Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

gfplux

ilovehouses wrote: »

We must be close to the time where it's obvious we've gone past the point of no return. Those who want the whole thing called off will be disappointed and those who want to leave asap just in case the rug gets pulled need to pull their necks in.

You are probably right. Even if we wanted to call it off there will be consequences. I suspect however pragmatic the EU could be some or many of the 27 would want to roll back the concessions Britain has been granted and might even want to talk the Euro.
However the way forward might mean a great fudge of fudges.
Phase 2 might shine a light on so many problems that a middle way might become possible.

Tromking

mayonnaise wrote: »

Yesterday's vote in itself was not that important because it was merely a parliamentary process issue.
Where it is hugely important however, it sets a precedent. Going forward, Treeza can forget pushing anything through parliament that even vaguely smells of hard brexit. There is now clearly a majority for soft brexit or brexit in name only, or BINO.

Happy days.

The trick with that scenario is that Treeza needs to stay in post of course. Who`s to say her possible demise won't trigger another GE and we are then presented, after a bit of Tory blood-letting, with a more hardline Brexiteer Tory Government with maybe even a majority.
More than one European leader is concerned at what comes after TM, it certainly won't be a Corbyn majority administration as Labour`s position on Brexit is a shambles.

mayonnaise

Tromking wrote: »

Who`s to say her possible demise won't trigger another GE and we are then presented, after a bit of Tory blood-letting, with a more hardline Brexiteer Tory Government with maybe even a majority.

Why do you think a hardline brexiteer package would appeal to the electorate? Treeza tried something similar last June and got a resounding drubbing.

westernpromise

gfplux wrote: »

You are probably right. Even if we wanted to call it off there will be consequences. I suspect however pragmatic the EU could be some or many of the 27 would want to roll back the concessions Britain has been granted and might even want to talk the Euro.
However the way forward might mean a great fudge of fudges.
Phase 2 might shine a light on so many problems that a middle way might become possible.

If we attempted to draw back now there'd be a bill in excess of £40 billion for doing so.

MIFID and MIFID II largely exist only to regulate London from Brussels. With London gone, all the MIFID II costs will be wasted from an rEU perspective and they'll be needing MIFID III sooner rather than later. If we say we want to rejoin, they will come looking for that money.

gfplux

westernpromise wrote: »

If we attempted to draw back now there'd be a bill in excess of £40 billion for doing so.

MIFID and MIFID II largely exist only to regulate London from Brussels. With London gone, all the MIFID II costs will be wasted from an rEU perspective and they'll be needing MIFID III sooner rather than later. If we say we want to rejoin, they will come looking for that money.

I think I understand MIFID, I looked it up!
Not sure what the rest means. If MIFID is oversight of "London" surely London as in the Capital City of England is not on the hook for costs of that oversight other than membership of MIFID and that will be down to the Banks.

Sorry about this but I really would like to understand your post and who will be on the hook for £40 billion.
I think it would be useful to understand this and other issues if Britain wanted to change course. You sound from your post to have a handle on this and it would be very helpful if you could explain it.
Thank you.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

If we attempted to draw back now there'd be a bill in excess of £40 billion for doing so..

We're on the hook for that £40bn either way, so it shouldn't have an impact on our decision making process. Potentially we'd owe less if we stayed in, since it'd be covered by our ongoing membership fees anyway.

mrginge

ilovehouses wrote: »

Quite. As time goes on it'll become obvious to everyone that not all of the 52% wanted a hard brexit and none of the 48% did.

It's why the hard brexiteers are in a such a rush. They want to get their niche views enacted before they get a rude reminder that 100% of the electorate are allowed an opinion of what brexit looks like.

What we need is a plan. Something alternative and definitive like a ‘jobs first brexit’. Something that we can all quantify and is detailed enough to counter the hard brexit stance.

I would have thought that the learned and intelligent soft-brexiteers would have come up with something by now. Maybe it would be good enough for us all to get behind?

One wonders !!!!!! they have been doing for months. Probably just sat round complaining instead.

hutman

Country desperately needs leadership

The country knew exactly what it voted for:

Reduce EU immigration at all costs, eliminate it if possible. We've had enough.

Herzlos

hutman wrote: »

Country desperately needs leadership

The country knew exactly what it voted for:

Reduce EU immigration at all costs, eliminate it if possible. We've had enough.

That wasn't on my ballot paper. But you are right; this is all about the idea that immigration is bad.

gfplux

hutman wrote: »

Country desperately needs leadership

The country knew exactly what it voted for:

Reduce EU immigration at all costs, eliminate it if possible. We've had enough.

But many people were upset by the too many brown faces of the immigrants most of whom did not come from the EU.

Anyone who perpetuates the myth that a Sudanese or Iraqi refugee once inside the EU could get on a plane and come to Britain has believed lies.