FTSE rising whilst prospect of FTA seems to be fading

NedS

BananaRepublic said:

MaxiRobriguez said:

 Let's face it though they didn't win an 80 seat majority based on what was in their manifesto. They won it on a three word slogan of Get Brexit Done (which was masterful, by the way) and a opposition leader who was hated.

Exactly. In four years time Boris may struggle to retain the Labour votes he captured, even if the economy does well. That said, the remainers who deserted the Tories may well return.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet pretty much everything I own that Boris will not be running for re-election as leader of the Tory Party in 4 years time.

cricidmuslibale

NedS said:

BananaRepublic said:

MaxiRobriguez said:

 Let's face it though they didn't win an 80 seat majority based on what was in their manifesto. They won it on a three word slogan of Get Brexit Done (which was masterful, by the way) and a opposition leader who was hated.

Exactly. In four years time Boris may struggle to retain the Labour votes he captured, even if the economy does well. That said, the remainers who deserted the Tories may well return.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet pretty much everything I own that Boris will not be running for re-election as leader of the Tory Party in 4 years time.

I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you. Boris will not quit without being forced out, he has had a lifelong ambition to be prime minister after it was explained to him as a child that it was now impossible for him to be the King of England, and he clearly loves the power and influence it gives him. Most of the potential candidates to replace him are currently either more unpopular than he is e.g. Michael Gove, Priti Patel or not likely to gain enough Tory Brexiteer support e.g. Matt Hancock. The only sensible possible candidate would be Rishi Sunak but he is going to have to make some very difficult and potentially unpopular decisions as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the near future and he is still very young so he could easily be the next Tory leader after the one that eventually replaces Boris.

IF the Lib Dems can properly get their act together, which under Ed Davey's naturally sensible and moderate leadership they really ought too, and focus on becoming a Centre ground (neither too centre-left nor too centre-right) party with sensible economic policies and a moderate green agenda which can attract former Conservative voters who are naturally one-nation, green-leaning and pro a reformed EU, Liberal Democrat voters through thick and thin, and also moderate ex-Labour voters who really do believe in at least a reformed EU, are greener in their thinking than most Labour voters and/or still don't fully trust Labour because of the smouldering anti-semitism still present in the Labour party THEN there's no sensible reason for remainers who deserted the Tories to return any time soon.

Don't forget that there were many people who voted Remain in the 2016 referendum but didn't vote Lib Dem in the General Election of December 2019 (even though they were the only party standing throughout Great Britain that were clearly in favour of remaining in the EU) chiefly because of three key points:

(1) Some of these people were clearly worried that voting Lib Dem might allow a hard-left Jeremy Corbyn government to come to power and trash the economy. Not only Corbyn but also John McDonnell and Diane Abbott were by this stage very unpopular with moderate voters partly due to successful constant media attacks on them.

(2) Jo Swinson, the then Lib Dem leader, was clearly very off-putting to some voters who found her very shrill and altogether rather too full of herself; a lot of these voters also knew that she had voted for many of the most unpopular and savage cuts made by the 2010-15 Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government which she was a key member of!

(3) The Lib Dems made a massive error imho in changing their party's policy at their autumn 2019 party conference to a campaign to Stop Brexit altogether rather than a campaign for a 2nd referendum with the option to remain in the EU which had been the previous policy. Naturally some otherwise potential Lib Dem voters thought it to be undemocratic to go against the narrow majority in favour of Brexit from the 2016 referendum without at least consulting the general public first to see whether or not a majority were now in favour of staying in the EU more than three years later.

NedS

cricidmuslibale said:

NedS said:

BananaRepublic said:

MaxiRobriguez said:

 Let's face it though they didn't win an 80 seat majority based on what was in their manifesto. They won it on a three word slogan of Get Brexit Done (which was masterful, by the way) and a opposition leader who was hated.

Exactly. In four years time Boris may struggle to retain the Labour votes he captured, even if the economy does well. That said, the remainers who deserted the Tories may well return.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet pretty much everything I own that Boris will not be running for re-election as leader of the Tory Party in 4 years time.

I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you. Boris will not quit without being forced out, he has had a lifelong ambition to be prime minister after it was explained to him as a child that it was now impossible for him to be the King of England, and he clearly loves the power and influence it gives him. Most of the potential candidates to replace him are currently either more unpopular than he is e.g. Michael Gove, Priti Patel or not likely to gain enough Tory Brexiteer support e.g. Matt Hancock. The only sensible possible candidate would be Rishi Sunak but he is going to have to make some very difficult and potentially unpopular decisions as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the near future and he is still very young so he could easily be the next Tory leader after the one that eventually replaces Boris.

I base my prediction on media reports Boris is struggling financially to live on a PM's salary. He will tire of being financially shackled. He was elected to deliver Brexit, and with that out of the way, once the Covid crisis is over, there will be little to tie him to the role. Now he has achieved his life long ambition, I can not see him being prepared to commit himself to the role until 2030 (election in 4 years time, plus another 5 year term).

Thrugelmir

NedS said:

cricidmuslibale said:

NedS said:

BananaRepublic said:

MaxiRobriguez said:

 Let's face it though they didn't win an 80 seat majority based on what was in their manifesto. They won it on a three word slogan of Get Brexit Done (which was masterful, by the way) and a opposition leader who was hated.

Exactly. In four years time Boris may struggle to retain the Labour votes he captured, even if the economy does well. That said, the remainers who deserted the Tories may well return.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet pretty much everything I own that Boris will not be running for re-election as leader of the Tory Party in 4 years time.

I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you. Boris will not quit without being forced out, he has had a lifelong ambition to be prime minister after it was explained to him as a child that it was now impossible for him to be the King of England, and he clearly loves the power and influence it gives him. Most of the potential candidates to replace him are currently either more unpopular than he is e.g. Michael Gove, Priti Patel or not likely to gain enough Tory Brexiteer support e.g. Matt Hancock. The only sensible possible candidate would be Rishi Sunak but he is going to have to make some very difficult and potentially unpopular decisions as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the near future and he is still very young so he could easily be the next Tory leader after the one that eventually replaces Boris.

I base my prediction on media reports Boris is struggling financially to live on a PM's salary.

There's been an endless stream of media attacks on Boris since his appointment. Ultimately his fate is is his own hands. There's certainly plenty of work to be done. 

thor

NedS said:

cricidmuslibale said:

NedS said:

BananaRepublic said:

MaxiRobriguez said:

 Let's face it though they didn't win an 80 seat majority based on what was in their manifesto. They won it on a three word slogan of Get Brexit Done (which was masterful, by the way) and a opposition leader who was hated.

Exactly. In four years time Boris may struggle to retain the Labour votes he captured, even if the economy does well. That said, the remainers who deserted the Tories may well return.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet pretty much everything I own that Boris will not be running for re-election as leader of the Tory Party in 4 years time.

I wouldn't be too sure of that if I were you. Boris will not quit without being forced out, he has had a lifelong ambition to be prime minister after it was explained to him as a child that it was now impossible for him to be the King of England, and he clearly loves the power and influence it gives him. Most of the potential candidates to replace him are currently either more unpopular than he is e.g. Michael Gove, Priti Patel or not likely to gain enough Tory Brexiteer support e.g. Matt Hancock. The only sensible possible candidate would be Rishi Sunak but he is going to have to make some very difficult and potentially unpopular decisions as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the near future and he is still very young so he could easily be the next Tory leader after the one that eventually replaces Boris.

I base my prediction on media reports Boris is struggling financially to live on a PM's salary. He will tire of being financially shackled. He was elected to deliver Brexit, and with that out of the way, once the Covid crisis is over, there will be little to tie him to the role. Now he has achieved his life long ambition, I can not see him being prepared to commit himself to the role until 2030 (election in 4 years time, plus another 5 year term).

I wouldn't want anyone as PM if they aren't capable of surviving on 100K+ per year (especially as their housing costs are covered by the taxpayer)

thebrexitunicorn

BananaRepublic said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

NottinghamKnight said:

Mickey666 said:

MK62 said:

Mickey666 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

Thrugelmir said:

csgohan4 said:

LHW99 said:

UK surely makes more exports to the EU than the rest of the world?

Not according to gov.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exports-to-non-eu-countries-continue-to-outstrip-eu

Surprising given the vast area covered by The EU, however making deals with individual countries, rather than en bloc like the EU, will be very time consuming/expensive and will unlikely have favourable terms compared to the EU as they know they have the UK over a barrel. 

Only 11% of UK trade is with countries with which there's an existing EU trade agreement. The creation of the RCEP has created a headache for the EU. Now the bigggest trade area in the world. 

 While the brexiteers are sniggering in their rich holiday houses abroad, not caring how brexit affects the average Joe. 

You are carrrying one big chip on your shoulder. Time to move on. Remainers living abroad are the ones who object. As it is they they now need to meet conditions of residency. The tales of woe show how much self interest determines peoples views. Much in the same way Covid has. Time to kick American Exceptionalism a byproduct of their form of capitalism into touch. 

If anything, I'd say the Brexit referendum was a masterclass in proving why asking the uninformed masses to make important decisions is the worst example of democracy in action.  It's all madness.

You do realise that it's the same "uninformed masses" who elect our MPs and governments don't you?........should they not be allowed to do that either?

Of course they should, that's the whole point of a parliamentary democracy.  We vote for a representative to make decisions on our behalf, on the basis that those representatives will be better informed than us by virtue of their 24/7/365 time spent on the job plus their daily access to expert advisers, parliamentary debates, select committees, the civil service etc.

We certainly don't or at least that is not what occurs. The majority of the people vote for a party, not an individual with a very few exceptions; indeed those votes are based on a feeling that the broad policies of that party are best for an individual and/ or the country, how many people read any of a party's manifesto. MPs are now supposed to be representative rather than any sort of cream of the population, and unfortunately will follow the party line as they are whipped into voting on the vast majority of issues. when MPs decide to make decisions against their party, and potentially against the majority of their constituents then things get very problematic. 

You're probably right that the majority of people vote for a party and probably don't even know the name of their MP (more uninformed-ness and why there are things such as 'safe seats'), but I didn't mention MPs, only 'representatives'. 

A political party can be our 'representative' and the principle of parliamentary democracy remains - the 'uninformed masses' defer all decision-making to parliament, with the party affiliation of their local MP being a fairly broad-brush expression of their own personal political leanings.

It seems to be a fairly good system, or the least bad on depending on your point of view.  But referendums break the system because they bypass the parliamentary process that generally does a good job of weeding out detrimental decisions, through its process of debate, expert advice, reviews and time for reflection.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, with all its complexity and uncertainty that even the professional politicians and expert consultants couldn't predict or agree about, perhaps a better approach would have been a second referendum when the detailed implications were much better known?

Thus, the first referendum could have been the simplistic in/out question, followed by the inevitable (and important) debate and negotiation of the exit deal, followed by a second referendum asking the same basic in/out question but this time in the fuller knowledge of what the detailed implications would be.

What we have actually done is ask the simplistic in/out question with little real knowledge of the eventual implications but when those implications are better known (ie 'the deal') we have deferred back to parliament to decide, rather than allow the people to decide.

Seems rather inconsistent really.

Maybe, democracy can be taken too far after all, would be much quicker to get the educated and wealthy to determine these matters. people like Boris, Rees-Mogg  etc

Did you forget the smiley?
I think we'd all agreed we've rightly moved on from the days where only landowners were allowed a vote  - and that didn't include women of course.
As for the like of Boris, Rees-Mogg etc, don't forget they are only in parliament because their constituents voted for them, so that's democracy in action isn't it?  After all, it would be an unrepresentative parliament that DIDN'T include representation of such people.

Maybe but the ultimate outcome is pretty similar and the electorate had a clear choice between in and out (as for the SNP in Scotland) between Boris and Corbyn and chose the former. Most people are voting for the least worse option let's not forget.

I wonder if we will lose NI and Scotland? The siren charms of the EU handing out big bags of sweeties may be too much to resist. I bet they don’t want Wales ... 🙂

I think if Scotland chooses self determination it won’t be because of ‘bags of sweeties’ from the EU.  The refusal to acknowledge Scotland’s remain vote in the referendum and the imposition of a hard Brexit on the country may well be sufficient incentive.  

BananaRepublic

thebrexitunicorn said:

I think if Scotland chooses self determination it won’t be because of ‘bags of sweeties’ from the EU.  The refusal to acknowledge Scotland’s remain vote in the referendum and the imposition of a hard Brexit on the country may well be sufficient incentive.  

You don't let the tail wag the dog.

And I wouldn't call this a hard Brexit, as we have no tariffs on goods and level playing field obligations. I suppose if you want to own a second home in Tuscany, import Poles to work in your factory, or retire to the south of Spain, life has become harder. Mind you it was hard to get, so perhaps you're right, it was a bloody hard Brexit.

thegentleway

BananaRepublic said:

thebrexitunicorn said:

I think if Scotland chooses self determination it won’t be because of ‘bags of sweeties’ from the EU.  The refusal to acknowledge Scotland’s remain vote in the referendum and the imposition of a hard Brexit on the country may well be sufficient incentive.  

You don't let the tail wag the dog.

And I wouldn't call this a hard Brexit, as we have no tariffs on goods and level playing field obligations. I suppose if you want to own a second home in Tuscany, import Poles to work in your factory, or retire to the south of Spain, life has become harder. Mind you it was hard to get, so perhaps you're right, it was a bloody hard Brexit.

On the spectrum of deals/aligment it's definitely way closer to WTO than EU membership, basically only one notch from WTO

Thrugelmir

thegentleway said:

BananaRepublic said:

thebrexitunicorn said:

I think if Scotland chooses self determination it won’t be because of ‘bags of sweeties’ from the EU.  The refusal to acknowledge Scotland’s remain vote in the referendum and the imposition of a hard Brexit on the country may well be sufficient incentive.  

You don't let the tail wag the dog.

And I wouldn't call this a hard Brexit, as we have no tariffs on goods and level playing field obligations. I suppose if you want to own a second home in Tuscany, import Poles to work in your factory, or retire to the south of Spain, life has become harder. Mind you it was hard to get, so perhaps you're right, it was a bloody hard Brexit.

On the spectrum of deals/aligment it's definitely way closer to WTO than EU membership, basically only one notch from WTO

Nothing wrong with WTO. 

thegentleway

Thrugelmir said:

thegentleway said:

BananaRepublic said:

thebrexitunicorn said:

I think if Scotland chooses self determination it won’t be because of ‘bags of sweeties’ from the EU.  The refusal to acknowledge Scotland’s remain vote in the referendum and the imposition of a hard Brexit on the country may well be sufficient incentive.  

You don't let the tail wag the dog.

And I wouldn't call this a hard Brexit, as we have no tariffs on goods and level playing field obligations. I suppose if you want to own a second home in Tuscany, import Poles to work in your factory, or retire to the south of Spain, life has become harder. Mind you it was hard to get, so perhaps you're right, it was a bloody hard Brexit.

On the spectrum of deals/aligment it's definitely way closer to WTO than EU membership, basically only one notch from WTO

Nothing wrong with WTO. 

I didn't say there was but I'm saying it now There's plenty wrong to trading with your biggest economic partner on pure WTO terms. The main (potential) economic benefit from leaving the EU was so we could make our own (better) trade deals