|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Non-sequitur:
...sometimes the evil shadowy thing with tentacles in the corner is just a plate of calamari in a bad light.Sometimes you're right to be scared of the plate of calamari. (Link not safe around seafood, or any mealtime really)
SSC and proper care and protection applies to tentacles as well.
Here comes (just some of) the pain: S&P downgrades UK credit rating two notches, Moody's cuts UK credit rating to "negative".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Credit ratings abhor uncertainty
Yeah. It's going to be noticeably more expensive for HMG to borrow money, and that'll waste little time rolling downhill.
"The beatings austerity will continue until morale improves."
Credit ratings abhor uncertaintyYeah. It's going to be noticeably more expensive for HMG to borrow money, and that'll waste little time rolling downhill.
Not so far. Borrowing costs have actually dropped for HMG since the Brexit referendum; in times of trouble, people flee to government bonds (or gilts, I think, is the correct term for those things).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Do you really think that anyone would believe a statement from the Foreign Office would settle it? Bear in mind, first, that both major parties are in the middle of leadership disputes. Cameron, in particular, is a dead man walking and will be out before Hallowe'en, and the favorite to replace him (thank you Ladbrookes) is Boris Johnson. Bear in mind as well that the Foreign Office has no decision-making authority whatsoever; it merely represents the view and decisions of HMG to the world at large.
Do you really think that Boris Johnson would consider himself to be bound by a statement issued by Cameron's Foreign Secretary, or even Cameron himself? Of course not! He could, and probably would, repudiate it almost immediately, especially if he had just won the Tory leadership by campaigning on an immediate Brexit. Poof! The not-a-bad-dream was all a bad dream! Like that Doctor Who Christmas special with all the dreams within dreams within dreams! Funny joke, eh?
Turning it around, let's say that Cameron actually invoked Article 50, and then a Stay leader (like Theresa May) won the leadership and whipped Boris back to his kennel. The first thing she would try to do is to revoke...
First, let me state that I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone, or to win the Internet. I'm just appalled by such a waste of a cosmic scope, and if I used too strong language and offended you in some way, I apologize. Also, keep in mind that I'm not a native english speaker and could miss some nuances.
That said, you are right pointing out that BoJo wouldn't feel constrained by a simple statement made by Cameron ; he would have to take stronger action to derail Brexit (such as asking for a Parliament vote, maybe ?). For the rest, we seem to talk past each other. For the record, FO secretary seem to go BoJo and Brexit way.
If you want to know, I don't think it is very likely, but I know there is people in UK elsewhere that are toying with the idea of a "bad dream" scenario. My bet is on Brexit, but I don't think that stretching the wait is good for anybody.
An article 50 statement can't be taken back, period. It's written as such.
Yes, Marine Le Pen could win, but it's an endgame proposition. I think France would be better off with a one-mile asteroid impacting Paris. The fallout on EU at large would be more or less the same.
I will now take a step back and a deep breath. Maybe I'm taking all of this too seriously. Have a nice day, Orfamay quest.
|
In fact, you make contingency plans precisely because you're uncertain -- and HMG making a statement that they're not going to leave haha wasn't that funny would just create more contingencies to plan for. (OMG, what if Boris repudiates that statement? What if a general election intervenes and UKIP gets to form a government? What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?)
Those possibilities do not have the same probability and risk mitigation through contingency plans is based on probabilities. You invest more time and efforts in preparing for events that seem likely to happen than in those that do not. While still keeping your future possibilities for action as wide as possible.
And in complete uncertainty, you wait for the dust to settle so that you can see more clearly what the probabilities are.
And it is this waiting that endangers economic recovery.
As long as the UK does not make a clear commitment in one direction, the dust is still in the air, obscuring the probabilities and making further contingency plans useless, not to mention costly. In such a situation, people and companies react to events as those happen because there is no possibility for anything else that ultra-short-term view.
Basically Cameron just cast Obscuring Mist in the surprise round before the EU archers could even take aim and they are now asking him to dismiss it post haste so that they can see where the targets are (those have Blindsense BTW)
Some good news. The FTSE 100 is up 2.64% at the end of the day, while the FTSE 250 is up 3.58%.
I put no credit in the hiccups of the financial markets, whether they go up or down ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, you are right pointing out that BoJo wouldn't feel constrained by a simple statement made by Cameron ; he would have to take stronger action to derail Brexit (such as asking for a Parliament vote, maybe ?). For the rest, we seem to talk past each other. For the record, FO secretary seem to go BoJo and Brexit way.
Ultimately, the issue is that the UK, as a whole, was unprepared for a Leave vote. I'd like to expand on a quote alluded to above, when Faisal Islam asked one of the pro-Leave MPs what the plan was:
“I said to him, so where’s the plan? Can we see the Brexit plan now?” Islam told Botting, without naming the MP specifically.He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”
According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”.
“It sounds like I’m making that up. That literally happened two hours ago,” Islam said, pausing in apparent disbelief.
“So - and I’ve said this before - the person with the most thought through plan, as evidenced by the past 48 hours, is, astonishingly, Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland”.
After another pause, presenter Botting replied: “I don’t know what to say to that.”
So, the pro-Leave camp didn't have a plan, Number 10 didn't have a plan, and the EU (obviously) didn't have a plan. Great.
Further to that, no one wants to be the person responsible for, literally, the biggest cock-up in the entire history of the United Kingdom, the one responsible for breaking it up. Cameron certainly isn't going to touch that one with a hay fork, and there's no need for him to. And, frankly, every reason for him not to, because there is no plan...
So step one, then, is to Get A F---ing Plan. Because until and unless there's a plan (and just as importantly, a plan and people able and willing to pull it off), there's nothing that could be said or done that would reduce uncertainty in any way.
* Cameron is a lame duck and has lost control of his party; no one expects him to be able to speak with authority.
* The new Tory leader has yet to be chosen, and won't be for weeks or months. Even when one is chosen, there's no guarantee that he will be PM for longer than it takes to file a motion of confidence.
* The Foreign Secretary (currently Phillip Hammond, if I remember right), has no actual authority at the best of times; he only speaks on the behest of Parliament or of the PM, and if the PM changes his mind,... oh, well.
* The only voice that actually speaks authoritatively for the UK is Parliament, but even that must be taken with a grain of salt. One of the bedrock principles of the UK is so-called Parliamentary Sovereignty, which means, among other things, that the current Parliament cannot bind a future one. So even if Parliament passed a decree that the foreign office shall not invoke Article 50, that decree would last only until the next general election -- or possibly less, if Boris Johnson managed to win the PMship convincingly enough.
In light of that, what could be said that would actually reduce uncertainty? And who could say it? I suspect the answer is "nothing, and no one."
Cameron actually did the best and most statesmanlike things he could under the circumstances. He fell on his sword, removing himself from the debate about the future. He offered himself as a sacrifice that might satisfy the lust of some of his backbenchers for blood. He resigned on a very long time scale, which grants time for everyone involved to come up with a plan, "knowing" that no decisions are likely to be taken until October.
In a sense, he did the only thing that could be done to reduce uncertainty. Everyone's wondering where the chips will fall as a result of this. He provided one relatively straightforward statement -- "They won't. They will remain suspended in midair until October." No one is being stampeded into doing anything stupid because they don't have time to look at the situation and evaluate it in depth. This, alas, doesn't prevent people from doing stupid things for other reasons, but at least it removes "panic" as a reason for bad decisions.
And for that, as much as I hate to admit it,.... I thank him.
|
One thing I have noticed watching the BBC is that people (politicians and experts) are either ecstatically happy or doom and gloom depressed. This leads me to think that nobody has a deep understanding of all the implications of this vote. Reactions are too simplistic, not nuanced enough.
It's the natural outcome of a news media that thrives on outraged headlines and clickbait article headers.
When anyone did provide a nuanced view, listing the pros and cons, calmly and rationally, and considering which outweighed the other, they were condemned for 'not showing enough passion', and being 'unenthusiastic'.
At least that's the excuse used by the Labour MPs resigning from Opposition Shadow Cabinet, in a bid to force out Corbyn as leader.
Which seems to have backfired on them spectacularly, now evidence has been found, that they planned to do this regardless of the referendum result, and their local party members have come out in support of the leader.
Lots of petitions out there, for the rebels to be ousted from the party, and telling them they will never be elected again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, even without a plan, pushing through the formal invocation of Article 50 would reduce uncertainty.
Actually, it wouldn't. No one would be sure if it "took," or whether anyone right now actually has the authority to do so.
Cameron is the Prime Minister, but he doesn't speak for Parliament-as-a-whole; right now, Parliament is controlled (by a substantial majority) by MPs who have gone on record as favoring Stay. If Cameron tried to invoke Article 50 and then was overruled by Parliament, what's the legal status of the declaration? Uncertainty.
Even if Parliament voted to support an invocation of Article 50, legal experts in the UK are unclear about whether it requires the consent of the devolved regional assemblies. In other words, Scotland may have veto power [Uncertainty] until and unless [Uncertainty] Westminster overrides. (If I were a Welsh MP, I'd certainly not vote for an override, because that essentially neuters the Welsh assembly as well.)
And, while I have tremendous respect for the collected wisdom of this forum, the legal question of what would happen if the UK tried to walk back an Article 50 declaration is not at all clear-cut, especially if it appears that the declaration itself was not made with proper authority. (I mean, yes, I personally could write a declaration to the EU that the UK is withdrawing, but no one would blink if the PM told the appropriate European authorities to disregard that letter. But what happens if the PM makes that statement, and then a later Parliament tells the authorities to disregard the now ex-PM?) Uncertainty.
One thing I have noticed watching the BBC is that people (politicians and experts) are either ecstatically happy or doom and gloom depressed. This leads me to think that nobody has a deep understanding of all the implications of this vote. Reactions are too simplistic, not nuanced enough.
That was a major problem. Exiting or remaining in the European Union is an insanely complicated question. People have said it's a divorce but it isn't: it's separataing conjoined twins who have fused together almost at a cellular level, but instead of doing it in infancy it's trying to do it at age 45 and hoping against hope that both survive the process without long-lasting damage.
This is why Labour, the Liberal Democrats and even a lot of the Conservative Party vehemently refused to put this into a referendum, because they did not believe that the majority of voters - whether a mechanic from Gloucester, a banker in the city or a doctor in Liverpool - would have the time to sit down and read through every single possible outcome of the consequences and then make a considered judgement. If there was ever an issue that we voted career politicians to take a position on having sat through five hundred Parliamentary briefings on it and taken the advice of hundreds of civil servants and experts, it's this one.
It's true, as with most things that the people cheering it probably won't be very happy in five years when they realise what they've lost, and it's also true that the doom-mongers may be sighing with relief in five years that things did not go as badly as they could have done. But I don't think there's many people, apart maybe from the most insulated Leave campaigners, who genuinely don't believe that this decision has profoundly damaged Britain's social cohesion, sense of national identity, economy and political landscape. If we bounce back fast, it's not a major problem. But I don't think anyone really believes we will bounce back that fast.
At least that's the excuse used by the Labour MPs resigning from Opposition Shadow Cabinet, in a bid to force out Corbyn as leader.
Which seems to have backfired on them spectacularly, now evidence has been found, that they planned to do this regardless of the referendum result, and their local party members have come out in support of the leader.Lots of petitions out there, for the rebels to be ousted from the party, and telling them they will never be elected again.
Apparently there's now a legal question in play. Corbyn thinks, as the sitting leader, he can gain re-nomination for the leader automatically. But the rules were changed a while ago and apparently the current understanding is that Corbyn needs to re-gather the nominations from the Parliamentary Labour Party as everyone else does. As it stands, he cannot get enough nominations to stand again.
Exactly how that pans out with the party at large is unclear. Labour supporters may abandon the party in droves, or it may turn out that rather more people share the PLP's position than the hardcore Corbynites suppose.
If Corbyn does manage to stand again and then win, de-selecting the rebellious MPs will be extraordinarily difficult. Each one of the 140 local Labour party committees will have to deselect the MP in question which is actually far harder than you'd think mid-Parliament, especially for those MPs who have been there for decades. You also have the problem that it may trigger by-elections in each constituency and the Labour Party having to fight lots of little elections. It'd actually massively simplify the process to just wait for the next election if a snap one is going to be held in November or February and then re-select the MPs then. However, realistically the Labour Party can't be paralysed for those five or eight months or whatever, that would just help it be wiped out at the election.
Labour have got to sort this out ASAP. Contrary to some beliefs, they actually can turn things around incredibly quickly and win (such as Tony Blair transforming Labour into New Labour in just three years and going from winning what may have been a very modest victory into a landslide) but to do so they're going to need the Conservatives to implode, to find an articulate and charistmatic leader with a strong, easily communicated vision and stop the infighting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Questions from an American. How many times has the Supreme Court of the UK and its predecessors been overturned by the EU's Court of Justice? And what does the return of sovereignty do to those decisions?
Rarely. The British Supreme Court was required to "take note" of rulings from the EU Court but was not legally bound to accept them. It did so due to convention. The one thing that got people so enraged - us not being able to deport terror subjects to countries where they would be tortured - was actually down to Britain's own laws prohibiting rendition, and the EU merely reinforced the fact that it'd be illegal under both UK and EU law.
The issue here - another factor not really explained very well during the referendum - is that EU law is decided upon by European nations together. In fact, many of the laws regarding human rights were originated by British legal experts and then adopted in Brussels and replicated in our courts here.
The principle power of the EU was that UK law could not contravene the four pillars of membership of the EU (free movement of goods, people, capital and services). After leaving the EU, we will then be able to adjust those rules and prevent, for example, free immigration to the UK from anywhere in the EU. The problem is that all four factors are interrelated: you can't have one without the others. We've actually spent an enormous time talking about two of the pillars, people and goods (i.e. trade) but not much on the other two which are just as important. The EU over the weekend said that Britain's ability to trade capital and services in the EU (the so-called "financial passport") will also be withdrawn in the result of Brexit, limiting the ability of British banks and financial instituions to operate in Europe. Since Britain's economy rests firmly on the bedrock of financial services and the movement of capital this is an absolutely massive problem and is what has gotten the markets in a furore.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most important business item to me (But most likely not to anyone else in this forum)...
What has NOT been affected thus far is the actual business concern I have in Britain.
It's NOT my business, it's one I buy things from though. They publish some books, however, the books are not actually printed in Britain. It goes through a small company in Germany which then actually has the books printed in Southern Europe, then transported, and finally to Britain.
I don't think anything has changed currently...as nothing has actually physically occurred.
The markets are fluxing, but that is more fears rather than anything that actually is substantial in dealing with the UK. My concern is with the future. What exactly will happen to those agreements that allow such publishing if Britain really and truly exits the EU.
I've already stated...business on the ground does not seem to be all that affected yet.
Those who deal with international currencies have had a slight flux in regards to the pound...and there is great pressure on the British government to decide NOT to exit, but most of that is what I would call bluster.
Right now, various sides of the world are blustering in their attempt to get leverage in what could be upcoming negotiations.
This still has to get through Parliament...
Now, I admit, that the vote actually went to LEAVE caught me completely off guard. I expected the vote to be for stay. In that light, you can take what I am thinking with a grain of salt I suppose.
I expect that most of Parliament does NOT want to leave or enforce Brexit. They would prefer to stay in the EU. That's why I think this is going to lead to negotiation and discussions with the EU.
Reacting to a government that actually hasn't made a political decision on something...is lunacy beyond crazy. People discuss Brexit as a disaster...if the EU started pre-emptively acting on the governments of nations like that on things that have not even occurred...
That would lead to an economic disaster of unmitigated parallel as everyone starts scrambling to fight economically, politically, and legally against false accusations and actions.
I hope those leading the EU aren't as prone to that sort of economic suicide. There should be no actions taken until the government of Britain actually takes action themselves.
So what are the REAL concerns of mine in regards to the business in Britain.
#1 - The condition of the British Currency. Some are predicting it to fall equal to the dollar within 6 months...that's scary. Imagine losing 1/3 of your savings in under a year...
#2 - What happens to those businesses that currently utilize the international borders between nations in the EU and Britain. How is that going to affect my own purchases from Britain?
#3 - How will this affect international travel, relations, and other items for those in the EU who travel internationally with part of that being in Britain?
#4 - For those who play Pathfinder, how is this going to affect the availability of books and players? (which I would think would be foremost on everyone's minds! Right! :) having a tad fun on this at least).
These are my biggest concerns on myself in regards to Brexit...not that anyone else has these. But these are concerned with realities of the fallout rather than some panicked stockbrokers who would think the US is going to go to war with Russia simply because there was a bad day in the Ukraine.
Need to add I have heard of some actual impacts due to fears now. There are business that were going to Britain that have stated that they will not be doing so...for example Virgin (as per Branson)has cancelled.
It appears that as of right now the biggest fallout (beyond the damage to currency) has been the loss of an increase of several thousand jobs due to some deciding they will not employ in Britain.
I find it ironic, Branson is now saying we all should push for a second vote as he's called off his deal...but he has no leverage. He's already cancelled the deal...a second vote won't save it.
If he had said he was considering cancelling the deal or maybe taking it out if Brexit actually happens, that would be one thing...but as he has no deal now...what leverage does he really have.
It might be a loss for Britain, but I'd say...reacting when no action except for a vote has actually occurred, shouldn't be something they expect a positive reaction to.
So, he's cancelled 3000 jobs he was going to bring to the UK...BEFORE Brexit has actually happened.
What's next...he's going to remove Virgin from the US because Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the Democrat Nominee?
PS: Unofficial negotiations have already started in some ways...
Indeed he seems to think both are Britain's entitlement, writing in a newspaper column on Monday that he expects to keep free trade with the EU, impose some curbs on migration from EU states and reduce payments to Brussels.
But legal experts say there is no way the UK could continue to have full access to the EU's single market, especially for financial services, without accepting both free movement of EU workers and substantial payments into its budget.
Behind the public posturing on both sides, wise heads are starting to explore what room there might be for an enhanced partnership between London and Brussels short of full membership that could serve as a template for countries such as Turkey, Switzerland and perhaps one day Ukraine or Israel.
But the EU treaties appear to impose tight constraints.
"There are limits we can't cross. The more internal market access we give, the more you have to accept the four freedoms," said Jean-Claude Piris, a French lawyer and former head of the legal service of the council of the European Union.
Indicating the stance of Britain vs. the stance of the EU.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That and Branson might just have pointed out that future economic decisions from his company or others were likely to follow the same trend unless there was some reversal
Why invest in the UK if there is a non-zero chance that your products will face import taxes when they reach the EU market ?
Far simpler to directly invest in the EU
Need to add I have heard of some actual impacts due to fears now. There are business that were going to Britain that have stated that they will not be doing so...for example Virgin (as per Branson)has cancelled.
It appears that as of right now the biggest fallout (beyond the damage to currency) has been the loss of an increase of several thousand jobs due to some deciding they will not employ in Britain.
I find it ironic, Branson is now saying we all should push for a second vote as he's called off his deal...but he has no leverage. He's already cancelled the deal...a second vote won't save it.
If he had said he was considering cancelling the deal or maybe taking it out if Brexit actually happens, that would be one thing...but as he has no deal now...what leverage does he really have.
It might be a loss for Britain, but I'd say...reacting when no action except for a vote has actually occurred, shouldn't be something they expect a positive reaction to.
So, he's cancelled 3000 jobs he was going to bring to the UK...BEFORE Brexit has actually happened.
What's next...he's going to remove Virgin from the US because Bernie Sanders isn't going to be the Democrat Nominee?
Well, when should businesses begin to consider the consequences of such votes? Should they continue on as if nothing could possibly change until after the formal invocation of Article 50? Throughout the 2 years process of negotiation, before the actual exit? After all, no rules or regulations are likely to change until then, so why not keep moving your business somewhere they might not be able to work, as long as they can right now?
Businesses do such things all time. React to proposed or in progress treaties and legislation. Even based on which politicians get elected and what they're expected to do. How drastically business plans change depends on how likely they think it is to actually be enacted and how big a change it is.
This ranks pretty high on both counts. It's politically very hard to...
It's only a referendum.
Upon a little research, it seems referendums work a little different in the US, but there are those that still do not pass Federal approval. For example, the recent Texas abortion rulings I'm certain were popular in some areas of Texas, but the Supreme court recently ruled that the Texas laws were too strict (If I've read the news correct). It may have passed in popularity in texas, but on a national scale it was not approved by the US government.
Referendums are just that, referendums. They are not law per se. They still need to have other votes to pass in some instances...in this instance...I believe Parliaments.
I'll admit, I WAS surprised by the Brexit vote, that said...
I don't see the current Parliament actually exiting at this point. I don't expect such a vote to pass. They seem overly anxious to stay in the EU...unless...of course...people push for the EU to give them reasons to WANT to leave instead of their current arguments to stay...at least for most of Parliament instead of the small minority that pushed the referendum in the first place.
Even if Parliament voted to support an invocation of Article 50, legal experts in the UK are unclear about whether it requires the consent of the devolved regional assemblies. In other words, Scotland may have veto power [Uncertainty] until and unless [Uncertainty] Westminster overrides. (If I were a Welsh MP, I'd certainly not vote for an override, because that essentially neuters the Welsh assembly as well.)
May I ask if you have a link to that controversy?
I ask because a few days ago the news outlets here in Australia went a bit mad with the whole "Scotland might be able to veto" thing, however it quickly dropped off the news cycle.
My understanding is that (amusingly) England have to ask for Scotland's consent and Scotland can refuse to grant it, but that the term "consent" doesn't actually mean anything since it has literally no legal effect, no matter how the Scottish parliament responds. My reading (admittedly cursory) was that some overexcited journalists thought Scotland might have some kind of veto power, but that there weren't any* lawyers who thought so.
* With the usual lawyer caveat that they can argue for or against pretty much anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, even without a plan, pushing through the formal invocation of Article 50 would reduce uncertainty.Actually, it wouldn't. No one would be sure if it "took," or whether anyone right now actually has the authority to do so.
Cameron is the Prime Minister, but he doesn't speak for Parliament-as-a-whole; right now, Parliament is controlled (by a substantial majority) by MPs who have gone on record as favoring Stay. If Cameron tried to invoke Article 50 and then was overruled by Parliament, what's the legal status of the declaration? Uncertainty.
Even if Parliament voted to support an invocation of Article 50, legal experts in the UK are unclear about whether it requires the consent of the devolved regional assemblies. In other words, Scotland may have veto power [Uncertainty] until and unless [Uncertainty] Westminster overrides. (If I were a Welsh MP, I'd certainly not vote for an override, because that essentially neuters the Welsh assembly as well.)
And, while I have tremendous respect for the collected wisdom of this forum, the legal question of what would happen if the UK tried to walk back an Article 50 declaration is not at all clear-cut, especially if it appears that the declaration itself was not made with proper authority. (I mean, yes, I personally could write a declaration to the EU that the UK is withdrawing, but no one would blink if the PM told the appropriate European authorities to disregard that letter. But what happens if the PM makes that statement, and then a later Parliament tells the authorities to disregard the now ex-PM?) Uncertainty.
We are all aware that UK has no written constitution, no clear rules regarding to referendums and few precedents. It's why it's widely assumed that PM Cameron would do what he had said he would do before the vote, that is consider the referendum as binding and activate article 50 ASAP.
Surprise, he didn't and moved the posts ! A maybe wise, and certainly sneaky decision from the point of view of the Leave crowd.
The "scottish veto" is based on a very specific interpretation, but hey, who cares if it can be used as a lifeboat ? ("no, put away the forks and torches, we really wanted to quit EU, it's the bad scottish who wouldn't let us"). Putting the blame on somebody else about european matters for one's own decisions is a deeply ingrained habit...
It's that, or BoJo drinking hemlock (figuratively) by declaring that he didn't really meant all the bad things he said about EU and think that after all, leaving wouldn't be bright. If a Sun editorialist can do it, why not him ?
|
|
Actually, it looks like the EU did have some contingency plans in mind. They certainly responded quickly enough to suggest they'd thought about the possibility. Scotland's ministers seem to have had a contingency plan, because they've already set out their position. Some companies have already declared what they are doing, which is rarely an instant reaction type of thing.
There was some confusion in the EU's early reaction due to the shock of the Brexit but it is likely that each government had imagined how they would react to it.
What took a little time was to get a unified answer from the various governments. At first Germany was not as stringent as France and the EU authorities to get a fast activation of article 50, but it has now joined the choir and indeed A. Merkel has been the leader voicing it in the name of the EU these last days.
Which is an old trick to enforce discipline : have the inside opponent present to outsiders the very position they do not want. Because they will defend it even more vehemently for having lost the inside struggle against it. That is what the Bush government did to Colin Powell concerning invading Iraq.
I think that what we see in this EU reaction to Brexit might be indicative of how things will work moving forward. France takes the initiative and quickly gets Germany and the other core countries in step, while all the smaller more recent nations do not pip a word or even a whisper.
Something that not many people realize is that François Hollande is actually a war president. While ill at ease when facing inner turmoil and malcontents or foreign soft-spoken diplomacy, he proved himself both assertive and efficient when the situation becomes out of control and needs decisive action. He proved it early on with his actions in Africa, did it again for Ukraine, as well as when France faced terror attacks.
Now that crisis and potential conflict on a wide scale appears thanks to Brexit, Hollande is in exactly the circumstances he prefers. And he will likely use this to further his hands-on agenda for the EU and to improve his standing in French public opinion before next year's presidential elections. By showing his mettle as a true statesman able to confidently face international crises.
Way I see it, France is seizing the opportunity provided by the Brexit and will reduce uncertainty by starting to build an EU able to function without the UK (in case the Brexit succeeds and the UK leaves) and likely more in line with the usual French wishes for a stronger political EU. After all, the most outspoken opponent of this is in complete political chaos and virtually out of the EU.
That will be hard to dismantle later on even if in the end the UK does not activate article 50.
We are all aware that UK has no written constitution, no clear rules regarding to referendums and few precedents. It's why it's widely assumed that PM Cameron would do what he had said he would do before the vote, that is consider the referendum as binding and activate article 50 ASAP.I'm still not at all sure why you or anyone else assumed that the lack of written constitution meant that Cameron could activate Article 50 on his own.
I saw nothing that indicated the referendum was actually binding and never imagined that with or without a nonbinding referendum the PM could unilaterally withdraw the UK from the EU. Do you think he could do so without the referendum?Now I could understand if you expected him to start the process at once. To call for an immediate vote in Parliament.
Because, in absence of written rules, he (Cameron) laid them off himself while calling for the whole bloody referendum.
Before the vote, it was supposed to be binding. After, not so. I'm not complaining, but if it's not moving the posts, what is ?
All the doom and gloom campaign of the PM was all about the fact that a Leave vote would lead ineluctably to UK exiting EU, and that he would himself activate article 50, immediately. I'm willing to forget that, but I guess some people are bound to remember ! Including the ones who voted for Brexit and still want to get it, even if their voices are currently drowned by the Stay uproar.
@Raven black : not sure about Hollande as a "war president", but one can hope.
@Raven black : not sure about Hollande as a "war president", but one can hope.
The US would want gold too if it was of equal value. But no - such a system would prevent Ruritanian from devaluing their currency for the short-term trade gains.
If a government wants to devalue a precious metal currency, the traditional method is to put less precious metal in each nominal coin and make up the difference with another metal ("debase" the currency).
Not by far the only means for a precious metal currency to inflate - witness the sharp silver inflation in late Roman Egypt, with benchmark silver-denominated prices increasing by a factor of 4-6,000 over about sixty years, corresponding to about 15% inflation year-on-year - but one of the classics.
(numbers from Peter Temin's paper on Roman prices).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(numbers from Peter Temin's paper on Roman prices).
Amethyst used to be considered a precious gem. Then they found so much of it in south america that you can buy it at a hobby shop instead of a jewelry store.
You base a currency on gold, someone finds a cheap way to extract it from sea water or asteroid mine it and you're hosed.
|
(numbers from Peter Temin's paper on Roman prices).
Amethyst used to be considered a precious gem. Then they found so much of it in south america that you can buy it at a hobby shop instead of a jewelry store.
You base a currency on gold, someone finds a cheap way to extract it from sea water or asteroid mine it and you're hosed.
That's true - but it's still a more solid currency base than paper. (whether or not you consider that to be a good thing)
A bigger historical thing was actually when the S America silver was discovered. (since there was silver coinage) That actually made trips to China more profitable around then.
Silver coin had been devalued in Europe to around 12-1 to gold in Europe, while in China it was still the 10-1 it had been beforehand. So Europeans would haul silver to China and get 10-1 for Chinese trade goods and then get more silver at the lower 12-1 ratio. (Adam Smith goes into detail in Wealth of Nations.)
|
|
@Raven black : not sure about Hollande as a "war president", but one can hope.
From Le Figaro du 19/10/2014 (Strong Right newspaper, unlikely to show undue sympathy for the socialist president) : "Decried and often undecipherable on the Home front, François Hollande is applauded for his decisiveness when he puts on the Chief of War uniform ... Members of the (French) Defense Council confirm it : when it is about War and Peace, the hand of the Elysee's Janus does not waver."
FH was elected in mid 2012.
- January, 11th 2013 : War in Mali
- December, 5th 2013 : War in Centrafrique
- September, 19th 2014 : War against ISIS in Iraq
Not to mention tentative war against Assad in Syria in september 2013 that was aborted due to the withdrawal of the US and the UK, strong political intervention in the Ukraine conflict in March 2014 and the home war against ISIS terrorism in 2015.
I am strongly reminded of bloodthirsty Lancelot in "Monty Pythons' Holy Grail" : "This is my style !!!"
That's true - but it's still a more solid currency base than paper. (whether or not you consider that to be a good thing)
It depends on the country. I think seawater goldrush or asteroid mining is more likely to hit before a major western country's currency goes kaput. Tying everyone's currency together strikes me like mountaineers tying themselves off. It means it's exponentially less likely that you're all going to fall off.. but if it happens to 2 or 3 of them you're ALL going down.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I don't think there's many people, apart maybe from the most insulated Leave campaigners, who genuinely don't believe that this decision has profoundly damaged Britain's social cohesion, sense of national identity, economy and political landscape.
I think it was already badly damaged and this has exposed that fact.