Brexit is now in the hall of mirrors, where nothing is quite what it seems. After a referendum that divided the nation, there is a battle for perception as well as reality. Everyone is first trying to define what the British people were voting for on June 23 and then attempting to reflect that back to them. It’s a version of Recommendations for You: if you hate immigration you’ll love free movement controls; if you like Marmite you’ll want single-market access.
Pro-European ministers are convinced that the prime minister is closer to the chancellor’s position than she has so far shown. Other EU heads of government have been left with the impression that she is being controlled by the hard Brexiteers. As she travels to Brussels this week Mrs May needs to show that she understands the economic realities of Brexit as well as the political perceptions of her party’s Eurosceptics.
I think this may well be accurate. A lot of what we have seen recently is May trying to get the hard Brexiters to look over the edge, as well as trying to establish a negotiating position, before the real compromises can be put on the table.
It is noticeable that the £ has stabilised (and even starting to pull back a little from its lows) now the talk has moved on from the hard Brexit being floated during the Tory conference.
One comment re POTUS election as I am trying to steer clear. Sky news reporting that Trump is claiming the whole election is rigged against him.
He's going to look rather silly if he wins. (That's a big if I guess?)
Most of the swing states have Republican Governors and run the apparatus of POTUS elections. How cr*p are they at allowing Clinton to rig the election ....
They may actually have ended up rigging it for Clinton, because they've put in a bunch of hurdles to voting that make it harder for people to vote if they're poor and uneducated, if they haven't voted for a while, and if they're not helped by somebody organized. Then Trump shows up and attracts a bunch poor and uneducated habitual non-voters, relies on local RNC offices to do voter registration, and picks fights with the said offices so they don't want to help him.
The net consequence of these lies and misrepresentations is that the EU referendum result can have no real democratic legitimacy, as it was greatly influenced by lying and misleading the electorate. It is not a true reflection of the will of the people, but more a reflection of the lies told to achieve this result, many of which have little bearing on reality.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Yep, I'm with you there. And suspect the common ground of the people would be too. Our overseas territories are firmly supported.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Yep, I'm with you there. And suspect the common ground of the people would be too. Our overseas territories are firmly supported.
because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence
Oh no you don't.
How the single market?
Bit early in the morning for straw men?
I think May has set out two very clear yardsticks which will make it simple to measure Brexit (and which match the concerns of voters) - supremacy of UK law and control of immigration.
If Le Pen. Yet.
The latest polls indicate that getting the best trade deal is more important to voters than ending free movement.
The government should prioritise reducing immigration when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
The government should prioritise getting favourable trade deals with EU countries when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
Result - OA / (Con VI) Immigration: 39 (48) Trade Deals: 49 (45)
It would be interesting if someone polled the famous (and possibly mythical) 'Soft Brexit' vs 'Hard Brexit' propositions
'The government should prioritise membership of the single market even if this means the UK has no control over EU immigration and is subject to European Court rulings
vs
'The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings even if this means no membership of the single market'
Or:
The government should prioritise job preservation and business investment, while ensuring British citizens can live and work freely in all European Union member states, even if this means the UK has no control over EU immigration and is subject to European Court rulings.
vs
The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings, even if this means fewer jobs, lower business investment and a reduction in the rights of British citizens to live and work freely in all European Union member states.
Your version a much fairer representation than Carlotta's and would score much higher. Just shows the importance of language. I'm a solid remoaner but I would happily accept your first option. The second is suicidal in the world we live in.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
A referendum result can both be very close, and decisive.
If the Scots had voted 52:48 for independence (on the basis of a prospectus that could charitably be described as a pack of lies extremely optimistic), would we be calling now for a re-run?
It was 45:55 and the Tories never stop talking about a rerun.
I think the notion that anyone serious or a serious number of people don't want to exit is a convenient one for Brexiters to hide behind.
As the reality of leaving becomes clearer, and the inevitable fudges (or compromises on sovereignty as they might be known) arise, Leavers just bleat how "they" never wanted to leave anyway.
Most serious commentators, including many here on PB, are now considering what flavour of Brexit we will get. And it is an interesting topic for conversation and debate.
It's equally interesting, surprising perhaps, that there is still a decent number of PB leavers who are stuck bleating about some phantom dissenters.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Yep, I'm with you there. And suspect the common ground of the people would be too. Our overseas territories are firmly supported.
Do you want the rest of the Empire back, too?
Why are Remainers so obsessed with the Empire?
Because they are trying to stop one collapsing?
Aren't you clever? My goodness me! (Always remember & never forget: reason is treason, abuse is patriotic )
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
If it looks like a sellout and smells like a sellout , the plebs will spot it for what it is, they will not be putting away the pitchforks for a deal like that.
So these procedural arguments about mandates and things tend not to be very satisfying
You have a referendum. This referendum is about a specific proposition, which doesn't really describe much in detail. But during the argument both sides will make a lot of claims about what the detail would or should be. As the campaigns are optimising for winning, these claims will be partially untrue, and also partially contradictory. The referendum has a result, and the government is then expected to implement it, but it needs to somehow fill in all the unspecified detail.
The government's options are: 0) Ignore the result and do what it thinks best 1) Implement the specific letter of the referendum, but fill in the rest of the details as it thinks best 2) Look at the result and work out where it thinks the median voter is, and implement what they want 3) Ignore the voters on the losing side and think about where the median voter on the winning side is, and try to work out what they want 4) Don't worry about the voters think and instead try to do something that matches the claims made during the campaign, ie try to do what would make the promises made by the winning side, or potentially both sides, the least untrue.
(3) is a bit weird but I bring it up because it's mostly analagous to what happens in a government vs opposition scenario: Basically the winning side forms a cartel to freeze out the losing side, with the caveat that things still weigh a bit towards the centre, because they need centrist voters in the next election, and there's a risk that their centrists will defect and cut a better deal with the opposition.
I think the tension here is between (2) and (4). If you're doing (2) then the fact that it was a narrow win matters a great deal, because if X only passed by a few percent suggests to the extent that this thing can be represented on a scale, the median voter wants the least X-ish version of X imaginable. I get the case for (4), but then you have a whole new problem trying to work out which of the various wild and contradictory claims should get priority.
A good thoughtful and analytical post.
My one caveat is that a political party will also be very alive to where its own supporters are - it isn't just a question of blocs of referendum voters.
The flip side of all the wwc leave voters is that an awful lot of Home Counties Tories voted remain. You can see this from the results, particularly west of London. Plus of course the Tory party is traditionally the party of business and, to a lesser extent, the educated and wealthy (not a perfect overlap by any means, of course) and relies upon big business for a lot of its funding. So the Tories will be trying to come up with a way forward that doesn't alienate too many of its supporters, on either side of the vote.
because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence
Oh no you don't.
How the single market?
Bit early in the morning for straw men?
I think May has set out two very clear yardsticks which will make it simple to measure Brexit (and which match the concerns of voters) - supremacy of UK law and control of immigration.
If Le Pen. Yet.
The latest polls indicate that getting the best trade deal is more important to voters than ending free movement.
The government should prioritise reducing immigration when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
The EU
Result - OA / (Con VI) Immigration: 39 (48) Trade Deals: 49 (45)
It propositions
'The rulings
vs
'The market'
Or:
The government should prioritise job preservation and business investment, while ensuring British citizens can live and work freely in all European Union member states, even if this means the UK has no control over EU immigration and is subject to European Court rulings.
vs
The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings, even if this means fewer jobs, lower business investment and a reduction in the rights of British citizens to live and work freely in all European Union member states.
Or:
The government should be prepared to compromise on controlling EU immigration and ensuring freedom from European Court rulings, if that would mean safeguarding British jobs, business investment and your right to live and work in EU member states.
vs
The government should not be prepared to compromise on controlling EU immigration and ensuring freedom from European Court rulings, even if that leads to reducing jobs, business investment and your right to live and work freely in all EU member states.
A referendum result can both be very close, and decisive.
If the Scots had voted 52:48 for independence (on the basis of a prospectus that could charitably be described as a pack of lies extremely optimistic), would we be calling now for a re-run?
It was 45:55 and the Tories never stop talking about a rerun.
While I quite understand the confusion - given their bungs to the middle class, I think you'll find its the SNP that's proposing a rerun:
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
If it looks like a sellout and smells like a sellout , the plebs will spot it for what it is, they will not be putting away the pitchforks for a deal like that.
If the wwc are pushed towards voting UKIP (assuming it exists), the downside for the Tories is?
The problem is with Cameron not defining what leave means.
Will this meme never die?
"All of the problems with Brexit are the fault of those people who warned, argued and voted against it..."
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
I'm not a brexiteer. I just think it was grossly irresponsible of Cameron (and ultimately parliament) to allow a referendum which did not describe what leave means. It was an attempt to manipulate the system in favour of the project fear strategy and scare people in to supporting the status quo. It backfired.
because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence
Oh no you don't.
How the single market?
Bit early in the morning for straw men?
I think May has set out two very clear yardsticks which will make it simple to measure Brexit (and which match the concerns of voters) - supremacy of UK law and control of immigration.
If Le Pen. Yet.
The latest polls indicate that getting the best trade deal is more important to voters than ending free movement.
The government should prioritise reducing immigration when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
The government should prioritise getting favourable trade deals with EU countries when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
Result - OA / (Con VI) Immigration: 39 (48) Trade Deals: 49 (45)
It would be interesting if someone polled the famous (and possibly mythical) 'Soft Brexit' vs 'Hard Brexit' propositions
'The government should prioritise membership of the single market even if this means the UK has no control over EU immigration and is subject to European Court rulings
vs
'The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings even if this means no membership of the single market'
Or:
The government should prioritise job preservation and business investment, while ensuring British citizens can live and work freely in all European Union member states, even if this means the UK has no control over EU immigration and is subject to European Court rulings.
vs
The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings, even if this means fewer jobs, lower business investment and a reduction in the rights of British citizens to live and work freely in all European Union member states.
I think the addition of British Citizens rights is fair - however fewer jobs, lower business investment is loading the question as its arguable - for the other side you could add 'lower food prices due to reduced tariffs' and so on.....
The problem is with Cameron not defining what leave means.
Will this meme never die?
"All of the problems with Brexit are the fault of those people who warned, argued and voted against it..."
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
I'm not a brexiteer. I just think it was grossly irresponsible of Cameron (and ultimately parliament) to allow a referendum which did not describe what leave means. It was an attempt to manipulate the system in favour of the project fear strategy and scare people in to supporting the status quo. It backfired.
An official Leave campaign was appointed (by Cameron). They produced a manifesto together with many claims.
Why would not the British people have been right in thinking this was what Leave would look like?
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
A referendum result can both be very close, and decisive.
If the Scots had voted 52:48 for independence (on the basis of a prospectus that could charitably be described as a pack of lies extremely optimistic), would we be calling now for a re-run?
It was 45:55 and the Tories never stop talking about a rerun.
While Sunil is right in that 51.9 vs 48.1 is fairly close for Brexut, it was actually fairly decisive in England by 55/45 for Leave and in Scotland 60/40 for Remain.
The Tory government is one with hardly any Scottish presence, and we are seeing the consequences in the post Brexit posturing.
I am pretty certain it will be Hard Brexit as that is the default outcome.
So these procedural arguments about mandates and things tend not to be very satisfying
You have a referendumm has a result, and the government is then expected to implement it, but it needs to somehow fill in all the unspecified detail.
The government's options are: 0) Ignore the result and do what it thinks best 1) Implement the specific letter of the referendum, but fill in the rest of the details as it thinks best 2) Look at the result and work out where it thinks the median voter is, and implement what they want 3) Ignore the voters on the losing side and think about where the median voter on the winning side is, and try to work out what they want 4) Don't worry about the voters think and instead try to do something that matches the claims made during the campaign, ie try to do what would make the promises made by the winning side, or potentially both sides, the least untrue.
(3) is a bit weird but I bring it up because it's mostly analagous to what happens in a government vs opposition scenario: Basically the winning side forms a cartel to freeze out the losing side, with the caveat that things still weigh a bit towards the centre, because they need centrist voters in the next election, and there's a risk that their centrists will defect and cut a better deal with the opposition.
I think the tension here is between (2) and (4). If you're doing (2) then the fact that it was a narrow win matters a great deal, because if X only passed by a few percent suggests to the extent that this thing can be represented on a scale, the median voter wants the least X-ish version of X imaginable. I get the case for (4), but then you have a whole new problem trying to work out which of the various wild and contradictory claims should get priority.
A good thoughtful and analytical post.
My one caveat is that a political party will also be very alive to where its own supporters are - it isn't just a question of blocs of referendum voters.
The flip side of all the wwc leave voters is that an awful lot of Home Counties Tories voted remain. You can see this from the results, particularly west of London. Plus of course the Tory party is traditionally the party of business and, to a lesser extent, the educated and wealthy (not a perfect overlap by any means, of course) and relies upon big business for a lot of its funding. So the Tories will be trying to come up with a way forward that doesn't alienate too many of its supporters, on either side of the vote.
Interesting that the economy was not mentioned in @edmundintokyo's good post and I think that is indicative of where the government is.
It seems only Philip Hammond cares about not trashing it.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
Immigration may be an issue for some, but for many of we old gits the memory of 1975 rankles. We were deliberately lied to, by omission and by falsehood, but unfortunately for politicians we have long memories.
I too mocked Tony Benn at the time but the realisation that he was one of the few telling the truth is burned into my mind. As a result, I make Malcolm G look like a Panglossian simpleton.
No wonder the oldies won it for Leave. The younger Remainers, the Ovalteenies of today, believe what they want. We were those naïve people once.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Tories would sell their granny
Come on Malc.
What percentage of Tories are young enough to have an extant granny?
because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence
Oh no you don't.
How the single market?
Bit early in the morning for straw men?
I think May has set out two very clear yardsticks which will make it simple to measure Brexit (and which match the concerns of voters) - supremacy of UK law and control of immigration.
If Le Pen. Yet.
The latest polls indicate that getting the best trade deal is more important to voters than ending free movement.
The government should prioritise reducing immigration when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
The government should prioritise getting favourable trade deals with EU countries when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
Result - OA / (Con VI) Immigration: 39 (48) Trade Deals: 49 (45)
It would be interesting if someone polled the famous (and possibly mythical) 'Soft Brexit' vs 'Hard Brexit' propositions
'The rulings
vs
'The market'
Or:
The Court rulings.
vs
The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings, even if this means fewer jobs, lower business investment and a reduction in the rights of British citizens to live and work freely in all European Union member states.
I think the addition of British Citizens rights is fair - however fewer jobs, lower business investment is loading the question as its arguable - for the other side you could add 'lower food prices due to reduced tariffs' and so on.....
Yep, I changed it (see post below). The problem about referring to the "Single Market" is that it is an abstract notion. As we know, some cabinet ministers are not clear what it is, so it is not reasonable to expect the average voter to fully get it.
So these procedural arguments about mandates and things tend not to be very satisfying
You have a referendumm has a result, and the government is then expected to implement it, but it needs to somehow fill in all the unspecified detail.
The government's options are: 0) Ignore the result and do what it thinks best 1) Implement the specific letter of the referendum, but fill in the rest of the details as it thinks best 2) Look at the result and work out where it thinks the median voter is, and implement what they want 3) Ignore the voters on the losing side and think about where the median voter on the winning side is, and try to work out what they want 4) Don't untrue.
(3) is a opposition.
I think should get priority.
A good thoughtful and analytical post.
My one caveat is that a political party will also be very alive to where its own supporters are - it isn't just a question of blocs of referendum voters.
The flip side of all the wwc leave voters is that an awful lot of Home Counties Tories voted remain. You can see this from the results, particularly west of London. Plus of course the Tory party is traditionally the party of business and, to a lesser extent, the educated and wealthy (not a perfect overlap by any means, of course) and relies upon big business for a lot of its funding. So the Tories will be trying to come up with a way forward that doesn't alienate too many of its supporters, on either side of the vote.
Interesting that the economy was not mentioned in @edmundintokyo's good post and I think that is indicative of where the government is.
It seems only Philip Hammond cares about not trashing it.
Philip Hammond is a genuine patriot and a hero for standing up to the swivel-eyed extremists that sit round the cabinet table with him.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Tories would sell their granny
Actually, if you look at the treatment of pensioners relative to the rest of the population (triple lock, etc), the evidence seems to be that the Tories buy grannies rather than sell them.
have you got any proper sources? cause the last twitter one you quoted has a pinned tweet claiming all social media is rigged by the left, so obv twitter can't be trusted
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Tories would sell their granny
Actually, if you look at the treatment of pensioners relative to the rest of the population (triple lock, etc), the evidence seems to be that the Tories buy grannies rather than sell them.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Tories would sell their granny
Actually, if you look at the treatment of pensioners relative to the rest of the population (triple lock, etc), the evidence seems to be that the Tories buy grannies rather than sell them.
The problem is with Cameron not defining what leave means.
Will this meme never die?
"All of the problems with Brexit are the fault of those people who warned, argued and voted against it..."
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
I'm not a brexiteer. I just think it was grossly irresponsible of Cameron (and ultimately parliament) to allow a referendum which did not describe what leave means. It was an attempt to manipulate the system in favour of the project fear strategy and scare people in to supporting the status quo. It backfired.
An official Leave campaign was appointed (by Cameron). They produced a manifesto together with many claims.
Why would not the British people have been right in thinking this was what Leave would look like?</blocquote
Come off it. They had no support from the civil service. No attempt was made to understand the EU position on Brexit. It was left as chaotic to try and help the remain campaign. The remain camp kept saying 'the leave campaign have no idea what leave looks like'. People just got fed up with that.it was embarrassing being associated with camerons strategy.
So these procedural arguments about mandates and things tend not to be very satisfying
You have a referendumm has a result, and the government is then expected to implement it, but it needs to somehow fill in all the unspecified detail.
The government's options are: 0) Ignore the result and do what it thinks best 1) Implement the specific letter of the referendum, but fill in the rest of the details as it thinks best 2) Look at the result and work out where it thinks the median voter is, and implement what they want 3) Ignore the voters on the losing side and think about where the median voter on the winning side is, and try to work out what they want 4) Don't untrue.
(3) is a opposition.
I think should get priority.
A good thoughtful and analytical post.
My one caveat is that a political party will also be very alive to where its own supporters are - it isn't just a question of blocs of referendum voters.
The flip side of all the wwc leave voters is that an awful lot of Home Counties Tories voted remain. You can see this from the results, particularly west of London. Plus of course the Tory party is traditionally the party of business and, to a lesser extent, the educated and wealthy (not a perfect overlap by any means, of course) and relies upon big business for a lot of its funding. So the Tories will be trying to come up with a way forward that doesn't alienate too many of its supporters, on either side of the vote.
Interesting that the economy was not mentioned in @edmundintokyo's good post and I think that is indicative of where the government is.
It seems only Philip Hammond cares about not trashing it.
Philip Hammond is a genuine patriot and a hero for standing up to the swivel-eyed extremists that sit round the cabinet table with him.
The Clinton Foundation spends that money on things like HIV and malaria prevention in Africa. It spends close to 90 cents of every dollar it gets on charitable causes, and earns top marks from watchdog groups.
I have wondered how many of the 18-25 voting cohort (including graduates) from 1975, who voted remain, only to have buyers' remorse about the EU, 40 years on.
I missed the vote by a few months. Given the explanation at the time and we were all taught about Benelux at school I almost certainly would have voted yes to a trading bloc of nations.
I have watched this all my life and I can guarantee I personally would have not only have buyers remorse but considerable anger that I and we had been conned. The final and most disgraceful con of all was that knob Brown sneaking through the back door to sign Lisbon knowing it was not a "tidying up" exercise and had been rejected already by France and Netherlands. They simply changed the front page.
For the act of refusing to give us a referendum on Lisbon, one they knew they would lose they signed anyway. Had they given the referendum at that point and accepted a rebuff and had to redraft then I suspect we would still be in the EU and this 2016 referendum would never have happened or have been needed.
They didn't and it was at that point the scales fell from people's eyes. The EU emperor had no clothes..... And never ever had done.
I did vote "in" in 1975, but the above sums up my current feelings exactly.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
My point was that trade deals (outside a free trade organisation like the one we are leaving) run to thousands of pages and are a long way from being "free trade".
They are also not, necessarily, good things in themselves - look at all the fuss about the terms of TTIP and how it might have given US courts some ability to interfere in British public services. And opposition in the US to TPP. There seem to be some rather naive Brexiters who think that just getting signatures from Australia, Canada et al would be a tremendous result - whereas of course the words on the paper and what they mean are the nub of the matter.
The bottom line is that even in a favourable scenario it will take many years to get back to a trading position as good as the one we have now, let alone deliver any meaningful improvements. Meanwhile Germany will continue to prove that being in the EU is no obstacle to being one of the world's most successful exporters.
Let me make a very clear prediction: there will be no Brexit deal that doesn't offer meaningful additional controls over low skilled migration. Nor would the public stand for it.
Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Yep, I'm with you there. And suspect the common ground of the people would be too. Our overseas territories are firmly supported.
Do you want the rest of the Empire back, too?
Why are Remainers so obsessed with the Empire?
Because they are trying to stop one collapsing?
Aren't you clever? My goodness me! (Always remember & never forget: reason is treason, abuse is patriotic )
Where's the reason in implying someone wants the Empire back because they think we shouldn't screw over Gibraltar?
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
I think the Gibrantants (except GeoffM) would prefer a shared sovereignty that kept them de facto independent, but in the EU.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
Plus people forget that the £/$ is not some sort of opinion poll or index being managed in an office - it's a market and the £ is falling because people are selling and taking their money and investment elsewhere. So whilst the lower rate may, in the short term, be beneficial, the fact that there is a wave of money being pulled out of sterling assets is not.
I'm not a brexiteer. I just think it was grossly irresponsible of Cameron (and ultimately parliament) to allow a referendum which did not describe what leave means.
because it was such a narrow win for LEAVE, that somehow that made the result illegitimate. Perhaps I exaggerate with the previous sentence
Oh no you don't.
How the single market?
Bit early in the morning for straw men?
I think May has set out two very clear yardsticks which will make it simple to measure Brexit (and which match the concerns of voters) - supremacy of UK law and control of immigration.
If Le Pen. Yet.
The latest polls indicate that getting the best trade deal is more important to voters than ending free movement.
The government should prioritise reducing immigration when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
The government should prioritise getting favourable trade deals with EU countries when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
Result - OA / (Con VI) Immigration: 39 (48) Trade Deals: 49 (45)
It would be interesting if someone polled the famous (and possibly mythical) 'Soft Brexit' vs 'Hard Brexit' propositions
'The rulings
vs
'The market'
Or:
The Court rulings.
vs
The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings, even if this means fewer jobs, lower business investment and a reduction in the rights of British citizens to live and work freely in all European Union member states.
I think the addition of British Citizens rights is fair - however fewer jobs, lower business investment is loading the question as its arguable - for the other side you could add 'lower food prices due to reduced tariffs' and so on.....
Yep, I changed it (see post below). The problem about referring to the "Single Market" is that it is an abstract notion. As we know, some cabinet ministers are not clear what it is, so it is not reasonable to expect the average voter to fully get it.
Still think you're loading it - at least we can agree drawing up balanced questions is not as easy as it looks!
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
have you got any proper sources? cause the last twitter one you quoted has a pinned tweet claiming all social media is rigged by the left, so obv twitter can't be trusted
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
To be fair there's a "j" curve usually in these things.
I voted on principle to Leave but I make no bones that a much lower Pound and higher interest rates arising therefrom were my hoped for bonuses. I happen to think it's what the country desperately needs too.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
We are not yet being asked to pay - prices haven't risen; companies are still selling stock at old prices but replenishing at new, or they have hedged their currency exposure for a while, or they are absorbing the difference as a hit to their bottom lines whilst they wait to see what happens next.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Tories would sell their granny
Actually, if you look at the treatment of pensioners relative to the rest of the population (triple lock, etc), the evidence seems to be that the Tories buy grannies rather than sell them.
And, of course, it's not just a matter of cutting immigration. There is also the issue of reducing the ability of Britons to work and settle in other European countries. The government may believe that it is fine to do this, but it needs to make its case to Parliament. Even after the referendum result the current foreign secretary was saying:
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down."
Does any civilised country in the world prevent Brits from doing any of those things, subject to rules and local laws?
That is the norm, not the disastrously reciprocal EU free for all.
For Britons living and working in the rest of the EU the current reciprocal free for all is not a disaster. It works pretty well for us in many ways, too. Having lots of our old people in the south of Europe during the winter means less strain on the NHS than would otherwise be the case, for example. What happens if that safety valve ceases to exist?
Surely if they come back to the UK and die earlier that will save us money in pensions.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
have you got any proper sources? cause the last twitter one you quoted has a pinned tweet claiming all social media is rigged by the left, so obv twitter can't be trusted
If you watched it you'd see it's cspan.
I watched it, but out of context it's not particularly revealing.
Meanwhile you seem to have abandoned lying MSM and apparently source all of your news from twitter nutters
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Strange logic there. Gibraltar voted 96% for Remain, so a hard Brexit makes it much more likely that they will make some sort of arrangement with Spain. If that happens it will be the fault of Brexiteers.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Let's try and reduce that percentage shall we? This correction in the value of the £ was absolutely essential and well over due whether we stayed in the EU or left. What on earth is the point of not being in the Euro if you do not use your exchange rate to make adjustments in your trade position?
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Sure, but over time things shuffle themselves around. The same goes for exports: In real money British people just volunteered to take a large pay cut, so they'll get less this month, but that'll make them more attractive to hire.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative ofwill have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
I think the Gibrantants (except GeoffM) would prefer a shared sovereignty that kept them de facto independent, but in the EU.
Then you don't understand Gibraltarians.
What they want, I suspect, is to stay in the single market, outside the EU, but under full British sovereignty.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative ofwill have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
I think the Gibrantants (except GeoffM) would prefer a shared sovereignty that kept them de facto independent, but in the EU.
Then you don't understand Gibraltarians.
What they want, I suspect, is to stay in the single market, outside the EU, but under full British sovereignty.
What evidence is there that they want to be outside the EU? And why? Having both the UK and Spain tied into the EU helps them enormously.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Let's try and reduce that percentage shall we? This correction in the value of the £ was absolutely essential and well over due whether we stayed in the EU or left. What on earth is the point of not being in the Euro if you do not use your exchange rate to make adjustments in your trade position?
When are you forecasting that there will be an effect?
Between 2007 and 2009 Sterling slid 25% with virtually no effect on the balance of trade. See the link in section 5 of:
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Sure, but over time things shuffle themselves around. The same goes for exports: In real money British people just volunteered to take a large pay cut, so they'll get less this month, but that'll make them more attractive to hire.
Won't be long before British builders will be queuing up to work on permits in Germany, just like in the 1970s
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Sure, but over time things shuffle themselves around. The same goes for exports: In real money British people just volunteered to take a large pay cut, so they'll get less this month, but that'll make them more attractive to hire.
Precisely. The reality is that we have been overpaying ourselves and allowing ourselves to buy and consume too much as a nation since 1997. If we want to maintain the standard of living we have been used to we need to improve productivity sharply. In the meantime we must stop selling all our assets to fund consumption.
The corollary of a trade deficit is a capital surplus but this means that our source of future wealth falls into foreign hands so that our children get to pay rent and have a lower standard of living. For a developing country in desperate need of capital investment this makes sense but for the UK it does not.
A yardstick is a measuring device. Supremacy of UK law is rather binary; it either is, or it isn't. What is of rather more interest is the manner of treaty/treaties we might enter into given that supremacy. Likewise control of immigration - what does May propose to do with it ?
I am entirely sympathetic with the argument that a negotiator cannot reveal their hand ahead of negotiations without detriment to their ability to negotiate. A detailed prospectus might well be self defeating. No prospectus at all is equally alarming.
All trade agreements involve signing up to binding international arbitration. So, you can't (for example) sign a trade deal with Canada that removes tariffs between the countries and then pass a law that bans all Canadian products from the UK.
If you regard UK sovereignty as completely binary, then we cannot either sign trade agreements nor be a member of NATO (which also has a court that binds its members).
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Let's try and reduce that percentage shall we? This correction in the value of the £ was absolutely essential and well over due whether we stayed in the EU or left. What on earth is the point of not being in the Euro if you do not use your exchange rate to make adjustments in your trade position?
When are you forecasting that there will be an effect?
Between 2007 and 2009 Sterling slid 25% with virtually no effect on the balance of trade. See the link in section 5 of:
Sunil - another narrow result is the 0.42% in the Colombian Peace Agreement Referendum just 16 days ago. Looking at the polls, their No vote was an even bigger shock than our Leave vote.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose thene the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Sure, but over time things shuffle themselves around. The same goes for exports: In real money British people just volunteered to take a large pay cut, so they'll get less this month, but that'll make them more attractive to hire.
Precisely. The reality is that we have been overpaying ourselves and allowing ourselves to buy and consume too much as a nation since 1997. If we want to maintain the standard of living we have been used to we need to improve productivity sharply. In the meantime we must stop selling all our assets to fund consumption.
The corollary of a trade deficit is a capital surplus but this means that our source of future wealth falls into foreign hands so that our children get to pay rent and have a lower standard of living. For a developing country in desperate need of capital investment this makes sense but for the UK it does not.
All true...we must improve productivity...stop buying so much...huge structural reform here...massive adjustment in norms and behaviour there...
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Sure, but over time things shuffle themselves around. The same goes for exports: In real money British people just volunteered to take a large pay cut, so they'll get less this month, but that'll make them more attractive to hire.
Precisely. The reality is that we have been overpaying ourselves and allowing ourselves to buy and consume too much as a nation since 1997. If we want to maintain the standard of living we have been used to we need to improve productivity sharply. In the meantime we must stop selling all our assets to fund consumption.
The corollary of a trade deficit is a capital surplus but this means that our source of future wealth falls into foreign hands so that our children get to pay rent and have a lower standard of living. For a developing country in desperate need of capital investment this makes sense but for the UK it does not.
Most people's real incomes have been falling for years. More so here than the rest of Europe. To what level of penury do you wish us to descend?
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Let's try and reduce that percentage shall we? This correction in the value of the £ was absolutely essential and well over due whether we stayed in the EU or left. What on earth is the point of not being in the Euro if you do not use your exchange rate to make adjustments in your trade position?
When are you forecasting that there will be an effect?
Between 2007 and 2009 Sterling slid 25% with virtually no effect on the balance of trade. See the link in section 5 of:
It will take a considerable time for the reasons you have pointed out. We have diminished our own internal capacity to produce by effectively subsidising imports with an over valued currency for way too long wiping out much of our own production in the process. But, as our Shadow Chancellor would no doubt point out, every journey begins with a single step.
Rebalancing our economy in this way is more important than Brexit. It is absolutely essential.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
Sure, but over time things shuffle themselves around. The same goes for exports: In real money British people just volunteered to take a large pay cut, so they'll get less this month, but that'll make them more attractive to hire.
Won't be long before British builders will be queuing up to work on permits in Germany, just like in the 1970s
Yup, that's an interesting consequence of Brexit: All things being equal, the number of British economic migrants benefitting from free movement will increase, and the number of non-British EU citizens in Britain will drop.
Let me make a very clear prediction: there will be no Brexit deal that doesn't offer meaningful additional controls over low skilled migration. Nor would the public stand for it.
Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
I think that's a reasonable forecast.
However, I think it's highly likely we will be paying a very large sum to Brussels (one way or another).
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
I'd rather have the hardest of all Brexits than sell out Gibraltar to the Spanish.
Tories would sell their granny
Actually, if you look at the treatment of pensioners relative to the rest of the population (triple lock, etc), the evidence seems to be that the Tories buy grannies rather than sell them.
Let me make a very clear prediction: there will be no Brexit deal that doesn't offer meaningful additional controls over low skilled migration. Nor would the public stand for it.
Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
I think that's a reasonable forecast.
However, I think it's highly likely we will be paying a very large sum to Brussels (one way or another).
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
The recovery of our trade balance will be a J shaped curve. It is a well recognised phenomenon.
The quickest way for our trade to balance is for us to "do a Spain", which is what we did in 1990-1991, and during which the savings rate rose 7%.
(Currently, the UK savings rate is 3%. The level at which your trade comes into balance is about 10%. Those with really big surpluses, like Switzerland, tend to have savings rates around 15%.)
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose thene the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
IIUC this tends to happen when a currency drops because all your existing contracts and orders from abroad denominated in foreign currency suddenly cost more. It then reverses once people have time to switch to a cheaper domestic supplier.
For a high percentage of goods there are no domestic suppliers.
.
All true...we must improve productivity...stop buying so much...huge structural reform here...massive adjustment in norms and behaviour there...
What did the EU have to do with all that?
Not a lot. In or out it was necessary. But those moaning about the fall in the pound are pointing at the wrong problem and complaining about a necessary if insufficient part of the answer. If staying in the EU was allowing us to continue living in la-la land for even longer it was positively damaging.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
.
.
.
Sure, but over time things shuffle themselves around. The same goes for exports: In real money British people just volunteered to take a large pay cut, so they'll get less this month, but that'll make them more attractive to hire.
Precisely. The reality is that we have been overpaying ourselves and allowing ourselves to buy and consume too much as a nation since 1997. If we want to maintain the standard of living we have been used to we need to improve productivity sharply. In the meantime we must stop selling all our assets to fund consumption.
The corollary of a trade deficit is a capital surplus but this means that our source of future wealth falls into foreign hands so that our children get to pay rent and have a lower standard of living. For a developing country in desperate need of capital investment this makes sense but for the UK it does not.
Most people's real incomes have been falling for years. More so here than the rest of Europe. To what level of penury do you wish us to descend?
We have to get to the level of expenditure that we actually earn from what we sell. If we sell more and buy more of our own real wages can grow but they need to be earned not borrowed from our children.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
How is opening ourselves up to the rest of the world small minded?
We will be no more open to the rest of the world than we are now (and less so, if they aren't so interested in us due to our reduced influence and standing).
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
We are currently not able to sign free trade deals with other countries. After we leave we will be.
There is no such thing as a "free trade" deal. Edit/ or at least, not in practice
To put in context, New Zealand imports $41.6bn of stuff every year. Belgium (which we'd all agree is not a very big or important country) has imports of $450bn. And Belgium's a lot closer, so transport costs are going to be very much less important.
Investors dumped UK government bonds yesterday in one of the heaviest sell-offs since the Brexit vote as international demand for sterling assets declined rapidly.
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
That means yields rose then. Hurrah! More please, much more!!- see the William Hague article linked below in the thread.
The BoE finally getting somewhere near its 2% target, an opportunity to start tiptoeing out of this ruinous zero interest policy, a plug on the black hole that has been final salary pension schemes, a boost for exports and an opportunity for import substitution for a country with an unsustainable trade deficit, yes, I can see why the Times is worried.
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
The recovery of our trade balance will be a J shaped curve. It is a well recognised phenomenon.
The quickest way for our trade to balance is for us to "do a Spain", which is what we did in 1990-1991, and during which the savings rate rose 7%.
(Currently, the UK savings rate is 3%. The level at which your trade comes into balance is about 10%. Those with really big surpluses, like Switzerland, tend to have savings rates around 15%.)
True but that really hurts. I see little sign people are willing to accept that level of reduction in their consumption overnight. It is disappointing how little consumer debt has fallen through our years of so called austerity.
As an aside, people keep quoting Tusk as if he were God himself. He's not. He is one member of 751 in the European Parliament. Yes, he is President of it. But he will not, and nor will Juncker, be negotiating. The Council of Ministers will vote, by QMV, on the proposal put before it.
Presupposing that he isn't representing a broader segment of interest, such as having had private discussions with key players such as leaders of the various blocks in the EU parliament. The CoM can approve it all they like, if the EU Parliament votes it down, its toast.
I'll give you good odds on the European Parliament voting down the deal, if you like.
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Well if the MEPs vote on national lines for this rather than party lines it would need Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK and the Scandis to get a vote through with a simple majority. It's unlikely that the EUparl will vote down an agreed resolution.
Most people's real incomes have been falling for years. More so here than the rest of Europe. To what level of penury do you wish us to descend?
That's not going to change with Brexit, I'm afraid.
Since 1997, we have borrowed to an extent that makes the Greeks look prudent. We've gone from the rest of the world owing us a great deal, to us owing them a great deal.
The savings rate is going to have to rise to close the current account. This will be extremely painful. There is really no way to get around this.
Comments
It is noticeable that the £ has stabilised (and even starting to pull back a little from its lows) now the talk has moved on from the hard Brexit being floated during the Tory conference.
Maybe if Germany had been more in a mood to listen to our concerns we wouldn't be leaving.
As the reality of leaving becomes clearer, and the inevitable fudges (or compromises on sovereignty as they might be known) arise, Leavers just bleat how "they" never wanted to leave anyway.
Most serious commentators, including many here on PB, are now considering what flavour of Brexit we will get. And it is an interesting topic for conversation and debate.
It's equally interesting, surprising perhaps, that there is still a decent number of PB leavers who are stuck bleating about some phantom dissenters.
https://t.co/WsHhpkkLT3
My one caveat is that a political party will also be very alive to where its own supporters are - it isn't just a question of blocs of referendum voters.
The flip side of all the wwc leave voters is that an awful lot of Home Counties Tories voted remain. You can see this from the results, particularly west of London. Plus of course the Tory party is traditionally the party of business and, to a lesser extent, the educated and wealthy (not a perfect overlap by any means, of course) and relies upon big business for a lot of its funding. So the Tories will be trying to come up with a way forward that doesn't alienate too many of its supporters, on either side of the vote.
The government should be prepared to compromise on controlling EU immigration and ensuring freedom from European Court rulings, if that would mean safeguarding British jobs, business investment and your right to live and work in EU member states.
vs
The government should not be prepared to compromise on controlling EU immigration and ensuring freedom from European Court rulings, even if that leads to reducing jobs, business investment and your right to live and work freely in all EU member states.
While I quite understand the confusion - given their bungs to the middle class, I think you'll find its the SNP that's proposing a rerun:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/15/nicola-sturgeon-tells-snp-conference-the-time-is-coming-for-seco/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/
It was an attempt to manipulate the system in favour of the project fear strategy and scare people in to supporting the status quo. It backfired.
Why would not the British people have been right in thinking this was what Leave would look like?
All this nonsense about how much easier it will be to export Marmite to Australia or whatever (skipping over that they have their own), and no-one troubles to look at where German exports go and see what a success they are making of it despite being "shackled" inside the EU?
The Tory government is one with hardly any Scottish presence, and we are seeing the consequences in the post Brexit posturing.
I am pretty certain it will be Hard Brexit as that is the default outcome.
It seems only Philip Hammond cares about not trashing it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/85444672/nz-britain-launch-talks-on-a-new-freetrade-deal-as-brexit-date-looms
I too mocked Tony Benn at the time but the realisation that he was one of the few telling the truth is burned into my mind. As a result, I make Malcolm G look like a Panglossian simpleton.
No wonder the oldies won it for Leave. The younger Remainers, the Ovalteenies of today, believe what they want. We were those naïve people once.
What percentage of Tories are young enough to have an extant granny?
The Clinton Foundation spends that money on things like HIV and malaria prevention in Africa. It spends close to 90 cents of every dollar it gets on charitable causes, and earns top marks from watchdog groups.
They are also not, necessarily, good things in themselves - look at all the fuss about the terms of TTIP and how it might have given US courts some ability to interfere in British public services. And opposition in the US to TPP. There seem to be some rather naive Brexiters who think that just getting signatures from Australia, Canada et al would be a tremendous result - whereas of course the words on the paper and what they mean are the nub of the matter.
The bottom line is that even in a favourable scenario it will take many years to get back to a trading position as good as the one we have now, let alone deliver any meaningful improvements. Meanwhile Germany will continue to prove that being in the EU is no obstacle to being one of the world's most successful exporters.
Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
.@PritiPatel_MP says all #UKaid must be scrutinised, we question the body tasked with this job at 9.15. Watch live https://t.co/5Y4fl4TLe6
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/aug2016
It looks to me as if Britons like foreign goods and are prepared to pay the difference.
Paul Kirkby
'Democracy can't survive if politicians just make up the facts & discount reality as a myth' https://t.co/dyjSNblZBT https://t.co/CReJbb4Odl
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/747000584226607104
Are you really claiming it was Cameron's fault they lied to you?
I voted on principle to Leave but I make no bones that a much lower Pound and higher interest rates arising therefrom were my hoped for bonuses. I happen to think it's what the country desperately needs too.
Meanwhile you seem to have abandoned lying MSM and apparently source all of your news from twitter nutters
Gibraltar voted 96% for Remain, so a hard Brexit makes it much more likely that they will make some sort of arrangement with Spain. If that happens it will be the fault of Brexiteers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-results-live-gibraltar-result-latest-remain-brexit-turnout-a7098626.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/gibraltar-existential-threat-economy-hard-brexit-deal-eu-fabian-picardo-a7201211.html
What they want, I suspect, is to stay in the single market, outside the EU, but under full British sovereignty.
Between 2007 and 2009 Sterling slid 25% with virtually no effect on the balance of trade. See the link in section 5 of:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/aug2016#longer-term-perspective-sterling-depreciation-and-trade
The corollary of a trade deficit is a capital surplus but this means that our source of future wealth falls into foreign hands so that our children get to pay rent and have a lower standard of living. For a developing country in desperate need of capital investment this makes sense but for the UK it does not.
If you regard UK sovereignty as completely binary, then we cannot either sign trade agreements nor be a member of NATO (which also has a court that binds its members).
What did the EU have to do with all that?
Source: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/blx/ & http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/nzl/all/show/2014/
Rebalancing our economy in this way is more important than Brexit. It is absolutely essential.
However, I think it's highly likely we will be paying a very large sum to Brussels (one way or another).
(Currently, the UK savings rate is 3%. The level at which your trade comes into balance is about 10%. Those with really big surpluses, like Switzerland, tend to have savings rates around 15%.)
As an aside, it would appear that we - the Brits - get to vote on this in the European parliament too. I don't know how that changes things.
Since 1997, we have borrowed to an extent that makes the Greeks look prudent. We've gone from the rest of the world owing us a great deal, to us owing them a great deal.
The savings rate is going to have to rise to close the current account. This will be extremely painful. There is really no way to get around this.