politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Italian Job – Part One: 5 Star and the Lega blow the blood

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

asjohnstone said:

ydoethur said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The meaningful vote has to be held by 21 January.

Which means if it fails this week, we're out with no deal.

I do hope the Remainers in Parliament finally come to understand this.

Baring a better deal, obviously

So, no deal, then?

That's the naked truth...

By all means bookmark this post and tell me I was wrong on April 1st. Believe me I shall be very happy if I am!

But you'll have some compensations. Like pointing out how Dominic Grieve's little games ensured it happened.....

You might have that compensation. You're a Leaver. Knowing my fellow Remainers are the ones who screwed up so imposingly will make matters worse, not better.

Take your comfort where you can.

There'll always be the puns.....

It wouldn't be a punnet, so much as a mess.

(In case anyone is wondering, that is a reference to Richard III, Act 3 scene 4.)

Black_Rook said:

IanB2 said:

Black_Rook said:

asjohnstone said:

Longer term, the euro needs to be rebalanced some how into a V2.0 where the south isn't locked into a competitive disadvantage.

In normal currency areas (e.g. ours) there's a common Government, treasury and debt, and the weaker areas are at least partially compensated for having to share a currency with the stronger ones through fiscal transfers. Through UK Government spending and grant allocations, a substantial net transfer of tax revenues is effected between the different parts of the country.

None of this exists within the Eurozone: yes, less well-off states benefit from some investment through the CAP and structural funds, but this is tiny in proportion to their overall budgets, and any large injections of cash come in the form of bailout loans rather than gifts. That might not be a problem if the Eurozone consisted only of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but, given that it in fact contains such a widely varying collection of economies, I don't see how this state of affairs can persist forever.

That is why I think people in this country who dismiss talk of some kind of United States of Europe *might* be wrong. There is strong political resistance in the creditor states for effectively signing their taxpayers up to fund public spending in the debtor states, but there's also immense political investment in the Euro as a project. Eventually, something must give: either the Eurozone will have to adopt at least some of the characteristics of a nation state to survive in one piece, or those economies that can't live in a currency union with Germany will have to peel off. It's just a matter of which outcome wins out.

If only it were working well in either the UK or US, both of which are experiencing widening regional differentials (although there are the first signs of some regional rebalancing in the Uk property market).

All these things are relative. Social security claimants and NHS patients get the same benefits in the North-East as in the South-East. The people of the North-East aren't labouring to pay off an enormous bailout loan from the people of the South-East, either.

I think you can reasonably argue that redistributive payments and policies within the UK don't work nearly well enough (poorer areas would benefit from infrastructure investment, tax relief and business incentives; Scotland possibly receives too much subsidy from the centre, whereas Wales certainly receives too little.) But it's a damned sight better than the situation prevailing in Euroland.

asjohnstone said:

Foxy said:

This is what yesterdays BMG poll looks like:

https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1084225184352002048?s=19

It would be interesting to see what polling would show for Britain in the May European elections, were we to revoke A50. I haven't seen any polling on that, but my guess would be that both pro and anti EU parties would have a surge, I don't think the general public have woken up to the nastiness of UKIP under Battern and his imp, Tommy Robinson.

Do I see large Tory loses in Scotland projected ? South Ayrshire is the obvious one but I think there are others

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

Part one is very good indeed.

It is indeed. As good as a cup of Neapolitan coffee.

Barnesian said:

Chris said:

Interesting that Betfair's implied probabilities for the approval of the deal before March 30 and leaving on schedule have now diverged (previously they were very close):
Approval of the deal: 32%
Leaving on schedule: 23%

The difference presumably reflects the possibility that an extension would be needed to give effect to the deal.

The betting markets seem to think the probability of leaving with No Deal in March is very small.

Betfair is showing a 20% probability that we Brexit in the 2nd quarter - presumably with May's deal.

Roger said:

CD13 said:

Mr Edmund,

I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).

Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.

'Populism' refers to the opinions of people who don't have the ability to think. People who want blue passports..£'s shillings and pence. ....to reintroduce the Groat ....to do away with en suite bathrooms.....Sun reading thickos

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The meaningful vote has to be held by 21 January.

I don't think the January 21 is mandated for the meaningful vote. I think 30 Nov 2018 was the deadline in early drafts of the Withdrawal Bill, but that was removed.

January 21 is the date by which the government needs to return to Parliament if there is no agreement in principle with the EU.

Chris said:

Interesting that Betfair's implied probabilities for the approval of the deal before March 30 and leaving on schedule have now diverged (previously they were very close):
Approval of the deal: 32%
Leaving on schedule: 23%

The difference presumably reflects the possibility that an extension would be needed to give effect to the deal.

The betting markets seem to think the probability of leaving with No Deal in March is very small.

ThomasNashe said:

Morris_Dancer said:

To a large extent, this is a typical message, but I thought I'd include it just for the geographical aspect:
https://twitter.com/StandUp4Brexit/status/1084366807547498497

This may end up playing significantly in future elections.

What a shame he wasn't Brexit Secretary between 2016 and 2018. I'm sure we'd have got a much better deal had he been.

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

malcolmg said:

Nicola Sturgeon is getting herself into big trouble shielding unionist civil servants who tried to stitch up Alex Salmond. She seems to have lost the plot for feminism support. Why the two unionist turkeys have not been sacked is crazy. She may be job hunting if she does not watch.

kle4 said:

CD13 said:

Mr Edmund,

I don't disagree with some of your points but I was trying to bring it back to basics (as that Remainer PM once said).

Populism is an insult banded around for popular policies certain people dislike. A lovely subjective view by those who think their views are always right. We could mimic the policies and views of the EU if we wanted to, but that's no good for true Europhiles because it involve unreliable British voters. Ooh, populism, hiss, boo.

Indeed. Oh, someone will now define why populism is different, perhaps even fairly, but ultimately it's to allow a ready made reason to reject the people while pretending not to. I always do what the people want, but not this populist stuff. It's ok to privately admit we the people get it wrong.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nashe, that would be a legitimate criticism if May hadn't undercut him and his preferred option (an FTA, along Canadian lines) were on the table.

Alistair said:

asjohnstone said:

Foxy said:

This is what yesterdays BMG poll looks like:

https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1084225184352002048?s=19

It would be interesting to see what polling would show for Britain in the May European elections, were we to revoke A50. I haven't seen any polling on that, but my guess would be that both pro and anti EU parties would have a surge, I don't think the general public have woken up to the nastiness of UKIP under Battern and his imp, Tommy Robinson.

Do I see large Tory loses in Scotland projected ? South Ayrshire is the obvious one but I think there are others

That is predicting the tories lose more than half their Scotland seats by a quick eyeball. All their NE seats bar Aberdeenshire/Aberdeen gone.

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

NickPalmer said:

Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.

As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.

Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.

The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.

There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.

This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).

It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.

Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.

DavidL said:

RoyalBlue said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.

Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

I think that 90% point was debunked.
It was handy fodder for Britain’s austerity programme, but revealed in the FT to based on some Excel errors by the researchers.

FF43 said:

Chris said:

Interesting that Betfair's implied probabilities for the approval of the deal before March 30 and leaving on schedule have now diverged (previously they were very close):
Approval of the deal: 32%
Leaving on schedule: 23%

The difference presumably reflects the possibility that an extension would be needed to give effect to the deal.

The betting markets seem to think the probability of leaving with No Deal in March is very small.

I would check the wording carefully. It's easier to arrange an extension once agreement has been made in principle, to allow the processes to happen, than an extension to allow people extra time to decide what they want to do.

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

RoyalBlue said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.

Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.

They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.

And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.

Dura_Ace said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nashe, that would be a legitimate criticism if May hadn't undercut him and his preferred option (an FTA, along Canadian lines) were on the table.

What sort of spineless moron spends 2 years pretending to do a job in which they have no agency?

RoyalBlue said:

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

NickPalmer said:

Interesting article. It oversimplifies a bit to describe 5 Star as being on the left - they have been all over the place and in the EP are allied to the right. And, as usual, the dominant party is getting all the fruits of coalition - the Lega is soaring at 5 Star expense. But the underlying theme is right: Italians are fed up with immigration (which completely dwarfs what people whinge about in Britain, for geographical reasons) and austerity: the establishment is largely horrified by the government but they are a thin layer of society without real blocking power.

As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.

Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.

The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.

There are many stupid pieces of EU regulation. But, perhaps the stupidest of all is the Dublin Convention.

This causes almost all the burden of migration from Africa and Asia to be concentrated on a few front-line states (notably Greece, Italy & Spain).

It should be a shared burden across the whole EU, with depopulated states in the East taking more migrants, not none, as their populations have fallen because of freedom of movement.

Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.

Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.

I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.

RoyalBlue said:

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

RoyalBlue said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.

Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.

They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.

And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.

Italy is a bureaucratic, corrupt country with high unemployment where racist attitudes are more common than in other Western European countries. It’s not really a surprise why migrants don’t want to stay there.

ydoethur said:

El_Capitano said:

ydoethur said:

El_Capitano said:

Grieve and Boles are both being threatened by their constituency associations.

I know about Boles, but do you have a source for that claim about Grieve? Because despite Amplefield Andy's persistent claims to the contrary, I've seen nothing to suggest he might be retiring or forced out. Indeed, what I have seen suggest Beaconsfield CA is foursquare behind him.

Doesn't mean it's not out there given how little time I have to research such things, but I'd be interested to see it.

It’s claimed at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5854901/ANDREW-PIERCE-Dominic-going-jump-pushed.html , and though I’m no fan of the Mail it is the paper of the Tory heartlands.

Thanks.

I think that Pierce is just pot stirring there, bluntly. Much speculation and innuendo, very little hard fact.

Still, even the Daily Mail has known to get things right at times, so he may be correct.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, he may have felt he had an opportunity to influence when in the Cabinet, but that outside he'd have none.

Regardless, his preferred option isn't on the table. Only May's is.

Black_Rook said:

asjohnstone said:

Longer term, the euro needs to be rebalanced some how into a V2.0 where the south isn't locked into a competitive disadvantage.

In normal currency areas (e.g. ours) there's a common Government, treasury and debt, and the weaker areas are at least partially compensated for having to share a currency with the stronger ones through fiscal transfers. Through UK Government spending and grant allocations, a substantial net transfer of tax revenues is effected between the different parts of the country.

None of this exists within the Eurozone: yes, less well-off states benefit from some investment through the CAP and structural funds, but this is tiny in proportion to their overall budgets, and any large injections of cash come in the form of bailout loans rather than gifts. That might not be a problem if the Eurozone consisted only of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg but, given that it in fact contains such a widely varying collection of economies, I don't see how this state of affairs can persist forever.

That is why I think people in this country who dismiss talk of some kind of United States of Europe *might* be wrong. There is strong political resistance in the creditor states for effectively signing their taxpayers up to fund public spending in the debtor states, but there's also immense political investment in the Euro as a project. Eventually, something must give: either the Eurozone will have to adopt at least some of the characteristics of a nation state to survive in one piece, or those economies that can't live in a currency union with Germany will have to peel off. It's just a matter of which outcome wins out.

DavidL said:

Gardenwalker said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

I think that 90% point was debunked.
It was handy fodder for Britain’s austerity programme, but revealed in the FT to based on some Excel errors by the researchers.

It is certainly not a magic number and these things are matters of degree but when servicing debt absorbs more than we spend on education there clearly is a problem. If that debt is largely domestic as with Japan then there is an argument that the interest simply recycles into domestic demand but Italy is increasingly not in that situation either (neither are we btw).

Cyclefree said:

RoyalBlue said:

Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.

I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.

Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

RoyalBlue said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.

Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.

They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.

And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.

AndyJS said:

"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689

Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?

AlastairMeeks said:

A useful snippet from Dan Hodges buried deep in his article today:

“Every Cabinet Minister I have spoken to is privately terrified of the consequences of crashing out of the EU.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6585659/DAN-HODGES-storm-coming-admit-Im-scared.html

AlastairMeeks said:

A useful snippet from Dan Hodges buried deep in his article today:

“Every Cabinet Minister I have spoken to is privately terrified of the consequences of crashing out of the EU.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6585659/DAN-HODGES-storm-coming-admit-Im-scared.html

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

RoyalBlue said:

DavidL said:

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

Italy is already at that point. The general view of economists is that debt in excess of 90% of GDP depresses growth. Italy is at 120%. Its lack of growth is directly correlated to that. Before the Euro Italy avoided the consequences of deficits by moderate inflation and depreciation which meant the burden of old debts faded away. We did something similar, just not to the same degree. The Euro under German domination has always been focused on low inflation and being a hard currency. The correct response to this would have been for Italy to run surpluses to reduce debt but that would also have caused an even deeper recession and been politically unpopular.

The problem is that there is no easy answer to the debt. Italy should never have joined the Euro with it.

The Italians have also stopped reproducing. Their birthrate has not been above 1.5 since the early 80s. An inverted population pyramid will lead to fairly dire financial consequences, as the Chinese will discover in the 2020s.

Indeed although ironically their immigration should help with that if they can integrate the immigrants and make them productive.

They cannot find jobs for their own educated young, never mind a load of immigrants they don’t want.

And they don’t particularly buy into the whole diversity shtick, either.

Beverley_C said:

AndyJS said:

"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689

Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?

Yes.

Tin-earred Tess will drive us over the cliff because just over 1/3rd of us gave her a "mandate" for it

That is the will of nation, apparently

edmundintokyo said:

CD13 said:

A Brexit UK could look very similar to a Remain UK if the democratically-elected government of the time wanted it to.

They could agree no-tariff deals, they could introduce FOM, they could introduce minimum standards identical or even higher than the EU. So why are Remainers so incensed?

But have little or no control over any of them: No MEPs, no representation on the Council of Ministers, the loss of the veto on new member states joining, etc etc. I think this is actually the most likely outcome of Brexit, and in practice you're right that it wouldn't be too disastrous, but it's such a ridiculous state of affairs that I can't believe anybody actually wants it to happen, least of all the people who voted for a campaign with the slogan "take back control".

So before doing something that's going to end up at this universally undesirable destination, we generally think it's a good idea to make sure it's what the voters really want. We can't quite do that because we only have *part* of the information about the future relationship, but even the modest compromises that TMay has already made seem to be enough to make a decent chunk of voters decide they'd rather not do the thing at all, so we generally think it would be dumb not to check with them while it's still possible for them to back out.

At least those are the practical considerations. The emotional part, particularly for younger people, is seeing these mainly elderly, inward-looking people deliberately trying to take away opportunities from ourselves and our friends. "Take back control" means that they want control over us, and we're finding them and their worldview increasingly repulsive. We would be narked off about them trying to do this even if we knew they would fail.

Morris_Dancer said:

To a large extent, this is a typical message, but I thought I'd include it just for the geographical aspect:
https://twitter.com/StandUp4Brexit/status/1084366807547498497

This may end up playing significantly in future elections.

Charles said:

edmundintokyo said:

CD13 said:

A Brexit UK could look very similar to a Remain UK if the democratically-elected government of the time wanted it to.

They could agree no-tariff deals, they could introduce FOM, they could introduce minimum standards identical or even higher than the EU. So why are Remainers so incensed?

But have little or no control over any of them: No MEPs, no representation on the Council of Ministers, the loss of the veto on new member states joining, etc etc. I think this is actually the most likely outcome of Brexit, and in practice you're right that it wouldn't be too disastrous, but it's such a ridiculous state of affairs that I can't believe anybody actually wants it to happen, least of all the people who voted for a campaign with the slogan "take back control".

So before doing something that's going to end up at this universally undesirable destination, we generally think it's a good idea to make sure it's what the voters really want. We can't quite do that because we only have *part* of the information about the future relationship, but even the modest compromises that TMay has already made seem to be enough to make a decent chunk of voters decide they'd rather not do the thing at all, so we generally think it would be dumb not to check with them while it's still possible for them to back out.

At least those are the practical considerations. The emotional part, particularly for younger people, is seeing these mainly elderly, inward-looking people deliberately trying to take away opportunities from ourselves and our friends. "Take back control" means that they want control over us, and we're finding them and their worldview increasingly repulsive. We would be narked off about them trying to do this even if we knew they would fail.

I think it is extremely unlikely that we unilaterally reintroduce FOM

Remember that’s to do with welfare not immigration

Black_Rook said:

On topic: things in Italy will get really interesting when the next recession hits the Eurozone, and indeed there are some suggestions that this is already on the way.

When Italian government debt reaches the point at which it can no longer be serviced (i.e. when the repayments get so large that raising tax and cutting spending enough to cover them becomes self-defeating through depressing economic activity,) then Italy faces a choice about what flavour of nasty medicine it takes. Will the Italian coalition choose a Greek-style EU/IMF bailout, with all the strings attached, or might it elect to leave the Euro to ease its problems through devaluation, and possibly even borrow some ideas from Iceland and unilaterally default on or restructure some of its debts?

AlastairMeeks said:

A useful snippet from Dan Hodges buried deep in his article today:

“Every Cabinet Minister I have spoken to is privately terrified of the consequences of crashing out of the EU.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6585659/DAN-HODGES-storm-coming-admit-Im-scared.html

AndyJS said:

"A failure to deliver Brexit would be "a catastrophic and unforgivable breach of trust in our democracy", Prime Minister Theresa May has warned."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46853689

Does that mean she prefers No Deal to Remain if her deal is rejected on Tuesday?

ThomasNashe said:

AlastairMeeks said:

A useful snippet from Dan Hodges buried deep in his article today:

“Every Cabinet Minister I have spoken to is privately terrified of the consequences of crashing out of the EU.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6585659/DAN-HODGES-storm-coming-admit-Im-scared.html

That's why I think all the commentary around no majority for any of the other options is off the mark. True, there isn't at the moment, but when her deal is voted down, the loyalists will be looking at the other options that are not 'no deal'. So we'll end up with either second referendum (deal or remain), or deferral to allow Norway style deal. I'd say it's about 70/30 in favour of second ref.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cyclefree said:

RoyalBlue said:

YBarddCwsc said:

IanB2 said:

As you say, the immigration issue bears no comparison. We have predominantly Eastern Europeans (and a fair few young Italians, for reasons spelled out in the lead), almost all working and plugging vital gaps in our labour market.

Italy has almost every public space disfigured by large numbers of Africans camping out, surviving mostly by scavenging, begging and petty crime.

The problem is you have not identified the responsibility of your gorgeous darling, the EU, in causing this.

Europhile politicians from Greece, Italy and Spain signed up to this without realising the consequences.

Migrants are not goods. You can’t expect somebody who has struggled to cross the Sahara to be content to stay in a small town in Eastern Poland, earning less than £500 a month in a place with few of his countrymen. Taking advantage of Schengen, they would probably migrate to Germany, the Low Countries or Scandinavia and work illegally there.

I doubt they would feel very welcome in most Eastern states, where views on different nationalities/races can make Brexiteers sound like hippies.

Indeed. People are not goods. And yet the whole premise of FoM is that people are just like goods and services and capital. And they are not. People have wishes and dreams and hopes and aspirations: both those who are already here and those who want to come here. Too much immigration policy is based on the idea that people are as fungible as money. The political and social changes we have seen over the last decade in any number of European countries are a result of that mistaken idea.

Pretty obvious when you stop to think of it, for like, more than two seconds, isn't it?

It's what happens when politicians who worship a simplistic ideology let leading economists do all the thinking and sculpting of all the intergovernmental rules.

They are no doubt all very intelligent but, like all economists, they reduce everything to a number and a model.

If western countries don’t want more immigrants coming than they know how to handle, sooner or later they've got to start thinking about what would incentivise them to stay put, and then doing that.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. G, Halifax being part of HBOS, which was registered in Scotland.

On the pound: a transition would be desirable for Scotland, claiming a right to a currency union with a nation you just left, for an indeterminate period, remains an unhealthy blend of blind optimism and arrogant complacency.

But isn't it nice to discuss this rather than leaving the EU? See how much more civilised it is

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ThomasNashe said:

AlastairMeeks said:

A useful snippet from Dan Hodges buried deep in his article today:

“Every Cabinet Minister I have spoken to is privately terrified of the consequences of crashing out of the EU.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6585659/DAN-HODGES-storm-coming-admit-Im-scared.html

That's why I think all the commentary around no majority for any of the other options is off the mark. True, there isn't at the moment, but when her deal is voted down, the loyalists will be looking at the other options that are not 'no deal'. So we'll end up with either second referendum (deal or remain), or deferral to allow Norway style deal. I'd say it's about 70/30 in favour of second ref.

John Mann on Sophy Ridge this morning declared he will vote for TM deal. He also said he would vote for a GE but the idea labour will hold a referendum is not going to happen. Rebecca Long Bailey on the same programme declared that following a GE labour would campaign for a better Brexit so that will be labours position post a GE

Casino_Royale said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

To a large extent, this is a typical message, but I thought I'd include it just for the geographical aspect:
https://twitter.com/StandUp4Brexit/status/1084366807547498497

This may end up playing significantly in future elections.

Unfortunately, David doesn't seem to realise we'll never ever get to negotiating it unless the WA passes.

It is one of those situations where one has to question do they really not realise or do they simply not care?

The former, mainly.

What was quite interesting is the news article I read last week (I forget where) that said it took many of MPs in the ERG nearly 10 months to work out what the divorce settlement agreed in December 2017 both said and meant. And some still haven't got there. The pressure (and peer pressure) to respond instantly led them to repeat soundbites, innuendo and rumour from those they assumed had, without doing the hard work for themselves.

I fully expect in about a year or two's time this will happen again over the WA, once it's far too late and Brexit has been revoked, and then the individual's concerned will blame someone else.