Europe - in or out - RR Votes

[Digby]

who might that be? They don't exist now. That was a campaign, not an execution arm. That's why they could tell the porkies.

I concede in reality they've no idea what they want to do, no idea how they want to do it, and no idea who's going to do it, but I can't help feeling it shouldn't be that way, and day 1 after the vote they should have gotten to work following clearly established (and publicised) protocols formed ahead of the vote. That people were willing to vote for the unknown in such fashion is just something else which perplexes.

I say Brexit need to do something as they got us into this mess, though of course it's highly unlikely the idiots who got us into this mess should be trusted with anything but a ticket to gitmo

'they' don't exist. That's the problem. Cameron has said someone new has to change govt policy, which is what you are asking for. What do you mean by 'Brexit', I guess is the question?

In this instance the Tory cabinet would have to suffice. I understand why they want to wait for a new leader, but they're getting paid to do a job, so do it. And I'm not asking for them to conclude negotiations, I'm asking for their thoughts on what they want to negotiate, as in we don't like the following sections of TFEU and so on, stick it up all up in a list if they want, I'll read 'em.

I remain very angry they had no idea what they wanted to do, there's no way after a general election the leader of the winning party would send a memo saying they're not quite sure where London is, but they hope to locate it arrive and starting making cabinet appointments in the next 2-3 months and btw they know they hadn't done a manifesto yet but we hope to get back to you with a legislative program within the year. Which is why they should have had a published plan ahead of the vote for what steps would be taken post a vote to leave, and we could now be following those steps Cameron or no. I'm pretty sure they didn't want to publish those steps as the BRexit campaigners are about as like to agree as a Master of the Hunt and the animal rights brigade, and they could have been held accountable for such plans. Or course this isn't entirely the fault of the Brexit campaigners, it still took people madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's Mr Madman Competition to vote for a future with no plan and all associated lunacy.

[kk67]

the EU actually have no say in it. It is up to us.

Merkel and Junker have already made it clear that kicking it into the long grass ad infinitum is not an option.
It's not just the UK that is already losing billions as a result of the referendum. I see lots of people claiming the shares and currency will bounce back fairly soon but I see no reason for this to happen. We're primarily an importer of manufactured goods and an exporter of services.....there is no solid foundation for supposing the pound will bounce back.

so what's their remedy? What else would expect them to say?

I fully understand the losses and the reasons. There has been a dead cat bounce today though.

'Dead Cat bounce'.....quite so.
I saw an analyst saying 'it's bounced because it couldn't get any worse.

[Banquo]

The thing about Brexit is, and this isn't a popular pov, that with a strong, well respected leadership, Britain could do something good out of leaving the EU.

If we're being completely honest, the whole EU system is an utterly corrupt mess. A new union would be great for everyone involved (except, perhaps Belgium and Luxembourg). Yet with Cameron and Boris/Gove, as well as Corbyn, in charge, Britain has no chance of getting other politicians on side, working out deals and generally setting up a more robust, transparent union.

They can't even bloody talk to the SNP, ffs.

Which is the whole reason I would have voted remain if I'd been sent the bloody forms in time. As it is, they left it too late, again, and I expect I'm not the only one.

The problem is, no-one in Westminster sees this, and no-one from outside seems to have the balls or the backing to actually start something and make a difference.

The point is that we all know the EU is a shyte institution- and most of the Leave vote cared very little about this- but that being a member of it was of significant net benefit. Like many clubs tbh.

[kk67]

What can they do about it?

It's the blydi minded problems they can create that are the worry.
It was less than 12 hrs after the result that the mayor of Calais was saying British police would no longer be allowed on the Calais side. It's a good pointer to the sort of problems that haven't been considered or planned.

[Banquo]

I concede in reality they've no idea what they want to do, no idea how they want to do it, and no idea who's going to do it, but I can't help feeling it shouldn't be that way, and day 1 after the vote they should have gotten to work following clearly established (and publicised) protocols formed ahead of the vote. That people were willing to vote for the unknown in such fashion is just something else which perplexes.

I say Brexit need to do something as they got us into this mess, though of course it's highly unlikely the idiots who got us into this mess should be trusted with anything but a ticket to gitmo

'they' don't exist. That's the problem. Cameron has said someone new has to change govt policy, which is what you are asking for. What do you mean by 'Brexit', I guess is the question?

In this instance the Tory cabinet would have to suffice. I understand why they want to wait for a new leader, but they're getting paid to do a job, so do it. And I'm not asking for them to conclude negotiations, I'm asking for their thoughts on what they want to negotiate, as in we don't like the following sections of TFEU and so on, stick it up all up in a list if they want, I'll read 'em.

I remain very angry they had no idea what they wanted to do, there's no way after a general election the leader of the winning party would send a memo saying they're not quite sure where London is, but they hope to locate it arrive and starting making cabinet appointments in the next 2-3 months and btw they know they hadn't done a manifesto yet but we hope to get back to you with a legislative program within the year. Which is why they should have had a published plan ahead of the vote for what steps would be taken post a vote to leave, and we could now be following those steps Cameron or no. I'm pretty sure they didn't want to publish those steps as the BRexit campaigners are about as like to agree as a Master of the Hunt and the animal rights brigade, and they could have been held accountable for such plans. Or course this isn't entirely the fault of the Brexit campaigners, it still took people madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's Mr Madman Competition to vote for a future with no plan and all associated lunacy.

So you aren't mad with Brexit, but with Cameron and the govt. for not having a variant on govt policy in the event of a loss. Fair enough actually- unless the plan was always to produce a plan 3 months after the result. Leave didn't have a plan, as they couldn't execute it though, I thought that was obvious.

[Banquo]

What can they do about it?

It's the blydi minded problems they can create that are the worry.
It was less than 12 hrs after the result that the mayor of Calais was saying British police would no longer be allowed on the Calais side. It's a good pointer to the sort of problems that haven't been considered or planned.

That's nothing to do with the EU. I totally agree that none of it has been thought through from a Leave point of view, but surely that was obvious, and its what Remain warned of. Yet they were ignored, and have effectively said, you've made your bed, now who is going to lie (sic) in it!

[Digby]

'they' don't exist. That's the problem. Cameron has said someone new has to change govt policy, which is what you are asking for. What do you mean by 'Brexit', I guess is the question?

In this instance the Tory cabinet would have to suffice. I understand why they want to wait for a new leader, but they're getting paid to do a job, so do it. And I'm not asking for them to conclude negotiations, I'm asking for their thoughts on what they want to negotiate, as in we don't like the following sections of TFEU and so on, stick it up all up in a list if they want, I'll read 'em.

I remain very angry they had no idea what they wanted to do, there's no way after a general election the leader of the winning party would send a memo saying they're not quite sure where London is, but they hope to locate it arrive and starting making cabinet appointments in the next 2-3 months and btw they know they hadn't done a manifesto yet but we hope to get back to you with a legislative program within the year. Which is why they should have had a published plan ahead of the vote for what steps would be taken post a vote to leave, and we could now be following those steps Cameron or no. I'm pretty sure they didn't want to publish those steps as the BRexit campaigners are about as like to agree as a Master of the Hunt and the animal rights brigade, and they could have been held accountable for such plans. Or course this isn't entirely the fault of the Brexit campaigners, it still took people madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's Mr Madman Competition to vote for a future with no plan and all associated lunacy.

So you aren't mad with Brexit, but with Cameron and the govt. for not having a variant on govt policy in the event of a loss. Fair enough actually- unless the plan was always to produce a plan 3 months after the result. Leave didn't have a plan, as they couldn't execute it though, I thought that was obvious.

No I'm cross with Brexit as they should have had a plan of what came next. The government mayn't have liked the plan, but they mayn't like what they're now faced with anyway and they'd have had a mandate to act on. The way it is now the remains will all be pissed off, and once the leave voters see what's going to be delivered they'll all be pissed off too I expect.

[kk67]

I don't understand.
1. How does the EU influence the position of London as the financial capital of the world?

Most of the big financial players in the square mile are foreign companies, aren't they ?. We call London the financial capital of the world but as far as they are concerned we're just the money-laundering capital of the world. It wouldn't take much to shift that somewhere else.

[kk67]

That's nothing to do with the EU. I totally agree that none of it has been thought through from a Leave point of view, but surely that was obvious, and its what Remain warned of. Yet they were ignored, and have effectively said, you've made your bed, now who is going to lie (sic) in it!

Nothing to do with the EU,....but a clear indication of the resentment the result has created. You say it was obvious but I doubt many Leave voters had actually considered it. It's not a laughing matter,....but when I heard the Mayor's statement I almost p*ssed myself laughing.

Always like a good (sic).

[Banquo]

In this instance the Tory cabinet would have to suffice. I understand why they want to wait for a new leader, but they're getting paid to do a job, so do it. And I'm not asking for them to conclude negotiations, I'm asking for their thoughts on what they want to negotiate, as in we don't like the following sections of TFEU and so on, stick it up all up in a list if they want, I'll read 'em.

I remain very angry they had no idea what they wanted to do, there's no way after a general election the leader of the winning party would send a memo saying they're not quite sure where London is, but they hope to locate it arrive and starting making cabinet appointments in the next 2-3 months and btw they know they hadn't done a manifesto yet but we hope to get back to you with a legislative program within the year. Which is why they should have had a published plan ahead of the vote for what steps would be taken post a vote to leave, and we could now be following those steps Cameron or no. I'm pretty sure they didn't want to publish those steps as the BRexit campaigners are about as like to agree as a Master of the Hunt and the animal rights brigade, and they could have been held accountable for such plans. Or course this isn't entirely the fault of the Brexit campaigners, it still took people madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of last year's Mr Madman Competition to vote for a future with no plan and all associated lunacy.

So you aren't mad with Brexit, but with Cameron and the govt. for not having a variant on govt policy in the event of a loss. Fair enough actually- unless the plan was always to produce a plan 3 months after the result. Leave didn't have a plan, as they couldn't execute it though, I thought that was obvious.

No I'm cross with Brexit as they should have had a plan of what came next. The government mayn't have liked the plan, but they mayn't like what they're now faced with anyway and they'd have had a mandate to act on. The way it is now the remains will all be pissed off, and once the leave voters see what's going to be delivered they'll all be pissed off too I expect.

I'm still not getting what you think 'Brexit' was, or how it could have a plan. Who exactly should have had a plan? Who would be accountable for it and discharged it? I suppose this just asks the question as to why you'd vote for Brexit when there is literally no clue as what should happen next. Did you think Boris had a Gantt chart with it all laid out?

[Banquo]

I don't understand.
1. How does the EU influence the position of London as the financial capital of the world?

Most of the big financial players in the square mile are foreign companies, aren't they ?. We call London the financial capital of the world but as far as they are concerned we're just the money-laundering capital of the world. It wouldn't take much to shift that somewhere else.

no, and they are likely to upsticks as soon as article 50 is triggered, and may do so before anyway- so that's hardly EU leverage, its likely inevitable unless the govt under new ownership can perform a miraculous rapid negotiation with zillions of stakeholders.

[Digby]

So you aren't mad with Brexit, but with Cameron and the govt. for not having a variant on govt policy in the event of a loss. Fair enough actually- unless the plan was always to produce a plan 3 months after the result. Leave didn't have a plan, as they couldn't execute it though, I thought that was obvious.

No I'm cross with Brexit as they should have had a plan of what came next. The government mayn't have liked the plan, but they mayn't like what they're now faced with anyway and they'd have had a mandate to act on. The way it is now the remains will all be pissed off, and once the leave voters see what's going to be delivered they'll all be pissed off too I expect.

I'm still not getting what you think 'Brexit' was, or how it could have a plan. Who exactly should have had a plan? Who would be accountable for it and discharged it? I suppose this just asks the question as to why you'd vote for Brexit when there is literally no clue as what should happen next. Did you think Boris had a Gantt chart with it all laid out?

I think BRexit should have had a plan of action to leave, not a wish to leave, and that the plan should have been the option to vote on, unlike now where the government has to follow an instruction to leave that could really mean anything really they'd have a mandate setting out what to negotiate on. In the event Brexit hadn't been able to agree on what the plan was to be they could, have been allowed 2-3 options on the polling card rather than just leave. If Brexit had wanted just one option as leave, then that should have been stated as leave, period, no EU, no single markets, no nothing, leave!

And I think no one at Brexit ever documented anything anywhere they could be held accountable for, and why would they went they were able to campaign suggesting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and then come the day after they start to explain when they said gold they meant lead, and where they'd said rainbow that should have been rain, and that actually they'd never said gold or rainbow and that some other people had made that mistake.

[kk67]

I don't understand.
1. How does the EU influence the position of London as the financial capital of the world?

Most of the big financial players in the square mile are foreign companies, aren't they ?. We call London the financial capital of the world but as far as they are concerned we're just the money-laundering capital of the world. It wouldn't take much to shift that somewhere else.

no, and they are likely to upsticks as soon as article 50 is triggered, and may do so before anyway- so that's hardly EU leverage, its likely inevitable unless the govt under new ownership can perform a miraculous rapid negotiation with zillions of stakeholders.

Not EU leverage.....but a clear response to the vote. Is there much of a difference..?.

[Banquo]

Most of the big financial players in the square mile are foreign companies, aren't they ?. We call London the financial capital of the world but as far as they are concerned we're just the money-laundering capital of the world. It wouldn't take much to shift that somewhere else.

no, and they are likely to upsticks as soon as article 50 is triggered, and may do so before anyway- so that's hardly EU leverage, its likely inevitable unless the govt under new ownership can perform a miraculous rapid negotiation with zillions of stakeholders.

Not EU leverage.....but a clear response to the vote. Is there much of a difference..?.

yes. You were saying the EU as an institution could force us to trigger article 50 through making life difficult; your examples are just market response to the vote, which would be accelerated by article 50 trigger, sod all to do with EU leverage. If anything doing nothing slows that down and the EU can't affect it.

[Banquo]

No I'm cross with Brexit as they should have had a plan of what came next. The government mayn't have liked the plan, but they mayn't like what they're now faced with anyway and they'd have had a mandate to act on. The way it is now the remains will all be pissed off, and once the leave voters see what's going to be delivered they'll all be pissed off too I expect.

I'm still not getting what you think 'Brexit' was, or how it could have a plan. Who exactly should have had a plan? Who would be accountable for it and discharged it? I suppose this just asks the question as to why you'd vote for Brexit when there is literally no clue as what should happen next. Did you think Boris had a Gantt chart with it all laid out?

I think BRexit should have had a plan of action to leave, not a wish to leave, and that the plan should have been the option to vote on, unlike now where the government has to follow an instruction to leave that could really mean anything really they'd have a mandate setting out what to negotiate on. In the event Brexit hadn't been able to agree on what the plan was to be they could, have been allowed 2-3 options on the polling card rather than just leave. If Brexit had wanted just one option as leave, then that should have been stated as leave, period, no EU, no single markets, no nothing, leave!

And I think no one at Brexit ever documented anything anywhere they could be held accountable for, and why would they went they were able to campaign suggesting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and then come the day after they start to explain when they said gold they meant lead, and where they'd said rainbow that should have been rain, and that actually they'd never said gold or rainbow and that some other people had made that mistake.

..so I'm surprised you seem surprised, as none of the above was ever in place or likely to be. I'm wondering who you are therefore cross at, as Brexit isn't an entity, its an idea (made worse by having zero plan or people to pin it to). Nobody dare pick it up as yet. Enter Nigel!

[kk67]

no, and they are likely to upsticks as soon as article 50 is triggered, and may do so before anyway- so that's hardly EU leverage, its likely inevitable unless the govt under new ownership can perform a miraculous rapid negotiation with zillions of stakeholders.

Not EU leverage.....but a clear response to the vote. Is there much of a difference..?.

yes. You were saying the EU as an institution could force us to trigger article 50 through making life difficult; your examples are just market response to the vote, which would be accelerated by article 50 trigger, sod all to do with EU leverage. If anything doing nothing slows that down and the EU can't affect it.

Well,....given the extent to which almost all political representatives in the world are hand in glove with the market,.....that seems a disingenuous conclusion. Hence my reference to non-executive board membership.

[Digby]

I'm still not getting what you think 'Brexit' was, or how it could have a plan. Who exactly should have had a plan? Who would be accountable for it and discharged it? I suppose this just asks the question as to why you'd vote for Brexit when there is literally no clue as what should happen next. Did you think Boris had a Gantt chart with it all laid out?

I think BRexit should have had a plan of action to leave, not a wish to leave, and that the plan should have been the option to vote on, unlike now where the government has to follow an instruction to leave that could really mean anything really they'd have a mandate setting out what to negotiate on. In the event Brexit hadn't been able to agree on what the plan was to be they could, have been allowed 2-3 options on the polling card rather than just leave. If Brexit had wanted just one option as leave, then that should have been stated as leave, period, no EU, no single markets, no nothing, leave!

And I think no one at Brexit ever documented anything anywhere they could be held accountable for, and why would they went they were able to campaign suggesting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and then come the day after they start to explain when they said gold they meant lead, and where they'd said rainbow that should have been rain, and that actually they'd never said gold or rainbow and that some other people had made that mistake.

..so I'm surprised you seem surprised, as none of the above was ever in place or likely to be. I'm wondering who you are therefore cross at, as Brexit isn't an entity, its an idea (made worse by having zero plan or people to pin it to). Nobody dare pick it up as yet. Enter Nigel!

I'm not surprised, I know they'd done none of the work, and wouldn't have wanted to because setting out actual details would have been less popular.

However to put it in context there have been some flag referendums commented on of recent times, and we can note in a flag referendum they can manage to say we'll get rid of the status quo, and replace it with the one of the following options should you so choose. So a flag referendum gives clarity as to what you're voting for, but to leave the EU we will seek to introduce doubt and uncertainty. And again all the remainers will hate it, and likely most of the leavers in the event anything changes in the longer term.

[Banquo]

Not EU leverage.....but a clear response to the vote. Is there much of a difference..?.

yes. You were saying the EU as an institution could force us to trigger article 50 through making life difficult; your examples are just market response to the vote, which would be accelerated by article 50 trigger, sod all to do with EU leverage. If anything doing nothing slows that down and the EU can't affect it.

Well,....given the extent to which almost all political representatives in the world are hand in glove with the market,.....that seems a disingenuous conclusion. Hence my reference to non-executive board membership.

You've missed the point. There is no point in the EU threatening to decimate the square mile say, if we don't hurry up, it'll happen anyway and the faster we press the button the faster it'll happen.

(and you are right politicians are hand in glove with the market, but its markets driving the politics not the other way round! That's even assuming the non-execs are not actually representing the companies interests and stakeholders properly)

[Banquo]

I think BRexit should have had a plan of action to leave, not a wish to leave, and that the plan should have been the option to vote on, unlike now where the government has to follow an instruction to leave that could really mean anything really they'd have a mandate setting out what to negotiate on. In the event Brexit hadn't been able to agree on what the plan was to be they could, have been allowed 2-3 options on the polling card rather than just leave. If Brexit had wanted just one option as leave, then that should have been stated as leave, period, no EU, no single markets, no nothing, leave!

And I think no one at Brexit ever documented anything anywhere they could be held accountable for, and why would they went they were able to campaign suggesting a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and then come the day after they start to explain when they said gold they meant lead, and where they'd said rainbow that should have been rain, and that actually they'd never said gold or rainbow and that some other people had made that mistake.

..so I'm surprised you seem surprised, as none of the above was ever in place or likely to be. I'm wondering who you are therefore cross at, as Brexit isn't an entity, its an idea (made worse by having zero plan or people to pin it to). Nobody dare pick it up as yet. Enter Nigel!

I'm not surprised, I know they'd done none of the work, and wouldn't have wanted to because setting out actual details would have been less popular.

However to put it in context there have been some flag referendums commented on of recent times, and we can note in a flag referendum they can manage to say we'll get rid of the status quo, and replace it with the one of the following options should you so choose. So a flag referendum gives clarity as to what you're voting for, but to leave the EU we will seek to introduce doubt and uncertainty. And again all the remainers will hate it, and likely most of the leavers in the event anything changes in the longer term.

I don't see the point in your retrospective hypotheticals though; unlike your preferred selections for England, its too late baby. And I don't know who you are asking to solve the problem, appalling a thought as that is.

[Digby]

..so I'm surprised you seem surprised, as none of the above was ever in place or likely to be. I'm wondering who you are therefore cross at, as Brexit isn't an entity, its an idea (made worse by having zero plan or people to pin it to). Nobody dare pick it up as yet. Enter Nigel!

I'm not surprised, I know they'd done none of the work, and wouldn't have wanted to because setting out actual details would have been less popular.

However to put it in context there have been some flag referendums commented on of recent times, and we can note in a flag referendum they can manage to say we'll get rid of the status quo, and replace it with the one of the following options should you so choose. So a flag referendum gives clarity as to what you're voting for, but to leave the EU we will seek to introduce doubt and uncertainty. And again all the remainers will hate it, and likely most of the leavers in the event anything changes in the longer term.

I don't see the point in your retrospective hypotheticals though; unlike your preferred selections for England, its too late baby. And I don't know who you are asking to solve the problem, appalling a thought as that is.

I'm working through the anger, seeing as I suspect I'm not allowed to execute BRexit and their followers

[Banquo]

I'm not surprised, I know they'd done none of the work, and wouldn't have wanted to because setting out actual details would have been less popular.

However to put it in context there have been some flag referendums commented on of recent times, and we can note in a flag referendum they can manage to say we'll get rid of the status quo, and replace it with the one of the following options should you so choose. So a flag referendum gives clarity as to what you're voting for, but to leave the EU we will seek to introduce doubt and uncertainty. And again all the remainers will hate it, and likely most of the leavers in the event anything changes in the longer term.

I don't see the point in your retrospective hypotheticals though; unlike your preferred selections for England, its too late baby. And I don't know who you are asking to solve the problem, appalling a thought as that is.

I'm working through the anger, seeing as I suspect I'm not allowed to execute BRexit and their followers

that's better!! and breathe...

[Digby]

I don't see the point in your retrospective hypotheticals though; unlike your preferred selections for England, its too late baby. And I don't know who you are asking to solve the problem, appalling a thought as that is.

I'm working through the anger, seeing as I suspect I'm not allowed to execute BRexit and their followers

that's better!! and breathe...

It'll take some months, maybe years, maybe never.

[Banquo]

I'm working through the anger, seeing as I suspect I'm not allowed to execute BRexit and their followers

that's better!! and breathe...

It'll take some months, maybe years, maybe never.

Yes, apols, I'm being a little unthinking given the real immediate impact for you.

I wonder what I will spit when the feathers run out.

[kk67]

yes. You were saying the EU as an institution could force us to trigger article 50 through making life difficult; your examples are just market response to the vote, which would be accelerated by article 50 trigger, sod all to do with EU leverage. If anything doing nothing slows that down and the EU can't affect it.

Well,....given the extent to which almost all political representatives in the world are hand in glove with the market,.....that seems a disingenuous conclusion. Hence my reference to non-executive board membership.

You've missed the point. There is no point in the EU threatening to decimate the square mile say, if we don't hurry up, it'll happen anyway and the faster we press the button the faster it'll happen.

(and you are right politicians are hand in glove with the market, but its markets driving the politics not the other way round! That's even assuming the non-execs are not actually representing the companies interests and stakeholders properly)

No, I agree with all of that.
I'm not opposed to kicking it into the long grass,..I just fear that now the decision has been made, Angela et al will force the issue and say 'f*ck you'.
This has been the most prosperous 30 years in our history but we are not Switzerland.

[Digby]

that's better!! and breathe...

It'll take some months, maybe years, maybe never.

Yes, apols, I'm being a little unthinking given the real immediate impact for you.

I wonder what I will spit when the feathers run out.

It's all good, what client doesn't want to hear you might be able to provide a service depending on the outcome of 12-36 months of uncertainty.