Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

It's the government that needs to be held to account; for failing to deliver what the public want, and all the damage done.

Last years big whinge was that the public didn’t know what they were voting for.
Now apparently it’s up to the govt to deliver what the public wanted.

By definition then as long as we leave, regardless of the outcome then the govt have done exactly what was asked.

I'm fairly confident that a good government could deliver a Brexit that satisfied people, whilst not screwing us over entirely. The Tories aren't that government (neither are Labour).

The country has got the govt it voted for a few months ago.

What you actually mean is that a good govt is the one that delivers a Brexit that satisfies you.

If neither labour nor the tories are going to do that then maybe it’s you that’s out of touch and not the politicians?

But since almost none of the problems claimed to be solved by Brexit are actually caused by the EU, I fully expect that 2019 to be a year with a lot of blame going about.

Nothing is going to change in 2019.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

So why does the drop in value track Brexit events so closely?

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that it's because currencies are continually traded on a 24 hour basis. You are probably too young to remember George Soros.

Whereas business tends to forward buy/sell.

gfplux

Herzlos wrote: »

EU have said we can cancel the exit without penalty, so I don't believe there will be a bill. If there is, it'll be for the wasted admin across the EU, call it £2bn. So a fraction of the divorce bill, and will be trivial compared to the economic gains.

I am not sure "they" the 27 have said that. Various people have made various statement.
I may be wrong, could you link to the source, thank you.

westernpromise

Filo25 wrote: »

If Article 50 can be revoked at any time then I don't see how the EU would have any basis to demand a fee, as you say there is no legal basis within our current EU deal to do so.

Equally they can't "demand" a fee on exit, they can request one as a precondition to other discussions taking place (discussions we clearly want to take place), in short it is a negotiation, hardly surprising as Article 50 says very little about our relationship post exit so everything needs to be negotiated.

Still everyone told me had the EU over a barrel in negotiations so I'm sure we won't be paying it.:p

They just demand a fee as a precondition of allowing Article 50 to be revoked. If it's a matter of finding a pretext for demanding 100 billion (or whatever number) the evidence to hand is that they'll demand 100 billion and assert that it's justified.

In fact, they'd be irresponsible not to do so. All they have to do to get a free 100 billion is demand it. Someone in Europe will probably argue that as Britain was going to have to pay 100 billion to leave, the EU should ask itself whether the EU would prefer that outcome, and in fact whether it has any right to walk away from so much free money, given that the EU expects to be better off after Brexit.

It is inescapable - the bills for leaving and staying will be basically identical (unless the bill for staying has built into it a provision whereby we pay ever more in the future). It would be folly for the EU to demand anything less.

gfplux

Some Brexiters, or is it all, claim that the drop in the value of the pound after the referendum was caused by the good news that Britain was leaving the EU and that the pound was overvalued. If it falls further they will consider this even more good news as perhaps they still think the pound is still overvalued.
Yesterday's increase in interest rates will be explained away by Brexiters as not a reaction to inflation caused by the pound finding a lower but correct value, but because interest rates are too low. When interest rates rise further next year this will be further cause for celebration as of course interest rates are too low, or so the Brexiter mantra goes.

As a remainer I did not believe the pound was overvalued before the referendum. I do believe when a country votes to jump into the "unknown" its currency will lose value as the "unknown" might be a very bad place.
16 months later rather than discovering the "unknown" is not such a bad place, we now know a lot more about the bad things that could happen in the "unknown" and that the people leading Britain to that "unknown" are showing themselves to be incompetent.

System

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that it's because currencies are continually traded on a 24 hour basis. You are probably too young to remember George Soros.

Whereas business tends to forward buy/sell.

Give a mention to Soros, trade deficits and interest rates by all means but you're answering a different question to the one asked.

The reason sterling tracks brexit news is the market is betting a no-deal scenario would weaken the currency. That's why sterling strengthens when it appears a deal is more likely and vice versa.

It's why sterling fell on its !!!!. The 24th June 2016 had nothing to do with Soros and the deficit and interest rates were identical to those of the day before.

It's really quite simple - whether the market is 'correct' is another matter altogether of course.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

They just demand a fee as a precondition of allowing Article 50 to be revoked.

They wouldn't though, because there's no 'fee' for A50 being enacted. The money we're being asked to pay is to cover the contracts we agreed before we left. If we don't leave, then we're still able to uphold our agreements and thus no payment is required.

I think this 'fee' or 'divorce' payment is misleading, and lots of people actually think it's just a service charge or bribe or something.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

The money we're being asked to pay is to cover the contracts we agreed before we left.

Goes far further than contracts. It's to help fund the projected pension fund deficit that already exists in the EU's balance sheet.

fewgroats

London properties requiring high rent seems like a constant to me. Whether it will be a constant after Brexit only time will tell. Unless you want people to sell them to pay for Brexit it's more or less irrevelant to Brexit.

CKhalvashi

Herzlos wrote: »

They wouldn't though, because there's no 'fee' for A50 being enacted. The money we're being asked to pay is to cover the contracts we agreed before we left. If we don't leave, then we're still able to uphold our agreements and thus no payment is required.

In fact, I think to show goodwill it would be fair to compensate the EU for the time wasted as a result of the unfinished negotiations.

This would be minimal to paying our committed expenses upfront (which of course we should benefit from until the end of the funding round even if the government seemingly want to opt us out of this), probably less than 0.1% of the highest proposed figure.

We will sadly be paying the wages of Farage and co for a while longer, however that's a price I'm willing to pay to remain in the EU, an organisation that ensures we have a strong economy through 500 million effectively domestic customers plus the largest trade tentacles in the world, fair consumer rights ensuring enough regulation whilst allowing the economy to remain competitive and at less than 1% of our GDP for the services we get in return, the package as a whole offers extremely good value for money for the UK as a whole.

I think this 'fee' or 'divorce' payment is misleading, and lots of people actually think it's just a service charge or bribe or something.

Me too. See above.