Brexit thread - what happens next

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can't recall us supporting it, though the likelihood of such regulation without us at the table increases. Arguments can be made either way. I'd expect the French to approach this from a point of cultural protectionism, whilst Germany argues for a better services market.

I doubt we'd have had any real say, in or out. All the press reports talk about it being devised and "unveiled" by the Commission, like this one, which mentions the Commission 13 times but doesn't mention the Parliament once, nor any country being consulted. The Commission acting as an authoritative, diktat spewing executive and legislature, surely not! :D

But this reminds me: http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilmid...-too-big-in-europe-or-too-small/#70f4ed9374a0. So it's not as clear cut as that, as the regulation would affect everyone. Still, looks like ol' Rupert is projected to eat up much -- 51%? -- of Europe's market by 2020 in that sector. Can't be that horrible for doing business, if so.

Yep, Murdoch is too big and too powerful. Still, not sure that's got much to do with discriminating in favour of EU produced media content, particularly when it's at the expense of better content from elsewhere. Judge content on its content, not where it was produced.
 
I doubt we'd have had any real say, in or out. All the press reports talk about it being devised and "unveiled" by the Commission, like this one, which mentions the Commission 13 times but doesn't mention the Parliament once, nor any country being consulted. The Commission acting as an authoritative, diktat spewing executive and legislature, surely not! :D



Yep, Murdoch is too big and too powerful. Still, not sure that's got much to do with discriminating in favour of EU produced media content, particularly when it's at the expense of better content from elsewhere. Judge content on its content, not where it was produced.

No I personally think there is room for a bit of cultural protectionism ala France, otherwise you do end up part of someone else's Empire.
 
I doubt we'd have had any real say, in or out. All the press reports talk about it being devised and "unveiled" by the Commission, like this one, which mentions the Commission 13 times but doesn't mention the Parliament once, nor any country being consulted. The Commission acting as an authoritative, diktat spewing executive and legislature, surely not! :D

I'm not going to revisit how policy is drafted, presented and voted on at the EU. Of course, we too have a thriving media industry and might not have opposed, but that would have been down to us. Outside looking in, we take what we get, and that's that.

Yep, Murdoch is too big and too powerful. Still, not sure that's got much to do with discriminating in favour of EU produced media content, particularly when it's at the expense of better content from elsewhere. Judge content on its content, not where it was produced.

But balance is important, and distortive effects of dominant market players must be regulated, particularly when said players stray into political territory above and beyond official lobbying. Same reason why dumping is generally frowned upon and penalised, not just steel but as a practice in general, and mergers are scrutinised. Ditto for quotas.

In strategic sectors like communications, banking and defence, for example, you would never want to have a complete free-for-all resulting in a few happy monopolies or regional fiefdoms. That in itself would be anti-market, destroying all competition.

There are also political considerations for taking theoretically sub-optimal economic routes, as is the case in France. It's always a compromise. The sooner people accept that, the easier it'll be for them to sleep at night. :p

Brexit minister to be named. Entire Brexit department being formed. Specialist negotiators are also being hired now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...st-job-as-u-k-premier-is-naming-a-brexit-tsar

It's time to spend, spend, spend!
 
Last edited:
Remaining wouldn't have saved the EU/Eurozone, it's heading for some very difficult times whether we're in or out. To quote a phrase I heard the other day, "Brexit is the shock the Eurozone needs to stop the can getting continually kicked down the road". I'd rather be as removed as possible from it as it collapses, appreciating there's a long way to go before that occurs.

When the Euro eventually implodes it's going to be taking us with it regardless of whether we are an EU member state or not.
 
When the Euro eventually implodes it's going to be taking us with it regardless of whether we are an EU member state or not.

Enjoyable how people think we can somehow cauterise ourselves away from the global banking system whilst remaining a major player in it, or at least trying to. Neo-localism! Party like it's 1778! Coming up next -- the gold standard's glorious return!
 
Piece on Brexit by an american trader I follow, there are 4 pages:
http://www.futuresmag.com/2016/06/27/brexit-fallout-what-expect-next?page=2

Northern Ireland, Scotland, France and Netherlands may consider a referendum on their EU membership.
Sweden has been one of UK’s closest EU allies and without UK Swedes may vote to leave the EU.
news to me

the gold standard's glorious return!
It never left, all major central banks and the IMF keep gold as a reserve asset
 
Just in..

You recently signed the petition “EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum”:

The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP.

The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.

A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.

The Petitions Committee is a cross-party group of MPs. It is independent from Government.
 
We're in for a long ride and Angela Merkel will push for a business-as-usual approach to trade with the UK after Brexit (Times):

Disentangling Britain from the European Union could take six years, Philip Hammond said yesterday: two years to negotiate and a further four years to fully ratify.

The foreign secretary said: “Until we have served an Article 50 notice, we remain a full, participating member of the EU and our ability to negotiate new trade agreements is restricted by the continued application of EU law until we have negotiated our exit.”

He was speaking after Angela Merkel signalled that she would push for a business-as-usual approach to trade with the UK after Brexit. The German chancellor, who met Enda Kenny, the Irish prime minister, in Berlin yesterday, said that she wanted to ensure the impact of Brexit was “as small as possible” for the remaining 27 EU countries.

Mrs Merkel and Mr Kenny added to the pressure on Theresa May to give “clarity” on Britain’s post-EU strategy soon and set the formal process in motion to settle the new relationship between Britain and Europe. The pair will be Britain’s biggest allies in the EU in the months of hard bargaining that lie ahead, with both nations having close trade and travel relationships with the UK.

“Every member state has the same objective to make sure that our membership is not hard hit or too much affected by the decision taken by the citizens of the UK,” Mrs Merkel said. “This is why we are going to lead the negotiations together in the spirit that we want to keep the impact as small as possible for all of us. But it is difficult to give guarantees at this point in time: we do not even have any idea about the position of the UK.”

Her words may help to calm the fears of those who wanted to remain in the EU to avoid disrupting Britain’s trading relationship — although she does not speak for all EU nations. French politicians have taken a more hardline stance, suggesting that Britain’s trade relationship may suffer. The car industry is a powerful consideration for Mrs Merkel and she wants to avoid the worst-case scenario of 10 per cent tariffs being placed on cars if a preferential trade arrangement cannot be agreed. Germany sells more cars to Britain than to any other country, with 810,000 exported last year, while half of the 2.6 million cars sold in Britain last year were built by German-owned companies.

Mr Kenny sought Mrs Merkel’s help in keeping Ireland’s land border with the UK open after Brexit. He wanted the British government to trigger Article 50 as soon as possible. “What does Britain want, having made the decision to exit from the EU, and at what stage will a British prime minister trigger Article 50?” Mr Kenny said. “Would that be a prolonged period — which I would not favour — or would it be after a short time when the new prime minister would have assessed her strategy?”

Mrs May is under immediate pressure from France and the European Commission to trigger the exit clause before her stated deadline of the end of the year. Michel Sapin, the French finance minister, accused Britain of a “total lack of preparation” for a successful Brexit vote and a “lack of understanding of the mechanisms”.

“One of Europe’s problems is the slow process of this decision. They must be very concrete and advance more quickly,” he said at a meeting of EU finance ministers in Brussels. He warned that the new prime minister faced a “tough negotiation” on the terms of a British exit, as France steps up a campaign to end the City of London’s dominance of financial markets. “It could be a rough confrontation. We French will be one of the most demanding countries,” he added.
 
No I personally think there is room for a bit of cultural protectionism ala France, otherwise you do end up part of someone else's Empire.

I'm not against cultural protectionism per se, sometimes it's needed, but ultimately it should be down to the free choice of individuals as to what they want to watch. Politicians shouldn't be deciding what media content gets shown to me, other than censuring unsuitable content for kids etc. If I want to watch 100% American shows then who's the EU Commission to say otherwise. It's another example of big Government, and the EU wanting to be exactly that across the whole continent, which I'm not in favour of. Of course at the heart of the proposals, as you'd expect, is "harmonisation" of copyright law and other areas, continuing the EU's march toward a single country.

I'm not going to revisit how policy is drafted, presented and voted on at the EU. Of course, we too have a thriving media industry and might not have opposed, but that would have been down to us. Outside looking in, we take what we get, and that's that.

Yep, we've done that to death and will have to agree to disagree. Mind you, I can't find anything about member states or the Parliament being consulted. Everywhere just talks about the Commission proposing this, unveiling that, being criticized for it. If it is an inclusive, open and democratic process by which they come up with these proposals then they make it very difficult to prove so. Sure you'll find something to the contrary though. :)

But balance is important, and distortive effects of dominant market players must be regulated, particularly when said players stray into political territory above and beyond official lobbying. Same reason why dumping is generally frowned upon and penalised, not just steel but as a practice in general, and mergers are scrutinised. Ditto for quotas.

In strategic sectors like communications, banking and defence, for example, you would never want to have a complete free-for-all resulting in a few happy monopolies or regional fiefdoms. That in itself would be anti-market, destroying all competition.

There are also political considerations for taking theoretically sub-optimal economic routes, as is the case in France. It's always a compromise. The sooner people accept that, the easier it'll be for them to sleep at night. :p

There's a difference between ensuring competition and preventing market dominance/abuse (which is needed) and legislating for positive discrimination (which is not needed). The CMA in the UK does the former but not the latter, for example. I'd be in favour of blocking say, a YouTube takeover of Spotify in Sweden, on the basis of market share. But legislating for quotas just leads to an inefficient market, laziness on the behalf of European producers who know they will get shown whatever the quality, higher prices and ultimately less choice for consumers.

When the Euro eventually implodes it's going to be taking us with it regardless of whether we are an EU member state or not.

It will definitely have an impact, both in the UK and globally, but I want to be as politically removed from it as possible when the inevitable happens.
 
Last edited:
There's been a lot of fuss about Cameron losing his job but surprisingly little about Osborne as Chancellor.

It only really hit me today that Osborne will cease to be chancellor and his replacement will probably be Philip Hammond.

Crazy days.
 
Remaining wouldn't have saved the EU/Eurozone, it's heading for some very difficult times whether we're in or out. To quote a phrase I heard the other day, "Brexit is the shock the Eurozone needs to stop the can getting continually kicked down the road". I'd rather be as removed as possible from it as it collapses, appreciating there's a long way to go before that occurs.

Project fear.
 
There's been a lot of fuss about Cameron losing his job but surprisingly little about Osborne as Chancellor.

It only really hit me today that Osborne will cease to be chancellor and his replacement will probably be Philip Hammond.

Crazy days.

I do hope Osborne is removed. Before the referendum, Osborne made a series of near-hysterical comments about the consequences of a Leave win, simply for narrow political advantage; he did not seem to stop to consider how his remarks will influence market expectations, and the negative impact on the real economy. It was Osbourn's job, first and formost, to mitigate any shocks as much as he could, but instead he did the exact opposite. He jumped up and down like a jack-rabbit with ears flapping to try to inflate the negative shock of a Leave win. Further, and most damning of all, Osborne and Cameron did NOTHING to plan for the possibility of a Leave win. It was their job to ensure the UK had as smooth a transition as possible regardless of the referendum outcome. Those two are lazy, arrogant and incompetent. One is out, and I hope the other will soon follow.
 
I dont think it was Camerons responsability to plan for a leave win but rather the campaign figure heads of leave. You would think they at least had a loose plan, as they were campaigning for a better outcome but how can you determine it will be better when you dont know what to do or what will happen after step b through to z.

Cameron knew that if leave won, he would have no chance in staying in power and even if remain won, he would not stick around for too long. His plan was to not let it get as far as a brexit but you can hardly blame him for not spearheading and planning for an outcome he opposed and campaigned against. I was never a big fan of Cameron but even if he did have a plan, it would have been shot down as a brexit lite route even with no alternative being offered and it would last as long as his leadership. If he had not resigned, people would have been calling for a resignation within weeks.

In a way what Cameron did was step out of the way (not that he had much of a choice). Surely the guys who were planning on swooping in and taking the leadership should have had a plan?
 
He was 100% responsible as his only stated plan was to invoke article 50 on the Friday morning - he failed to do that which was largely responsible for all the uncertainty and economic impact that followed.
 
He was 100% responsible as his only stated plan was to invoke article 50 on the Friday morning - he failed to do that which was largely responsible for all the uncertainty and economic impact that followed.

Invoking A50 on the friday would not have avoided all the uncertainty and economic impact that occurred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom