There are 'disaster capitalists' who will make money out of the economy breaking down. Hedge fund manager Crispin Odey, a Brexit backer who is personally financing Boris Johnson, made £220million by betting against sterling at the time of the 2016 referendum and is wagering another £300million on sterling tanking again with a no-deal Brexit. Not coincidentally, he has briefed journalists that there will be 'revolution' unless no-deal Brexit happens as he wishes.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...o-bet-18819810

But yes, it is a colossal system failure, and Cameron only held the referendum to silence the Eurosceptics in his own party, and... that didn't come off terribly well. To hold another referendum, Parliament would have to vote for it against Johnson's wishes and then make him ask the EU for another extension while the referendum is held. Which looks very unlikely. A straight revocation of Art.50 might be more practical. But we don't know what MPs will do when they reconvene in September and they're looking right down the barrel of the gun. Some of them fear losing their seats if they don't Brexit, but rather more of them fear considerably worse retribution if they do Brexit and the country runs out of food, medicine and other basic supplies as the disaster-capitalists want.

I Attempt To Explain Brexit To A Group of My Friends Here in The United States ...

I belong to a message board of database programmer friends here in the U.S. We occasionally discuss "politics" among other things. A guy named "Jim" - who actually lives in Canada - posted the following commentary.

<begin>

Apparently...the same angst in the US that created Trump, created Brexit in the UK. Too few jobs and opportunities and the perception that the government and the wealthy couldn't care less about the average citizen ... but burning down your house to get attention isn't the best idea.

<end>

I thought I should correct Jim with respect to his conception of how Brexit actually came about. I posted the following reply to my friend in Canada. I hope you'll all review it and correct me - if necessary.

<begin>

Wrong Jim!

I've been following this "Brexit Debacle" closely and communicating with several politically astute Brits ever since the vote on the Remain/Leave referendum back in June of 2016. (I've also read a book: "All Out War" by British journalist Tim Shipman.) It is only partially true that "... the same angst that created Trump in the U.S. created Brexit in the UK." Almost from the beginning when Britain joined the European Union back in the mid-1970's, there has been a vocal minority - let me stress a minority - of "Euro-Skeptic" British politicians who have raised objections to Britain being a member of the EU. (Nigel Farage is the most well known of these anti-EU politicians. I think it's accurate to say that Farage is Britain's equivalent of Donald Trump.)

Most of the British political establishment - where "establishment" means the two main political parties, (i.e. the Conservative and Labour parties which roughly equate to Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.), considered Farage and all the other Euro-Skeptics as more of an annoyance than a viable political movement. For most of the past 40 years, Farage and the Euro-Skeptics have been more of an annoyance to the governing parties than a viable political party, but a certain [small number] of these "skeptics" have constantly nipped at the heels of the Conservative and Labour Prime Ministers. (There have always been a minority of these skeptics in both the Tory and Labour parties.) Mr. Farage's party, UKIP, which stands for "United Kingdom Independence Party", has never won a General Election, so it's not exactly accurate to state that "angst" among the British electorate is what created Brexit.

The monumental political miscalculation occurred in 2015 when David Cameron, the Conservative Party Prime Minister, (after just having been re-elected as Prime Minister in a General Election), overplayed his hand and overestimated his sense of the British people. Mr. Cameron was sick and tired of the Euro-Skeptics in his own party. After having won a decisive victory at the polls, Cameron decided that now was the time to deal with the Euro-Skeptics once and for all. Mr. Cameron called for a referendum vote by the British people. The question to be voted on was whether the United Kingdom should "Remain" in the EU or "Leave" the EU. Cameron fully expected the "Remain" side to win the referendum. Once the Prime Minister "won" the referendum, he would be able to effectively banish the "troublemakers" (i.e. Euro-Skeptics) in his own party. That was the motivation for the referendum.

It was close, very close, but the "Leave" side won by a very slim majority - 52 to 48 percent. Cameron campaigned for Britain to "Remain" in the UK never believing that his side could (or would) actually lose. (If Mr. Cameron had any real doubts that the Remain camp could possibly lose the referendum, he probably would not have called for the vote. However, in one of the greatest political miscalculations in British history, Cameron's desire to vanquish the skeptics in his own party clouded his judgment. (Mr. Cameron's re-election victory in the General Election undoubtedly contributed to his overconfidence that his side would prevail in the referendum.)

Losing the referendum vote was a shock to the Conservatives. Since Mr. Cameron could not carry out a policy with which he personally disagreed - and had campaigned against - he was forced to resign as Prime Minister. The recriminations and arguing began immediately - and has continued ever since. In hindsight, David Cameron should have continued doing what all his predecessors had done - simply ignore Nigel Farage and especially the Euro-Skeptics in his own party. But Mr. Cameron apparently couldn't help himself. His desire to teach those pesky skeptics a lesson wound up costing him his job - and threw the UK into political turmoil. Had Mr. Cameron simply ignored the skeptics in his own party, he might still be Great Britain's Prime Minister.

The sad thing is that all this turmoil over in the UK could have been avoided. Winston Churchill famously said that all political careers are doomed to end in failure. Mr. Cameron's decision to call for a referendum was the political equivalent of the Titanic hitting the iceberg.

<end>

........................

fyi we have a UK thread as well

on breixt @DJ - hard to remember but Cameron was one of the euro-skeptics in his own party.

DJ - you might appreciate this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurosc...United_Kingdom

Even the older stuff is current for the older generation - many are are still bitter about the first referendum.

it really doesnt matter what jean claude juncker thinks. he doesnt matter here and has little power in general. the member states have all the power and barnier is just some guy picked up on the street to carry out the negotiations. he's working on a mandate from the member states in the council and consulting them on the process.

i dont think there's an intention to make it painful, but there are real interests of member countries to try to protect. and honestly the things the eu27 side is asking for are fairly minimal (honouring existing financial commitments, the rights of eu citizens in the uk and no hard border in ireland)

when people talk about "brussels" deciding something it generally means the member states have decided it.

Yes. And meanwhile, as the seawater swirls and gurgles over the lower decks, Leavers are still insisting there's nothing wrong, everything's fine, there is no iceberg and that horrible 'crump' sound was just an albatross belching, or something.

It's particularly difficult because there have always been anti-Europeans on the left as well as the right, and the Corbyn clique are anti-European, so not much help. They quite possibly favour no-deal, though they won't dare say so out loud, because they think the resulting chaos will bring about The Revolution and put them in power.

Churchill, of course, was all in favour of a United States of Europe as a safeguard against war and made a number of speeches about it after 1945, even proposing a European Army in 1950. As it's hard to imagine a stronger patriot than Churchill, Leavers can't handle that so they just ignore it: 'Does not compute.'

**** me, you remainers are drama queen's.

You have decades of history to cherry pick from, and this is all you got? Lulz.

My prediction is that the UK will have be forced to leave the heavily protected EU economy model in favor of a far more open economy in order to have any hopes of stimulating the economy enough. That transition will be tough. I would expect strong deregulations of the financial sector happening first, in order to keep those businesses in London / UK, in parallel with strong deregulation of foreign investment.

At that point the typical "leave" voter today will probably be fairly easy to lure away. There will be plenty of foreign interests to blame in political campaigns.

My prediction is not that much will change and remainers will switch to 'but it could be so much better if EU in charge' mode, and will explain their predictions not coming true with 'well, things changed' like they did when the 2016 predictions were shown to be nonsense.

An weird prediction, as things have to change. Under a "no deal" you're going from trading under the EU customs umbrella to trading under WTO rules. "Not changing" would be the equivalent of refusing to turn when approaching a corner.

the UK economy went post-industrial a long time ago, that means it will need to attract money and you need access to outsource production to continue to deliver a solid economy. There simply aren't many viable routes that do not take you down the path of open economy once you leave the more closed economy under an EU umbrella. I would very surprised to see if the first steps taken did not include the measures I stated (strong deregulation of the financial sector and foreign investment).

Agree/Disagree With This Bloke's Brexit Analysis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c_o...ature=youtu.be

My Canadian friend "Jim" sent me this interesting YouTube Brexit discussion. I'm curious as to what you folks think. Is this fellow's "analysis" correct - or is he full of gas?

If his analysis is correct, (and Boris Johnson doesn't blink or back down), it sounds like Britain is headed for an unavoidable train wreck.

Most pieces I have read by credible sources say that Boris Johnson will very likely be able to deliver Brexit, even if it is by "no deal". Nor is he really the type to "back down" when the cameras are on. Train wreck depends on how quickly business and economy can compensate. There is a lot of red tape to untangle and replace.

If we ignore the short term mess, it's not like it is impossible for a country to stand outside the EU and have a healthy economy. It would have to be a different economy and to deliver it in a smooth manner you would probably need a few election cycles of political stability. In my opinion, that stability is unlikely. Even if things go relatively well, it is simply too easy these days for opposition to portray them as horrible. We saw that trend in the Brexit debacle alone, where the UK economy was sold as horrendous, even though it has done very well recently.

In terms of international security, the UK will still be a NATO member and it has excellent ties to the US. The EU has not been traditionally strong on international security issues, so I don't think that situation will change much.

The long-term challenges will likely be internal security in regards to the Northern Ireland scenario, potential political fight for Scottish independence and the downpour from smaller and medium businesses going to a post-EU reality. That last one can be tough, speaking out of experience I can say that the EU customs union makes a lot of trade very hassle-free. In my last job alone we had a lot of offshore material built in the UK, but there is no way we would have bothered with that if the UK was outside the EU, too much red tape and hassle.

As for big business, the UK has a long tradition as a financial center and international business hub. If it manages to position itself competitively, I suspect it can keep that. Given the EU's recent trend of smackdowns on big business , big tech and international banks, it might even be a very appealing proposal to many corporations.

Fairly damning signal from the House speaker today. No trade deal if Brexit threatens the Good Friday Agreement.

If this means difficulties passing a US-UK trade deal in a no-deal Brexit scenario, things suddenly got very messy.

It's all noise isn't it? trump was never going to deliver a trade deal. The damaging thing is that leavers are grabbing hold of it as an argument for leaving - I doubt the house speaker will be able to counter that much.

We might get a few baubles in return for supporting the USA on it's foreign adventures, Iran nuclear deal etc. Really do not want but it's a huge risk as it will likely come in forms such as Trumpian tariffs on Europe with exceptions for us if we're his friend.

The signals from the WH administration were generally positive, and US-UK relations are generally very decent so I wouldn't have discounted it outright. I'm ignoring what Trump says here, as the connection between his words and policy is random and really serve no purpose in debating.

Oh yeah trumps administration have been positive - Steve Bolton ( *****ing hell!) was on the BBC being very keen only yesterday. But it's not in their gift even if they were totally committed and (which is an enourmous stretch)

Speaker Pelosi has been saying that for a while, and she's hardly a lone voice. There's a lot of Irish interest across both houses of Congress. A no-deal Brexit would break the GFA, so Congress would not pass any trade deal that the administration might want to float. (Such a trade deal would be extremely predatory and damaging, what with the destruction of trading standards, industry, agriculture and the NHS, so Congress would paradoxically be protecting rather than punishing Britain, but there we are.)

Corbyn wishes to be temporary caretaker PM
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-co...ry-pm-11785448

It’s fine though, we’ll have the Norway plus plus plus deal in the bag well before we need to go cap in hand to Trump. Remember, the EU need us more than we need them. And the pound definitely won’t be trading below the euro by then either.

The suspicion is this is why we've seen some cosying up to the SNP.

I dunno if he can pull it off by maybe. Really worries me because I've always feared a GE with brexit unresolved, and I think this is exactly what Cummings is trying to bring about. We should not underestimate him but if it happens at least we have a fighting chance.

The House won't wear it, he hasn't got the numbers. Fortunately. (Once you let the Communists in, you can't ever get them out short of gunfire.)

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve certainly won't wear it, which means Corbyn can't count on the necessary Tory rebels.



Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson suggests either Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman, the Father and Mother of the House, would be prepared to stand in. Neither of them has any great ambitions, and you can't have a 'caretaker PM' (who nevertheless holds the royal prerogative powers and commands the Trident boats and so on) who's got ambitions. And nobody, one hopes, is daft enough to let the clueless Corbyn's Stalinist minders, Milne, Drummond-Murray, Murphy and Fisher, carry out a coup and seize total state power forever on the basis that they oppose Brexit when everyone knows they don't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49367612

Ken Clarke points out that the 'constitutional convention' the Communists keep referring to -- that the leader of the next-biggest party somehow magically becomes PM after a lost confidence vote -- doesn't exist.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49372525

In 1940, if anyone's interested, Chamberlain didn't lose the adjournment vote in the Norway Debate, he won handsomely, but the government's majority was so badly cut by Tory rebels that he took it as a no-confidence vote, as did everyone else, and he thought he'd better go anyway, because honour demanded it. A National Government was called for, and Attlee said he wouldn't serve under Chamberlain.

Attlee, as Leader of the Opposition, did not of course become Prime Minister, not right then. Churchill did, and Churchill wasn't even leader of the Tory party. Chamberlain still was, and remained so for some time. Churchill was just the one figure that enough people (the King, Attlee and most MPs) could agree on.