A good piece Mr Herdson, and indeed the prospect of no deal should (and has!) focused minds of our MPs.

    I do raise a minor objection to your section on remain - laws can be amended simply and quickly. Once the government has lost the confidence of the house there are mechanisms for a simple one line revocation of the relevant bit of the Withdrawal Act to be brought to the house and passed whether the government likes it or not.

    What May does after the defeat of her deal will be the relevant bit. This IS a confidence motion in the old way of things. Whi,at the FTPA means it no longer formally is a confidence motion, in practice it is hard to see how even the most stubborn PM can resist having been so heavily defeated - and if an attempt is made to dig heels in and insist "that's it, no deal, nothing else is possible" then I expect MPs across the House to demonstrate that she is wrong.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,634
    edited December 1
    ydoethur said:

    Morning Cyclefree.

    Not sure whether to recommend this article to you or not;

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/26/deported-rogue-trader-kweku-adoboli-first-time-free-seven-years-home-office-ghana

    But I think you may find it - of interest, as long as your blood pressure can take it.

    I have read it. It is bullshit. I particularly like the reference to him not being a materialistic banker. That is because he gambled and lost every single bit of money he ever earned. In his last year he lost through his gambling £238,000 and was borrowing money from the likes of Wonga (and some rather less respectable outfits) to carry on gambling. There are plenty more facts I know about him which cast a very different light on him.

    The lack of curiosity by journalists who just act as the PR arm for whoever they can get to talk to them is another depressing aspect of this affair.

    If you want a rather more sane view on the harm people like him do see this - http://barry-walsh.co.uk/news/.


    Oh - and good morning.

    A shame about the rain in London. I was planning on doing some gardening. I shall just have to get wet. :)
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,317

    Well articulated as per usual by Mr Herdson.

    All hangs on May’s response following the loss of the first vote, which I think is baked in.

    Will she announce some superficial changes to the Deal to allow the Tory nayers to back down?

    A referendum to pass the deal with cross party support?

    Or pivot to EFTA for same?

    May's first response following the loss of the first vote will be to contest an immediate vote of no confidence in her leadership, which I think she will lose. I think the 48 letters will be in within 24 hours. Most MPs from here party, from all wings, will I think have come to the conclusion that her abject failure to date rules her out from taking things forward, in whatever direction that is.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,709
    It's important to stress the Withdrawal Agreement ("May's Deal") only covers the terms of departure. Everything after a two year extension of the status quo is up for grabs. That fact informs the rest. "May's Deal" is a form of blind Brexit, although she pretends it is a done and dusted arrangement.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 2,520

    Well articulated as per usual by Mr Herdson.

    All hangs on May’s response following the loss of the first vote, which I think is baked in.

    Will she announce some superficial changes to the Deal to allow the Tory nayers to back down?

    A referendum to pass the deal with cross party support?

    Or pivot to EFTA for same?

    May's first response following the loss of the first vote will be to contest an immediate vote of no confidence in her leadership, which I think she will lose. I think the 48 letters will be in within 24 hours. Most MPs from here party, from all wings, will I think have come to the conclusion that her abject failure to date rules her out from taking things forward, in whatever direction that is.
    May's imminent demise has been predicted on here with bravura every 48 hours for the past two years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,352
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morning Cyclefree.

    Not sure whether to recommend this article to you or not;

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/26/deported-rogue-trader-kweku-adoboli-first-time-free-seven-years-home-office-ghana

    But I think you may find it - of interest, as long as your blood pressure can take it.

    I have read it. It is bullshit. I particularly like the reference to him not being a materialistic banker. That is because he gambled and lost every single bit of money he ever earned. In his last year he lost through his gambling £238,000 and was borrowing money from the likes of Wonga (and some rather less respectable outfits) to carry on gambling. There are plenty more facts I know about him which cast a very different light on him.

    The lack of curiosity by journalists who just act as the PR arm for whoever they can get to talk to them is another depressing aspect of this affair.

    If you want a rather more sane view on the harm people like him do see this - http://barry-walsh.co.uk/news/.


    Oh - and good morning.

    A shame about the rain in London. I was planning on doing some gardening. I shall just have to get wet. :)
    I have read it. That's why I wasn't sure whether to recommend his self-pitying lies to you or not!

    He clearly hasn't changed and won't be changing. I feel sorry for Ghana.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 15,721
    Great to hear Frank Bruno in such good form on the radio.

    As for the subject matter everyone is calling it for a Wilder knockout and who’s to say they’re wrong. Can Fury avoid the bombs for 12 rounds? Not likely and I can’t see Fury being allowed to outbox Wilder for 12 rounds but people rate Fury also (me less so) and I’m sitting it out betting-wise and will just enjoy the fight.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750
    FF43 said:

    It's important to stress the Withdrawal Agreement ("May's Deal") only covers the terms of departure. Everything after a two year extension of the status quo is up for grabs. That fact informs the rest. "May's Deal" is a form of blind Brexit, although she pretends it is a done and dusted arrangement.

    Well, up to a point. The WA backstop does not give infinite flexibility.

    In practice, the same dynamics will apply on trade, agriculture and fisheries, though the EU may also want continuing payments and some FOM.

    Those sick of interminable Brexit debates, are going to be sick for a long while yet. Meanwhile the rest of the issues facing the country continue to be neglected.

  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,227
    FPT:

    dixiedean said:

    DanSmith said:

    DanSmith said:

    So we know there are minimum 75 Labour MPs who would support this.

    Lets add the SNP + Lib Dems, that gets you ~120 MPs. Question then is, are there 200 Tory MPs who would back Norway?
    Probably and maybe even more labour to get a majority
    Yeah I was thinking 75 Labour MPs who would be prepared to rebel against the leadership to push this through, if the Labour leadership support it or even just take a neutral stance you are going to have loads more.
    If it were proposed, it would pass. Either May would have to do it, or be replaced by someone who would. How we get there is difficult to see.
    But if we did, Corbyn would either fall into line, or see Labour discipline fall apart.
    This is when TM either swivels to Norway or resigns. It is interesting the cabinet are coming together on this and of course all this will take place in the immediate aftermath of the deal falling, if it does

    TM will be given the time to deal with cabinet and other party leaders as laid out in the procedures and it will be high politics when she comes to the dispatch box with her decision
    And how much does Norway cost us per annum? As I understand it, if the Norway fees are grossed up for UK population, we end up paying about what we pay today as EU members. Can't see that going down well.....with Freedom of Movement added for extra grief.
    EEA fees are grossed up for GDP rather than population. The UK GDP is 6.57 times the Norway one, so contributions should be on the close order of that, I'd guess.

    Norway pays four categories; one is necessary for membership of the Single Market, the others are optional for membership of various programmes.

    EEA Grants (Single Market): 390 million Euros. Converted to pounds and scaled up by 6.57, this is £2.27bn (£43.6 million per week)
    Multiple programmes (including Erasmus, Galileo, Copernicus, Horizon 2020 and others): 447 million euors. Equates to £2.6 billion if the UK went there; £50 million per week.
    Schengen, Home, Justice: 6 million Euros. I doubt we'd want to play and pay for this, but would be £0.033bn (£0.6 million per week)
    INTERREG contributions: 25 million Euros. Converted and scaled, this is £0.145bn, or £2.8 million per week

    If we chose to be involved in everything other than Schengen/Home/Justice, we'd end up paying just over £5bn per year, or £96.5 million per week.

    I reckon that could be sold; it's a hell of a lot less than £350 million per week.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morning Cyclefree.

    Not sure whether to recommend this article to you or not;

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/26/deported-rogue-trader-kweku-adoboli-first-time-free-seven-years-home-office-ghana

    But I think you may find it - of interest, as long as your blood pressure can take it.

    I have read it. It is bullshit. I particularly like the reference to him not being a materialistic banker. That is because he gambled and lost every single bit of money he ever earned. In his last year he lost through his gambling £238,000 and was borrowing money from the likes of Wonga (and some rather less respectable outfits) to carry on gambling. There are plenty more facts I know about him which cast a very different light on him.

    The lack of curiosity by journalists who just act as the PR arm for whoever they can get to talk to them is another depressing aspect of this affair.

    If you want a rather more sane view on the harm people like him do see this - http://barry-walsh.co.uk/news/.


    Oh - and good morning.

    A shame about the rain in London. I was planning on doing some gardening. I shall just have to get wet. :)
    Same paper has a go at £40 per head event for BoE staff
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,081
    Interesting article David. It occurred to me when reading it that if the EU wanted to 'take control' all they would need to do would be to say that they wouldn't allow the UK back under any circumstances short of joining the queue behind Turkey.

    In some ways this wouldn't be a bad outcome in that it would centre people's minds in a way nothing else seems able to do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 14,352
    Roger said:

    Interesting article David. It occurred to me when reading it that if the EU wanted to 'take control' all they would need to do would be to say that they wouldn't allow the UK back under any circumstances short of joining the queue behind Turkey.

    In some ways this wouldn't be a bad outcome in that it would centre people's minds in a way nothing else seems able to do.

    If we're behind Turkey, does that mean we're stuffed?

    Have a good morning...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,634
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morning Cyclefree.

    Not sure whether to recommend this article to you or not;

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/26/deported-rogue-trader-kweku-adoboli-first-time-free-seven-years-home-office-ghana

    But I think you may find it - of interest, as long as your blood pressure can take it.

    I have read it. It is bullshit. I particularly like the reference to him not being a materialistic banker. That is because he gambled and lost every single bit of money he ever earned. In his last year he lost through his gambling £238,000 and was borrowing money from the likes of Wonga (and some rather less respectable outfits) to carry on gambling. There are plenty more facts I know about him which cast a very different light on him.

    The lack of curiosity by journalists who just act as the PR arm for whoever they can get to talk to them is another depressing aspect of this affair.

    If you want a rather more sane view on the harm people like him do see this - http://barry-walsh.co.uk/news/.


    Oh - and good morning.

    A shame about the rain in London. I was planning on doing some gardening. I shall just have to get wet. :)
    I have read it. That's why I wasn't sure whether to recommend his self-pitying lies to you or not!

    He clearly hasn't changed and won't be changing. I feel sorry for Ghana.
    He was a liar from the time he was a student. I feel a bit sorry for his father, who invested so many hopes in him. But I feel much more sorry for the many people he ruined and hurt and let down. For him I have nothing but contempt.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,120
    While I disagree with David Herdson about the respective probabilities, this is an excellent tour of the options and the mechanics available ahead.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,598
    Good article, Mr. Herdson.

    One reason May might go for a referendum is legacy. If things go wrong with No Deal, she'll be the one pilloried.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Interesting article David. It occurred to me when reading it that if the EU wanted to 'take control' all they would need to do would be to say that they wouldn't allow the UK back under any circumstances short of joining the queue behind Turkey.

    In some ways this wouldn't be a bad outcome in that it would centre people's minds in a way nothing else seems able to do.

    If we're behind Turkey, does that mean we're stuffed?

    Have a good morning...
    A sage observation!
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,855
    A concise and logical argument, Mr Herdson.

    Unfortunately, the decision-makers are the politicians, the voters are a mere nuisance, as always, What does TM want to happen? A quiet life, the can kicked down the road, and the appearance of honouring the referendum result. The deal will achieve that.

    What does the Labour party want? Power and the red boxes. Hence awkwardness is their friend and confusion their aim. Stopping Brexit is a necessity and blaming that on TM achieves everything.

    What does the EU want? Losing the UK would be a minor disaster, both economically and as encouragement to others. Having them reverse Brexit and beg to be allowed back - a major coup. The best way to do that is to delay as much as possible, giving nothing away, bog down any progress and do what they do best - wait out the opposition. Eventually they'll give up in frustration. Their cunning but predictable plan is going well, especially as some UK Remainers just want their own way and will never accept losing.

    What do the voters want? That's always been irrelevant.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 22,120
    Off topic, I’m tearing what remains of my hair out with John Lewis deliveries this weekend. I have less trouble with Yodel.
  • Goran_SGoran_S Posts: 1
    An interesting article, David. But you're overstating the case. Most of the problems you cite are ones of legislation. But of course what legislation needs to pass is a majority. So the argument just comes round to 'what Parliament wants, it gets'. It is true that there are parts of this process that can be frustrated by a non-compliant government. But ultimately a government is just a body of people who can command a majority. So we come full circle again. Parliament is fully in control of this if it wants to be.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,709
    Foxy said:

    FF43 said:

    It's important to stress the Withdrawal Agreement ("May's Deal") only covers the terms of departure. Everything after a two year extension of the status quo is up for grabs. That fact informs the rest. "May's Deal" is a form of blind Brexit, although she pretends it is a done and dusted arrangement.

    Well, up to a point. The WA backstop does not give infinite flexibility.

    In practice, the same dynamics will apply on trade, agriculture and fisheries, though the EU may also want continuing payments and some FOM.

    Those sick of interminable Brexit debates, are going to be sick for a long while yet. Meanwhile the rest of the issues facing the country continue to be neglected.

    True. My point is that the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't lock down the options nearly as much as Theresa May pretends and as you might infer from David's article. We could sign the WA and Remain (potentially), rejoin, join the EEA, a very hard Brexit. The one option that the backstop makes difficult is the cake and eat it type deal that May implies has been agreed.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,754
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morning Cyclefree.

    Not sure whether to recommend this article to you or not;

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/26/deported-rogue-trader-kweku-adoboli-first-time-free-seven-years-home-office-ghana

    But I think you may find it - of interest, as long as your blood pressure can take it.

    I have read it. It is bullshit. I particularly like the reference to him not being a materialistic banker. That is because he gambled and lost every single bit of money he ever earned. In his last year he lost through his gambling £238,000 and was borrowing money from the likes of Wonga (and some rather less respectable outfits) to carry on gambling. There are plenty more facts I know about him which cast a very different light on him.

    The lack of curiosity by journalists who just act as the PR arm for whoever they can get to talk to them is another depressing aspect of this affair.

    If you want a rather more sane view on the harm people like him do see this - http://barry-walsh.co.uk/news/.


    Oh - and good morning.

    A shame about the rain in London. I was planning on doing some gardening. I shall just have to get wet. :)
    The case raises a lot of questions. One is how many City traders are basically compulsive gamblers who stay lucky in what is a favourable market? And for all the politically-motivated rows about City governance, if UBS did not notice it was losing billions, it is not of great import whether they should have reported these losses to the FSA, Bank of England, or a direct message to George Osborne's WhatsApp group.

    And even without the compulsive behaviour, it has long been argued within the City or Wall Street that institutional moral hazard leads to the same outcome: a trader facing career-destroying losses should rationally play double or quits.

    Then there is the deportation itself. It is hard to see what is the point of it, or what the objection to it is. Britain is not made safer by it, but Ghana is hardly a war zone.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 1,227
    One excellent point in the article is the view on what happens next (something so often glossed over by Leavers and Remainers alike):

    "and unlike a No Deal drifted into by default for lack of support for any alternative, a No Deal mandated by the public could not be escaped from after a few days or weeks of crisis"

    If we were to crash out with No Deal, and the disruption is severe - it doesn't necessarily have to be as catastrophic as some of the scenarios banded about; a food shortage (temporary or otherwise), congestion at ports, near-collapse of a chunk of firms, temporary closures of some factories like Mini and Honda, financial markets plummeting, exchange rates going to parity or below with the euro or even the dollar, that sort of thing - there could be an outcry to do something. Whether that's to belatedly ratify the WA and hope the EU will accept that [spoiler - they almost certainly would], or even to somehow try to get straight back in [I'd rate that as unlikely on both sides, but a lot of stranger things have happened].

    God only knows what the political landscape would be like after that. It could even be that we look back at the current period as having been boring and predictable in comparison.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,321
    So imagine you are in the ERG (please, stay with me on this). You have invested in your tweed, your accent and some ridiculous London clubs. You have practiced braying for some considerable time and spent that time with unspeakably dull people. What do you do now?

    The EU is evil. That’s a sound starting point. You want to leave it. Obviously. There is a strong consensus that a no deal Brexit is bad, weirdly enough. It seems there is the chance of a second referendum. Plus side more braying, too many downsides. Hmmm

    It is possible that logic (I know, I know) might lead to a need for a vote in favour of ND and then a reluctant acceptance of compromise. Can the whips office and the ever so helpful Speaker arrange that?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,012
    edited December 1

    Off topic, I’m tearing what remains of my hair out with John Lewis deliveries this weekend. I have less trouble with Yodel.

    Hhhmmm JL are superb. When a friend sent some flowers to my wife who has been very ill , they were "delivered" by Yodel who threw the box on the drive (No one was at home) and buggered off . The flowers were upside down, the display ruined...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,598
    Mr. Root, had some dog food delivered by Yodel.

    I say 'delivered'. They didn't actually get the right house. Instead of driving up, they dumped it at the house at the bottom of the street, so the dog food had to be carried back home.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 753

    Well articulated as per usual by Mr Herdson.

    All hangs on May’s response following the loss of the first vote, which I think is baked in.

    Will she announce some superficial changes to the Deal to allow the Tory nayers to back down?

    A referendum to pass the deal with cross party support?

    Or pivot to EFTA for same?

    May's first response following the loss of the first vote will be to contest an immediate vote of no confidence in her leadership, which I think she will lose. I think the 48 letters will be in within 24 hours. Most MPs from here party, from all wings, will I think have come to the conclusion that her abject failure to date rules her out from taking things forward, in whatever direction that is.
    While there may be a VoNC in TM's leadership of the Tories, she is likely to have the support of enough Tory MPs for her to survive such a vote, because they won't want a leadership contest or GE at this crucial time; they will also be fearful of losing their seats.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,754
    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,183
    Looked out of the window...no parkrun for me today!

    Useful summary of mechanics, but I'm not so sure about the probabilities. Once upon a day we saId the difficulties with a 2017 General Election were that May had ruled it out, the parties didn't have the money or the plans, the fixed terms parliament act would make it very difficult and Corbyn wouldn't back an election so far behind in the polls.

    All swept away in 2 days when it came to it.

    But what is emerging is quite how much power Theresa May will have just following the meaningful vote defeat. I'm less sure than others that the 48 letters will come in, but she's still first in line to make a pivot and does have choices available.
  • On a couple of legal points, David's article is just incorrect.

    Firstly, and most obviously, David is wrong on the effect of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, because the section he cites (section 1) is not yet in force. It requires secondary legislation under section 25 of the same Act, and this hasn't been laid.

    Secondly, he's misinterpreted the decision in the Miller case in 2017. The point of that case is that prerogative powers did not extend to a power to do something which would change the position on applicability of EU law in the UK. The passing of the 1972 Act had extinguished the prerogative power because (per the De Keyser Hotel case in 1920). However, withdrawing an Article 50 notice by definition does NOT change the position on applicability of EU law in the UK, which would continue on 30 March exactly as it did on 29 March.
  • Mr. Root, had some dog food delivered by Yodel.

    I say 'delivered'. They didn't actually get the right house. Instead of driving up, they dumped it at the house at the bottom of the street, so the dog food had to be carried back home.

    I can do better than that. Had a parcel delivered by DHL whilst out. Email notification said "left behind gate" - we don't have a gate... Found the parcel in the back garden having been thrown over my neighbour's gate and my garden fence - both 7ft tall.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,697

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    I think that's right. Short term dislocation is inevitable but nothing we can't cope with. The problem with Brexit isn't the process but the result. Who wants to live in a country with such low ambitions?
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,183

    Off topic, I’m tearing what remains of my hair out with John Lewis deliveries this weekend. I have less trouble with Yodel.

    Hhhmmm JL are superb. When a friend sent some flowers to my wife who has been very ill , they were "delivered" by Yodel who threw the box on the drive (No one was at home) and buggered off . The flowers were upside down, the display ruined...
    Sorry to hear your wife is not well - hope you are both bearing up. Won't risk sending flowers though...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,598
    Mr. Pioneers, yikes.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,081

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    Morning Cyclefree.

    Not sure whether to recommend this article to you or not;

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/26/deported-rogue-trader-kweku-adoboli-first-time-free-seven-years-home-office-ghana

    But I think you may find it - of interest, as long as your blood pressure can take it.

    I have read it. It is bullshit. I particularly like the reference to him not being a materialistic banker. That is because he gambled and lost every single bit of money he ever earned. In his last year he lost through his gambling £238,000 and was borrowing money from the likes of Wonga (and some rather less respectable outfits) to carry on gambling. There are plenty more facts I know about him which cast a very different light on him.

    The lack of curiosity by journalists who just act as the PR arm for whoever they can get to talk to them is another depressing aspect of this affair.

    If you want a rather more sane view on the harm people like him do see this - http://barry-walsh.co.uk/news/.


    Oh - and good morning.

    A shame about the rain in London. I was planning on doing some gardening. I shall just have to get wet. :)
    The case raises a lot of questions. One is how many City traders are basically compulsive gamblers who stay lucky in what is a favourable market? And for all the politically-motivated rows about City governance, if UBS did not notice it was losing billions, it is not of great import whether they should have reported these losses to the FSA, Bank of England, or a direct message to George Osborne's WhatsApp group.

    And even without the compulsive behaviour, it has long been argued within the City or Wall Street that institutional moral hazard leads to the same outcome: a trader facing career-destroying losses should rationally play double or quits.

    Then there is the deportation itself. It is hard to see what is the point of it, or what the objection to it is. Britain is not made safer by it, but Ghana is hardly a war zone.
    I think it's one of the Guardian's slightly tongue-in-cheek articles that tests the do-goodery of their readers. How else can you read......

    "The former UBS trader was jailed for seven years in 2012 after being found guilty of fraud that cost the bank $2.3bn (£1.8bn). .........

    "In Ghana the concept of restorative justice exists, .....People here are saying to me: ‘We need your skills......... It’s not right or fair the way you were treated in the UK. Everyone makes mistakes........"

    Well it made me laugh.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,081

    On a couple of legal points, David's article is just incorrect.

    Firstly, and most obviously, David is wrong on the effect of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, because the section he cites (section 1) is not yet in force. It requires secondary legislation under section 25 of the same Act, and this hasn't been laid.

    Secondly, he's misinterpreted the decision in the Miller case in 2017. The point of that case is that prerogative powers did not extend to a power to do something which would change the position on applicability of EU law in the UK. The passing of the 1972 Act had extinguished the prerogative power because (per the De Keyser Hotel case in 1920). However, withdrawing an Article 50 notice by definition does NOT change the position on applicability of EU law in the UK, which would continue on 30 March exactly as it did on 29 March.

    Bravo!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,012
    edited December 1
    tpfkar said:

    Off topic, I’m tearing what remains of my hair out with John Lewis deliveries this weekend. I have less trouble with Yodel.

    Hhhmmm JL are superb. When a friend sent some flowers to my wife who has been very ill , they were "delivered" by Yodel who threw the box on the drive (No one was at home) and buggered off . The flowers were upside down, the display ruined...
    Sorry to hear your wife is not well - hope you are both bearing up. Won't risk sending flowers though...
    TYVM
    She is on the road to recovery (sepsis and an abscess on her spinal cord).. Not much fun..... If I had seen the Yodel driver I would have given him a piece of my mind.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    I think that's right. Short term dislocation is inevitable but nothing we can't cope with. The problem with Brexit isn't the process but the result. Who wants to live in a country with such low ambitions?
    As opposed to those highfalutin ideals of the EU, where democracy is an irritant?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,709
    edited December 1

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
  • Mr. Pioneers, yikes.

    It was an impressive bit of bowling! Replacement was sent via a different courier firm...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,890
    The ERGers don’t all want “no deal”. They themselves are split between a Canada+ crew and a EFTA mob.

    I presume the strategy for them now is wait for a failed first vote and then, assuming May agrees with neither of above, make another attempt to roll her and replace her with Davis, Johnson, or Javid.

    It’s not clear what the rational ERGer strategy is, perhaps because irrationality is the ERG hallmark...
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,068
    Roger said:



    I think it's one of the Guardian's slightly tongue-in-cheek articles that tests the do-goodery of their readers. How else can you read......

    "The former UBS trader was jailed for seven years in 2012 after being found guilty of fraud that cost the bank $2.3bn (£1.8bn). .........

    "In Ghana the concept of restorative justice exists, .....People here are saying to me: ‘We need your skills......... It’s not right or fair the way you were treated in the UK. Everyone makes mistakes........"

    Well it made me laugh.

    His privations in Ghana are severe:

    “I don’t have much use for my waxed Barbour coat here,” he says. “It’s hanging in the wardrobe.

    It is the best Guardian Article for a long time ... the best since the "Brexit Will Causes a Au Pair Shortage" one.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,598
    Mr. Root, sorry, I missed before about your wife. Glad to hear she's on the mend.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257

    tpfkar said:

    Off topic, I’m tearing what remains of my hair out with John Lewis deliveries this weekend. I have less trouble with Yodel.

    Hhhmmm JL are superb. When a friend sent some flowers to my wife who has been very ill , they were "delivered" by Yodel who threw the box on the drive (No one was at home) and buggered off . The flowers were upside down, the display ruined...
    Sorry to hear your wife is not well - hope you are both bearing up. Won't risk sending flowers though...
    TYVM
    She is on the road to recovery (sepsis and an abscess on her spinal cord).. Not much fun..... If I had seen the Yodel driver I would have given him a piece of my mind.
    Best wishes to your good lady for a speedy recovery - sounds horrible!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,754
    FF43 said:

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
    Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,060

    Two straws in the wind.

    Michael Gove's Mail piece is ostensibly aimed at Brexiteers -- support May's deal or risk no Brexit. That might be read as an appeal to Remainers to vote down May's deal for the same reason.

    Second is that Theresa May's behaviour over the last six months looks as if she is preparing for a general election, let alone a second referendum.

    Though as David Herdson's OP (and most recent threads) make clear, we are in uncharted waters.

    What fool would listen to that lying self seeking toerag
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,551
    edited December 1

    So a couple of things are clear with Gyimah’s resignation:

    1. As someone said above, Remainers are making their play for a second referendum and I bet Labour will (eventually) join them in supporting one.

    2. There may well be a majority in the House for a second ref at that stage.

    What I don’t understand is how the Remain people hope to actually engineer that referendum - because it requires primary legislation and (in all likelihood) an extension to article 50, which the government would need to request from the EU.

    Therefore, if you want a second vote you’d need to get the government to concede the principle of holding one, or else change the government. Changing the government’s mind seems all but impossible - surely Tory MPs would kick out Theresa May the minute she even suggested a second referendum, and I suspect she’d rather resign that go down that route anyway. And obviously nobody would win the Tory leadership on a second referendum platform, so as soon as Theresa is kicked out/resigns then Tory members surely just replace her with a Brexiteer.

    Changing the government requires Tory Remainers to vote down their own government in a VNOC (which I think is unlikely) and precipitates a general election which could take us past 29th March anyway.

    This is the crux of it really - No Deal is the default position and was approved by our esteemed Parliamentarians not six months ago. Against this backdrop, I don’t think that MPs really have a choice - if they want to avoid no deal I think they *have* to approve the Withdrawal Agreement. The government can simply close off all other courses of action, including a second vote, even if those alternative courses of action command a majority in the House.

    FPT but relevant to this thread.

    Early January - Government loses VONC (with some Tory Remainers voting against the Government and in support of a GONU see below).

    Within 14 days - Corbyn tries and fails to form government that has the confidence of the House

    Within same 14 days - temporary "Government of National Unity" lead by Grieve (or someone else without ambition but respected across parties) gains the confidence of the House on a platform of a) asking for an extension of A50 b) enabling a second referendum c) holding a general election when the result of the referendum is known - and introduces the relevant legislation.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,058
    RIP Bush Senior
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,012
    Thanks guys

    It was horrible and if she hadn't been sick in the DR's surgery and the Doctor hadnt realised immediately it was sepsis (We think as a result of a cut from a rose thorn) she might not be here. as it was it was 999 straight to Worthing Hospital bypassing A and E straight to a ward and IV antibiotics immediately..... NHS was wonderful as was Worthing Hospital.. No wonder its rated outstanding by the CQC
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,951

    tpfkar said:

    Off topic, I’m tearing what remains of my hair out with John Lewis deliveries this weekend. I have less trouble with Yodel.

    Hhhmmm JL are superb. When a friend sent some flowers to my wife who has been very ill , they were "delivered" by Yodel who threw the box on the drive (No one was at home) and buggered off . The flowers were upside down, the display ruined...
    Sorry to hear your wife is not well - hope you are both bearing up. Won't risk sending flowers though...
    TYVM
    She is on the road to recovery (sepsis and an abscess on her spinal cord).. Not much fun..... If I had seen the Yodel driver I would have given him a piece of my mind.
    Best wishes to your good lady for a speedy recovery - sounds horrible!
    Indeed; sepsis can be extremely nasty. I've had it and must admit that I didn't realise how much danger I had been in until I was on the road to recovery, nor how much it had 'taken out of me' until a few weeks later.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,551

    Off topic, I’m tearing what remains of my hair out with John Lewis deliveries this weekend. I have less trouble with Yodel.

    Hhhmmm JL are superb. When a friend sent some flowers to my wife who has been very ill , they were "delivered" by Yodel who threw the box on the drive (No one was at home) and buggered off . The flowers were upside down, the display ruined...
    Best wishes to your wife and you.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,060
    ydoethur said:

    Roger said:

    Interesting article David. It occurred to me when reading it that if the EU wanted to 'take control' all they would need to do would be to say that they wouldn't allow the UK back under any circumstances short of joining the queue behind Turkey.

    In some ways this wouldn't be a bad outcome in that it would centre people's minds in a way nothing else seems able to do.

    If we're behind Turkey, does that mean we're stuffed?

    Have a good morning...
    Up to your usual high standard ydoethur
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750
    While I too have a number of delivery stories, what really annys me is when they reurn it to the depot miles away for pickup. I had that problem with my World Cup tickets, it took days to sort something out with DHL.

    Delivery drivers are the serfs at the sharp end of the gig economy though. Given demanding schedules and often having to cover their own sickness periods etc. These are the service jobs that allow the internet companies to undercut the High St. Blame the system not the worker.

    https://www.wired.co.uk/article/gig-economy-dpd-courier-taylor-review

    Great picture on the header BTW, Someone teasing @DH?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,135
    edited December 1

    The ERGers don’t all want “no deal”. They themselves are split between a Canada+ crew and a EFTA mob.

    I presume the strategy for them now is wait for a failed first vote and then, assuming May agrees with neither of above, make another attempt to roll her and replace her with Davis, Johnson, or Javid.

    It’s not clear what the rational ERGer strategy is, perhaps because irrationality is the ERG hallmark...

    Nonsense. Their strategy is quite clear. We should just walk up to the EU and say 'Now listen here. Don't mess around with us. We're English, you know'. Taking this approach, clearly they'd have come back with a much better deal.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,058

    Thanks guys

    It was horrible and if she hadn't been sick in the DR's surgery and the Doctor hadnt realised immediately it was sepsis (We think as a result of a cut from a rose thorn) she might not be here. as it was it was 999 straight to Worthing Hospital bypassing A and E straight to a ward and IV antibiotics immediately..... NHS was wonderful as was Worthing Hospital.. No wonder its rated outstanding by the CQC

    Good to know she is on the mend
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 28,058
    "Read my lips: No new Brexit!"
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,135

    "Read my lips: No new Brexit!"

    Seems to be working as well as it did for George.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257
    Barnesian said:

    So a couple of things are clear with Gyimah’s resignation:

    1. As someone said above, Remainers are making their play for a second referendum and I bet Labour will (eventually) join them in supporting one.

    2. There may well be a majority in the House for a second ref at that stage.

    What I don’t understand is how the Remain people hope to actually engineer that referendum - because it requires primary legislation and (in all likelihood) an extension to article 50, which the government would need to request from the EU.

    Therefore, if you want a second vote you’d need to get the government to concede the principle of holding one, or else change the government. Changing the government’s mind seems all but impossible - surely Tory MPs would kick out Theresa May the minute she even suggested a second referendum, and I suspect she’d rather resign that go down that route anyway. And obviously nobody would win the Tory leadership on a second referendum platform, so as soon as Theresa is kicked out/resigns then Tory members surely just replace her with a Brexiteer.

    Changing the government requires Tory Remainers to vote down their own government in a VNOC (which I think is unlikely) and precipitates a general election which could take us past 29th March anyway.

    This is the crux of it really - No Deal is the default position and was approved by our esteemed Parliamentarians not six months ago. Against this backdrop, I don’t think that MPs really have a choice - if they want to avoid no deal I think they *have* to approve the Withdrawal Agreement. The government can simply close off all other courses of action, including a second vote, even if those alternative courses of action command a majority in the House.

    FPT but relevant to this thread.

    Early January - Government loses VONC (with some Tory Remainers voting against the Government and in support of a GONU see below).

    Within 14 days - Corbyn tries and fails to form government that has the confidence of the House

    Within same 14 days - temporary "Government of National Unity" lead by Grieve (or someone else without ambition but respected across parties) gains the confidence of the House on a platform of a) asking for an extension of A50 b) enabling a second referendum c) holding a general election when the result of the referendum is known - and introduces the relevant legislation.

    The idea of Corbyn working with Tory Scum in a GNU - that's the talk of a wild beast.....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,709
    edited December 1

    FF43 said:

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
    Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
    Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying to achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, they are about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750

    Thanks guys

    It was horrible and if she hadn't been sick in the DR's surgery and the Doctor hadnt realised immediately it was sepsis (We think as a result of a cut from a rose thorn) she might not be here. as it was it was 999 straight to Worthing Hospital bypassing A and E straight to a ward and IV antibiotics immediately..... NHS was wonderful as was Worthing Hospital.. No wonder its rated outstanding by the CQC

    Sounds nasty. One of many reminders how fragile health is, and so random. Best wishes. Worthing Hospital has a good reputation.
  • Barnesian said:

    So a couple of things are clear with Gyimah’s resignation:

    1. As someone said above, Remainers are making their play for a second referendum and I bet Labour will (eventually) join them in supporting one.

    2. There may well be a majority in the House for a second ref at that stage.

    What I don’t understand is how the Remain people hope to actually engineer that referendum - because it requires primary legislation and (in all likelihood) an extension to article 50, which the government would need to request from the EU.

    Therefore, if you want a second vote you’d need to get the government to concede the principle of holding one, or else change the government. Changing the government’s mind seems all but impossible - surely Tory MPs would kick out Theresa May the minute she even suggested a second referendum, and I suspect she’d rather resign that go down that route anyway. And obviously nobody would win the Tory leadership on a second referendum platform, so as soon as Theresa is kicked out/resigns then Tory members surely just replace her with a Brexiteer.

    Changing the government requires Tory Remainers to vote down their own government in a VNOC (which I think is unlikely) and precipitates a general election which could take us past 29th March anyway.

    This is the crux of it really - No Deal is the default position and was approved by our esteemed Parliamentarians not six months ago. Against this backdrop, I don’t think that MPs really have a choice - if they want to avoid no deal I think they *have* to approve the Withdrawal Agreement. The government can simply close off all other courses of action, including a second vote, even if those alternative courses of action command a majority in the House.

    FPT but relevant to this thread.

    Early January - Government loses VONC (with some Tory Remainers voting against the Government and in support of a GONU see below).

    Within 14 days - Corbyn tries and fails to form government that has the confidence of the House

    Within same 14 days - temporary "Government of National Unity" lead by Grieve (or someone else without ambition but respected across parties) gains the confidence of the House on a platform of a) asking for an extension of A50 b) enabling a second referendum c) holding a general election when the result of the referendum is known - and introduces the relevant legislation.

    Sounds a lovely idea but in practice unlikely

    Any conservative mp voting against the government in a vnoc will not contest their seat again and their career in the party will be over - hence most unlikely
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 21,257
    edited December 1
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
    Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
    Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying too achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, it's about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
    But to use your analogy, you only risk losing your house if Carney's nine-horse Accumulator of Doom comes in....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,364
    edited December 1
    Sympathies and speedy recovery for your wife, SquareRoot.

    On topic, we've somewhat neglected the 48 letter issue since Rees-Mogg's charge failed, but it's presumably a constraint on what May does if the Meaningful Vote fails. I'm sure it's right that she will announce something at once, but what? The Mayish thing to do would be to kick the can once more, announcing that she will take the particular concerns that have been raised back to Brussels, and report back at the beginning of January on what she has achieved. Further time will pass (hooray), the EU will agree to tweak this and that (hooray), time for anything else will have virtually run out before No Deal (what a shame) and it will give cover to opponents to say "Oh, well, I suppose so".

    What can opponents of the deal do about this? Brexiteers can't easily unseat her at that moment, since she's saying she'll try to tweak the thing helpfully, even if they don't believe it. Remainers will see her coming and will try to force a referendum. But to be effective they need to (a) get a motion passed instructing her to organise it and (b) back it up with a credible threat of a VONC if she defies Parliament (arguing lack of time, divisiveness etc.). I can just about see (a) happening, with an almost united opposition plus some Tories, but the Tories will probably not be up for (b).

    So my feeling is that she'll get it through in the end, with some meaningless tweaks in the grand tradition of Harold Wilson's renegotiation. And it'll be quite popular for a while ("wow, she finally did it, now we can move on"), despite the fact that maybe 80% of MPs actually think it's worse than membership. However, the Tories then have the problem that she will actually be quite hard to unseat at all, as it'll be seen as a desperate move by a discredited wing of the party against a leader who has proved surprisingly successful. So she'll still be there, negotiating the next stages, kicking the cans relentlessly onwards.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,317
    daodao said:

    Well articulated as per usual by Mr Herdson.

    All hangs on May’s response following the loss of the first vote, which I think is baked in.

    Will she announce some superficial changes to the Deal to allow the Tory nayers to back down?

    A referendum to pass the deal with cross party support?

    Or pivot to EFTA for same?

    May's first response following the loss of the first vote will be to contest an immediate vote of no confidence in her leadership, which I think she will lose. I think the 48 letters will be in within 24 hours. Most MPs from here party, from all wings, will I think have come to the conclusion that her abject failure to date rules her out from taking things forward, in whatever direction that is.
    While there may be a VoNC in TM's leadership of the Tories, she is likely to have the support of enough Tory MPs for her to survive such a vote, because they won't want a leadership contest or GE at this crucial time; they will also be fearful of losing their seats.
    Whether they want a leadership contest is irrelevant because it will happen. If they want to avoid a GE they had best change PM, because the DUP have specifically identified May's conduct as the reason for their withdrawal of support. Furthermore there is a possibility that May might seek to call a GE in an attempt to regain a working majority.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 26,087
    Superb article. Thank you, David.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,364
    When is a verdict expected in the South Thanet trial, by the way?
  • Any conservative mp voting against the government in a vnoc will not contest their seat again and their career in the party will be over - hence most unlikely

    If you are a committed Brexiteer having spent several decades pushing for this, do you honestly think that the threat of deselection will phase them? It wouldn't be deselection it would be political martyrdom. It would be - as Francis Urquart says with his dying words in The Final Cut - "Great Ruins"
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,068
    edited December 1
    Barnesian said:


    FPT but relevant to this thread.

    Early January - Government loses VONC (with some Tory Remainers voting against the Government and in support of a GONU see below).

    Within 14 days - Corbyn tries and fails to form government that has the confidence of the House

    Within same 14 days - temporary "Government of National Unity" lead by Grieve (or someone else without ambition but respected across parties) gains the confidence of the House on a platform of a) asking for an extension of A50 b) enabling a second referendum c) holding a general election when the result of the referendum is known - and introduces the relevant legislation.

    I think with the prospect of Corbyn, it is very unlikely that Tory Remainers will support a VoNC. The same for the DUP -- not because they love May, but because a new General Election will certainly re-jig the electoral arithmetic so that they are no longer in the sweet spot.

    One of the main symptoms of Brexit ignorancis is raving & delirious fantasies about the future in which everything magically resolves itself to allow the patient to attain the desired Brexit or Bremain outcome.

    This is a good example.

    And, even if everything worked out the Barnesian way, what kind of defeated, embittered and battered country do you really think you will inherit -- after a highly divisive and contested referendum, followed by a General Election (which if the polls are right, won't lead to a very decisive result and a stable Government)?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    A general election is a terrible idea given time left and legalities to be resolved . It is quite obviously just a partisan ploy and I'm quite sure the labour leadership, whilewanting to gain power, has no issue switching to a referendum. Its already the back up option.

    Really what we need are big leads for no deal. A number mps all over might think very carefully if they thought remain might lose.

    It's a good, detailed piece by Mr Herdson but ultimately mps are acting like They think It is easy to do anything. How much is posturing? Less than we think is my guess. We're looking at possibly a defeat by 200 as the payroll and loyalist vote dwindles, that kind of tsunami is not just virtue signalling.

    It nearly beggars belief that many people, including mps, have the plan now of 'trust me it'll work out the way I want because I want it to.' And often the same people who criticise leavers or the ERG for not having sound plans
    malcolmg said:

    Two straws in the wind.

    Michael Gove's Mail piece is ostensibly aimed at Brexiteers -- support May's deal or risk no Brexit. That might be read as an appeal to Remainers to vote down May's deal for the same reason.

    Second is that Theresa May's behaviour over the last six months looks as if she is preparing for a general election, let alone a second referendum.

    Though as David Herdson's OP (and most recent threads) make clear, we are in uncharted waters.

    What fool would listen to that lying self seeking toerag
    Other lying self seeking toerags? His audience is other mps really.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,938
    edited December 1

    David Herdson says "In other words, European law will cease to have effect in the UK after 29 March next year (that date can be amended by a minister but only in the context of a different exit date being agreed; it cannot simply be deleted)."

    Doesn't that mean that repeated can kicking over the exit date is written into legislation and can be used?

    Yes, it can - provided that the EU agrees to an A50 extension (or extensions). It's Section 20(4) which enables that.

    However, the European Parliamentary elections are a practical barrier to an extension beyond May, as whether Britain is still a member of the EU will affect not only whether British MEPs can be elected but how many would be elected from other countries.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750

    "Read my lips: No new Brexit!"

    On the subject, the FT on why the Donald has condemned the May Deal is quite good, the comments also worth reading:

    google "Why Donald Trump wants Theresa May to fail on Brexit" to get past the paywall.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,734
    Naught wrong with a taste for tweed.

    And before I forget, #peoplesvote.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited December 1

    On a couple of legal points, David's article is just incorrect.

    Firstly, and most obviously, David is wrong on the effect of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, because the section he cites (section 1) is not yet in force. It requires secondary legislation under section 25 of the same Act, and this hasn't been laid.

    Secondly, he's misinterpreted the decision in the Miller case in 2017. The point of that case is that prerogative powers did not extend to a power to do something which would change the position on applicability of EU law in the UK. The passing of the 1972 Act had extinguished the prerogative power because (per the De Keyser Hotel case in 1920). However, withdrawing an Article 50 notice by definition does NOT change the position on applicability of EU law in the UK, which would continue on 30 March exactly as it did on 29 March.

    Sounds like whatever action was taken sans parliament a legal challenge to confirm your view would be launched.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,504
    edited December 1


    However, the European Parliamentary elections are a practical barrier to an extension beyond May, as whether Britain is still a member of the EU will affect not only whether British MEPs can be elected but how many would be elected from other countries.

    More an irritation than a barrier, I think: The EP has handled numbers changing partway through the term before, and they've already made contingency plans in case there's a delay.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,598
    Meanwhile, from the clowns who brought you the VAT insanity, the antique book delinquency, and the Article 13 monstrosity, a new epic failure involving technology:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46399707

    "If online shoppers spend more than about £27 (€30 under the EU directive) in one transaction, payment providers will be required to ask for an extra form of verification, usually sent as a one-time password by text to your mobile phone."

    No coverage or mobile? Bad luck.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,709

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
    Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
    Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying too achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, it's about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
    But to use your analogy, you only risk losing your house if Carney's nine-horse Accumulator of Doom comes in....
    Indeed. But recessions and crashes are caused by people having your relaxed attitude to risk. Extreme risk is hard to model because it doesn't happen very often. But it does happen. It's not hard to imagine No Deal happening at the same time as a full-scale Trump trade war, for example. The first is under our control; the second isn't. The two together could be extremely nasty.

    Carney's job is to prevent recession. Krugman's accusation of pessimism is strange, I think.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,938
    Goran_S said:

    An interesting article, David. But you're overstating the case. Most of the problems you cite are ones of legislation. But of course what legislation needs to pass is a majority. So the argument just comes round to 'what Parliament wants, it gets'. It is true that there are parts of this process that can be frustrated by a non-compliant government. But ultimately a government is just a body of people who can command a majority. So we come full circle again. Parliament is fully in control of this if it wants to be.

    That only works if we assume that parliament is made up of 650 independent MPs, which it's not.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,951
    I've suspected for a while now that the future will be Leave on 29th March, with May's deal. Run into some sort of standards argument in Summer or early Autumn. Business and Union pressure grows for Return. Another referendum, this time won by the pro-EU side and we end up applying to Rejoin before the end of 2020.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    Well articulated as per usual by Mr Herdson.

    All hangs on May’s response following the loss of the first vote, which I think is baked in.

    Will she announce some superficial changes to the Deal to allow the Tory nayers to back down?

    A referendum to pass the deal with cross party support?

    Or pivot to EFTA for same?

    May's first response following the loss of the first vote will be to contest an immediate vote of no confidence in her leadership, which I think she will lose. I think the 48 letters will be in within 24 hours. Most MPs from here party, from all wings, will I think have come to the conclusion that her abject failure to date rules her out from taking things forward, in whatever direction that is.
    Agreed. I know we laugh but the 48 has to be close and plenty seem to be waiting for her signature policy to fail as the catalyst for their letter given plenty more than 48 oppose her. and given the cabinet is discussing other options she cannot count on them in a vote of no confidence particularly when she could not be forced out for a year if she wins.

    If she does not quit she will lose the vote.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750

    Meanwhile, from the clowns who brought you the VAT insanity, the antique book delinquency, and the Article 13 monstrosity, a new epic failure involving technology:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46399707

    "If online shoppers spend more than about £27 (€30 under the EU directive) in one transaction, payment providers will be required to ask for an extra form of verification, usually sent as a one-time password by text to your mobile phone."

    No coverage or mobile? Bad luck.

    Will all of those (antique books are a customs issue surely?) still apply under the WA?

    It sounds as if the extra verification does not have to be via mobile.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    FF43 said:

    It's important to stress the Withdrawal Agreement ("May's Deal") only covers the terms of departure. Everything after a two year extension of the status quo is up for grabs. That fact informs the rest. "May's Deal" is a form of blind Brexit, although she pretends it is a done and dusted arrangement.

    she's hardly the only one. If everything us up for grabs why are so many opposed on the basis it locks us in to things forever?

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,833
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
    Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
    Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying to achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, they are about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
    I'm with Krugman.
    Fair enough for the BoE to model the impact of severe disruption at the border, but its not credible that the government would be unable to solve such problems for years. That's like stress testing for boiling an egg burning your house down, and assuming you would just stand and watch, not call the fire brigade or turn the stove off.
  • Very good and interesting thread David and thank you

    Just catching up and see the usual suspects expecting TM to be out after the vote.

    TM is the party's biggest asset at present, respected for her courtesy and persistance under intense attack from all sides and to attempt to vnoc would just fail at this critical moment

    She is receiving increasing backing for her deal and the latest poll gives the party a 5% lead over labour and a 10 seat majority under electoral calculus.

    It is widely expected she will lose the meaningful vote but this will depend on sequencing of the amendments and the flow chart points to no deal as default and it is this chart that is alarming remainers

    It is high noon a week on tuesday and I do not think any of us really are able to predict the outcome, though of course we all tend to be influenced by our own opinions

    The polls this weekend will be interesting
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,938

    On a couple of legal points, David's article is just incorrect.

    Firstly, and most obviously, David is wrong on the effect of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, because the section he cites (section 1) is not yet in force. It requires secondary legislation under section 25 of the same Act, and this hasn't been laid.

    Secondly, he's misinterpreted the decision in the Miller case in 2017. The point of that case is that prerogative powers did not extend to a power to do something which would change the position on applicability of EU law in the UK. The passing of the 1972 Act had extinguished the prerogative power because (per the De Keyser Hotel case in 1920). However, withdrawing an Article 50 notice by definition does NOT change the position on applicability of EU law in the UK, which would continue on 30 March exactly as it did on 29 March.

    Can you cite the part of section 25 that relates to S1? I don't see it.

    The position re the notification was that a government cannot by executive authority override the effect of an Act of Parliament. In this case, parliament has expressly granted the PM the power to withdraw the UK from the EU, which she has since done. To withdraw that notice - the power to do which is not granted by the Act, and hence must rely on pre-existing executive powers - would run counter to that same de Keyser principle.
  • Any conservative mp voting against the government in a vnoc will not contest their seat again and their career in the party will be over - hence most unlikely

    If you are a committed Brexiteer having spent several decades pushing for this, do you honestly think that the threat of deselection will phase them? It wouldn't be deselection it would be political martyrdom. It would be - as Francis Urquart says with his dying words in The Final Cut - "Great Ruins"
    Yes
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,551

    Sympathies and speedy recovery for your wife, SquareRoot.

    On topic, we've somewhat neglected the 48 letter issue since Rees-Mogg's charge failed, but it's presumably a constraint on what May does if the Meaningful Vote fails. I'm sure it's right that she will announce something at once, but what? The Mayish thing to do would be to kick the can once more, announcing that she will take the particular concerns that have been raised back to Brussels, and report back at the beginning of January on what she has achieved. Further time will pass (hooray), the EU will agree to tweak this and that (hooray), time for anything else will have virtually run out before No Deal (what a shame) and it will give cover to opponents to say "Oh, well, I suppose so".

    What can opponents of the deal do about this? Brexiteers can't easily unseat her at that moment, since she's saying she'll try to tweak the thing helpfully, even if they don't believe it. Remainers will see her coming and will try to force a referendum. But to be effective they need to (a) get a motion passed instructing her to organise it and (b) back it up with a credible threat of a VONC if she defies Parliament (arguing lack of time, divisiveness etc.). I can just about see (a) happening, with an almost united opposition plus some Tories, but the Tories will probably not be up for (b).

    So my feeling is that she'll get it through in the end, with some meaningless tweaks in the grand tradition of Harold Wilson's renegotiation. And it'll be quite popular for a while ("wow, she finally did it, now we can move on"), despite the fact that maybe 80% of MPs actually think it's worse than membership. However, the Tories then have the problem that she will actually be quite hard to unseat at all, as it'll be seen as a desperate move by a discredited wing of the party against a leader who has proved surprisingly successful. So she'll still be there, negotiating the next stages, kicking the cans relentlessly onwards.

    That sounds one of the more credible scenarios.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,598
    Dr. Foxy, Mr. Mortimer knows more about the books situation, but my understanding is anything fairly old has more bureaucratic nonsense attached. It's meant to deter/detect ISIS-type antiquities sales but is mostly being a pain in the arse for honest traders.

    Given the nature of the withdrawal bill, I suspect we'll be having Article 13 and this latest proposal even if we 'leave'. And given May's authoritarianism and the lack of respect and understanding of free speech and technology across the House of Commons, I can't see Article 13 being repealed.

    It does sound like alternatives may be possible (on the mobile phone issue) but we'll see. My guess is it'll be a pain in the arse, which is how just about everything the EU/UK does on technology seems to go.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 2,068
    edited December 1

    Sympathies and speedy recovery for your wife, SquareRoot.

    On topic, we've somewhat neglected the 48 letter issue since Rees-Mogg's charge failed, but it's presumably a constraint on what May does if the Meaningful Vote fails. I'm sure it's right that she will announce something at once, but what? The Mayish thing to do would be to kick the can once more, announcing that she will take the particular concerns that have been raised back to Brussels, and report back at the beginning of January on what she has achieved. Further time will pass (hooray), the EU will agree to tweak this and that (hooray), time for anything else will have virtually run out before No Deal (what a shame) and it will give cover to opponents to say "Oh, well, I suppose so".

    What can opponents of the deal do about this? Brexiteers can't easily unseat her at that moment, since she's saying she'll try to tweak the thing helpfully, even if they don't believe it. Remainers will see her coming and will try to force a referendum. But to be effective they need to (a) get a motion passed instructing her to organise it and (b) back it up with a credible threat of a VONC if she defies Parliament (arguing lack of time, divisiveness etc.). I can just about see (a) happening, with an almost united opposition plus some Tories, but the Tories will probably not be up for (b).

    So my feeling is that she'll get it through in the end, with some meaningless tweaks in the grand tradition of Harold Wilson's renegotiation. And it'll be quite popular for a while ("wow, she finally did it, now we can move on"), despite the fact that maybe 80% of MPs actually think it's worse than membership. However, the Tories then have the problem that she will actually be quite hard to unseat at all, as it'll be seen as a desperate move by a discredited wing of the party against a leader who has proved surprisingly successful. So she'll still be there, negotiating the next stages, kicking the cans relentlessly onwards.

    Yes, I think that is how it will play out.

    The only thing I am uncertain of is whether May really wants to continue after Brexit. It must be stressful even if you are built of reinforced concrete. She looks as though it has taken its toll on her.

    "And it'll be quite popular for a while ("wow, she finally did it, now we can move on"),"

    If she has any sense, she'll go then, saying "I have delivered on Brexit" and leave on a high (and probably with a modest polling lead of 5 or so per cent). OK, if Philip has any sense, he'll be telling her that ...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,951
    Foxy said:

    Meanwhile, from the clowns who brought you the VAT insanity, the antique book delinquency, and the Article 13 monstrosity, a new epic failure involving technology:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46399707

    "If online shoppers spend more than about £27 (€30 under the EU directive) in one transaction, payment providers will be required to ask for an extra form of verification, usually sent as a one-time password by text to your mobile phone."

    No coverage or mobile? Bad luck.

    Will all of those (antique books are a customs issue surely?) still apply under the WA?

    It sounds as if the extra verification does not have to be via mobile.
    VAT insanity? What was that? From a retailers point of view VAT was better (IMHO anyway) than it's predecessor, Purchase Tax. If there was any insanity around VAT it was putting it up first to 17% and 20%. The last was was of course by Osborne.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 16,249

    Sadly thanks to Theresa May Conservative MPs aren't sufficient to avoid a VONC. If the DUP go against them its game over too.

    Fortunately Theresa May has done nothing to piss off the DUP right? Oh ... oops.

    There is every possibility the DUP could be to May the final straw like the SNP were to Callaghan. I hope not but wishful thinking isn't enough.

  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,723
    rkrkrk said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    On disruption and Carney's claims that Britain will lose its shirt on Brexit, everyone's favourite Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is sceptical of the Bank of England's stress test results (or Project Hysteria).

    What’s puzzling about the scenarios shown in Figure 1 is that they show these disruptions going on for multiple years, with barely any abatement. Really? Britain is an advanced country with high administrative capacity — the kind of country that history shows can cope well with huge natural disasters, and even wars. Would it really have that much trouble hiring customs inspectors and installing computers to recover from an 8 or 10 percent drop in GDP?

    And even in the short run, I wonder why Britain couldn’t follow the old prescription, “When all else fails, lower your standards.” If laxer enforcement, special treatment for trusted shippers, whatever, could clear the bottlenecks at the ports, wouldn’t that be worth it, despite the potential for fraud, as a temporary measure?


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/opinion/brexit-borders-and-the-bank-of-england-wonkish.html

    Paul Krugman entirely misses the point. The purpose of stress tests is to ensure you can survive periods of stress, identify the extreme risks and mitigate them as far as possible. This the BoE has done as reported by Carney. An extreme risk is no deal. The mitigation is have a deal. This is within our control, unlike say a Trump trade war.
    Krugman has not missed the point. Read the full article, not just the extract. He has spoken to the Bank of England about the report. He says Brexit is mistaken and will be expensive. He is not Jacob Rees-Mogg with a brain.
    Krugman misses the point about stress tests and what the BoE/Carney are trying to achieve. Stress tests deal with possibilities, not probabilities. As I mentioned on a previous thread, they are not about whether your bet is value, they are about whether you might lose your house if the bet goes the wrong way. If you really don't want to lose your house, you would be wise not to take the bet.
    I'm with Krugman.
    Fair enough for the BoE to model the impact of severe disruption at the border, but its not credible that the government would be unable to solve such problems for years. That's like stress testing for boiling an egg burning your house down, and assuming you would just stand and watch, not call the fire brigade or turn the stove off.
    Exactly, it's beyond even a plausible worst-case scenario. Yet there are people who uncritically repeat the figures as *the* impact of May's Deal / No Deal / whatever.
  • daodao said:

    Well articulated as per usual by Mr Herdson.

    All hangs on May’s response following the loss of the first vote, which I think is baked in.

    Will she announce some superficial changes to the Deal to allow the Tory nayers to back down?

    A referendum to pass the deal with cross party support?

    Or pivot to EFTA for same?

    May's first response following the loss of the first vote will be to contest an immediate vote of no confidence in her leadership, which I think she will lose. I think the 48 letters will be in within 24 hours. Most MPs from here party, from all wings, will I think have come to the conclusion that her abject failure to date rules her out from taking things forward, in whatever direction that is.
    While there may be a VoNC in TM's leadership of the Tories, she is likely to have the support of enough Tory MPs for her to survive such a vote, because they won't want a leadership contest or GE at this crucial time; they will also be fearful of losing their seats.
    Whether they want a leadership contest is irrelevant because it will happen. If they want to avoid a GE they had best change PM, because the DUP have specifically identified May's conduct as the reason for their withdrawal of support. Furthermore there is a possibility that May might seek to call a GE in an attempt to regain a working majority.
    You are hoping it will happen. It is far from certain and of course if the deal falls the DUP are back onside. TM cannot just call an election as you suggest. I suggest you wait for TM response post the vote tuesday week and lots of things will flow from that

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750

    Very good and interesting thread David and thank you

    Just catching up and see the usual suspects expecting TM to be out after the vote.

    TM is the party's biggest asset at present, respected for her courtesy and persistance under intense attack from all sides and to attempt to vnoc would just fail at this critical moment

    She is receiving increasing backing for her deal and the latest poll gives the party a 5% lead over labour and a 10 seat majority under electoral calculus.

    It is widely expected she will lose the meaningful vote but this will depend on sequencing of the amendments and the flow chart points to no deal as default and it is this chart that is alarming remainers

    It is high noon a week on tuesday and I do not think any of us really are able to predict the outcome, though of course we all tend to be influenced by our own opinions

    The polls this weekend will be interesting

    To be honest, I dont think we will see anything much happen this week, just the usual stalemate of trench warfare. Tuesday the 11th will be interesting. I expect that you are right and that the whiff of gunpowder will send the ERG types back gibbrering under their bunks in the duggout.
This discussion has been closed.