UK Leaves the EU - What happens next?

[Toonz]

And to think this all happened just so David Cameron could put the whole EU question to bed for a generation

 

[Edwin]

And to think this all happened just so David Cameron could put the whole EU question to bed for a generation

It must take him a long time to read bedtime stories to his kids...

 

[BREWSTERS]

Your suggestion that the gain in value made by a property developer is precisely balanced out by the decline in value of all other properties is a textbook example of a zero sum game. The 'game' considers just the interaction of those parties in a closed loop - not external factors such as inflation.

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to assign a value to an intangible asset? Are you suggesting valuable assets are not 'wealth'?

Perhaps you have a particularly unusual definition of the word 'wealth'. I think most people understand the concept of the creation of wealth by the addition of value.

it isn't zero sum as, like you say there are other factors such as inflation (you mentioned) and increase or decrease in population. But the constant, the only thing that is always present, is that overall debt always exceeds overall money supply.

As for intangible assets...any value assigned to them is directly proportionate to a physical thing further down the line. That physical thing is where the value is.
Take a £1m domain name....if you don't have it pointing to a site it creates no wealth. It's cost £1m...there was a transfer of money, but no creation of wealth.

Bedtime for me. I feel like we've made progress here today. Same time next week?

 

[bonusmedia]

I think that's been fairly obvious ever since funereal Boris Johnson and undertaker Michael Gove had their more-subdued-than-a-crypt victory press conference.

The real trick now for them is how to end up losing the leadership election so that somebody else ends up with a faceful of omelette, then slowly rebuild a career on the back benches.

While I might relish watching Boris crumble under the weight of his own mess, the country really can't afford it. Even Gove knows Gove can't do it. Surely May will win it, she has been careful to stay middle of the (Tory) road on just about everything.

 

[signature]

Thing is, it's not just the Blairites resigning. There are MPs to the left of the party in the mix. Even Pat Glass who was only put in post 2 days ago has resigned. The complaints are much the same: performance, leadership skills, ability to reach out to the county. It's a fundamental misreading to put this all down to Blairites.

The pressure is coming from the Blairites, its a pre-planed event, not just because of the EU result, these PLP have been looking for opportunities for a long time, almost all the PLP don't want Corbyn, like @gimpydog said and they did not even expect him to win either.

Chilcot report will be out next month, all most all the PLP voted against the Iraq inquiries, in the future when more information comes out about this coupe on Jeremy Corbyn, you will see Alastair Campbell at the centre of it.

Corbyn want UK to leave EU but its Labour party policy to remain in the EU, campaigning to stay in the EU is a compromise from him. He still did what he was asked to do but media were shy away from him. Even Angela Eagle state this fact just two weeks ago.

The media always paint Corbyn as a bad person, things like our friends from Hamas or friends of the IRA etc even though they know all is intention is to have a peaceful resolution.

Majority of the current PLP are Blair people, with Corbyn as the leader, they cant do what they want.

Before Corbyn, labour was already supporting all the austerity, the reason given by the acting leader then was the public vote for Tory, so the public want the cut, all that change as soon as Corbyn became leader.

Corbyn did exactly what he has to do as opposition leader, which means challenge the government policies and force a u-turn if required, he did that, even when he cant over turn in the commons, he use the house of lords.

I hope Corbyn stays taken on his challenger because what the PLP are doing is total bullying.

 

[bonusmedia]

it isn't zero sum as, like you say there are other factors such as inflation (you mentioned) and increase or decrease in population. But the constant, the only thing that is always present, is that overall debt always exceeds overall money supply.

As for intangible assets...any value assigned to them is directly proportionate to a physical thing further down the line. That physical thing is where the value is.
Take a £1m domain name....if you don't have it pointing to a site it creates no wealth. It's cost £1m...there was a transfer of money, but no creation of wealth.

Bedtime for me. I feel like we've made progress here today. Same time next week?

Correct. It's not zero sum - because the wealth created does not come from diminishing the wealth of others! The scenario you described would be zero sum. The standard example is cutting a cake - if I get more, you get less. If I bake another one, you don't get less as a result.

I have a (tangible) painting on my wall. It is worth more than the cost of materials and labour used to produce it. Wealth has been created.

Take your domain name example - let's say an (intangible) website is created and we employ photographers to take (intangible) pictures of cats and we charge for subscriptions, because we provide value for our cat-loving subscribers. We gain a million customers paying £10 per year. We can now value the company at maybe £50 million despite having virtually no tangible assets. Our cat lovers have got more than the value of their subscriptions (or else they wouldn't subscribe) and we have got a company worth £50 million. Enormous wealth has been created from nothing.

I don't think we're getting anywhere actually but I'm fairly certain my understanding of the creation of wealth is closer to something that would be generally accepted.

 

[bonusmedia]

I don't know why Corbyn is hanging on. Even if he won re-election from the party 'joiners' does he really imagine he can effectively lead with the PLP virtually all openly hostile to him?

I don't know much about Eagle - tough job for whoever gets it

 

[BREWSTERS]

Correct. It's not zero sum - because the wealth created does not come from diminishing the wealth of others! The scenario you described would be zero sum. The standard example is cutting a cake - if I get more, you get less. If I bake another one, you don't get less as a result.

I have a (tangible) painting on my wall. It is worth more than the cost of materials and labour used to produce it. Wealth has been created.

Take your domain name example - let's say an (intangible) website is created and we employ photographers to take (intangible) pictures of cats and we charge for subscriptions, because we provide value for our cat-loving subscribers. We gain a million customers paying £10 per year. We can now value the company at maybe £50 million despite having virtually no tangible assets. Our cat lovers have got more than the value of their subscriptions (or else they wouldn't subscribe) and we have got a company worth £50 million. Enormous wealth has been created from nothing.

I don't think we're getting anywhere actually but I'm fairly certain my understanding of the creation of wealth is closer to something that would be generally accepted.

I knew I shouldn't have checked my phone....

Cake analogy - if you bake another, I don't get less as a result - agreed - but the creation of another cake devalued the first slightly (but increases the value of flour and eggs because there are less of them, and you are down by the cost of the ingredients.

Painting analogy - wealth hasn't been created, the value of the component parts has fluctuated IF, someone else pays you more for it. It's similar to a profit 'on paper'.

The cat site analogy - throughout the whole scenario as described, no wealth has been created. Money has moved around. People have paid money to see pictures of cats...not a commodity. And the £50m we've got is just a balance on a screen until we spend it. Buy a Ferrari each and we're just transferring money for a (usually) depreciating asset. None of which is affecting the global money supply or debt, or global wealth.

Couple of analogies for you.
You buy a house for £100k in cash - in 10 years it's worth £150k. Have you created wealth? No, because the replacement cost is the same.
If you bought it with a mortgage, you've paid £70k out and still owe £50k, meanwhile the replacement cost is still £150k - you're £20k down at this point. The bank is £20k up at this point, they've had £70k and still owns half your house ( but holds full title).

Next, you're in China, and all you have is a £50 note. Nowhere accepts Sterling - you effectively have nothing.

Cash doesnt necessarily equate to wealth.

There is a finite amount of wealth on the planet, the value of which fluctuates, but mostly increases, which decreases the value of the money that buys it. But all the while, the money in circulation is never enough to pay off what is owed.

 

[signature]

Eagle can't win anyway, she has too much baggage.
If Corbyn leaves, the party becomes Tory lite again, almost same policy,
I will expect the CLP hold their MP to account and they must respect the result and work with whoever win.

 

[Edwin]

Two leadership races just when the UK has never been more desperate for a strong hand on the tiller - perfect!

 

[signature]

I might try to understand Cameron stepping down, I actually think he might get a better deal for us than Boris or any other.

The Labour challenge is total uncalled for, not new anyway..

 

[Toonz]

The pressure is coming from the Blairites, its a pre-planed event, not just because of the EU result, these PLP have been looking for opportunities for a long time, almost all the PLP don't want Corbyn, like @gimpydog said and they did not even expect him to win either.

Chilcot report will be out next month, all most all the PLP voted against the Iraq inquiries, in the future when more information comes out about this coupe on Jeremy Corbyn, you will see Alastair Campbell at the centre of it.

Corbyn want UK to leave EU but its Labour party policy to remain in the EU, campaigning to stay in the EU is a compromise from him. He still did what he was asked to do but media were shy away from him. Even Angela Eagle state this fact just two weeks ago.

The media always paint Corbyn as a bad person, things like our friends from Hamas or friends of the IRA etc even though they know all is intention is to have a peaceful resolution.

Majority of the current PLP are Blair people, with Corbyn as the leader, they cant do what they want.

Before Corbyn, labour was already supporting all the austerity, the reason given by the acting leader then was the public vote for Tory, so the public want the cut, all that change as soon as Corbyn became leader.

Corbyn did exactly what he has to do as opposition leader, which means challenge the government policies and force a u-turn if required, he did that, even when he cant over turn in the commons, he use the house of lords.

I hope Corbyn stays taken on his challenger because what the PLP are doing is total bullying.

I suppose it depends how we define Blairite. Obviously the PLP are nearly all to the right of Corbyn, but I'm not sure that makes them all Blairites. There have been quite a few who might be termed 'Corbyn sympathisers' who have resigned.

I like Corbyn. I've admired him for years for his stance on international issues and I totally understand what you are saying about his views on Hamas, IRA etc which have largely been taken out of context and embellished. He advocated speaking to Sinn Fein when everyone said we must never speak to them. He opposed apartheid when the British government supported it. He championed gay rights when the government, the media and public opinion were all against it. He has been the very definition of 'progressive' for decades and that's why I was genuinely excited when he became leader. The difficulty is that it's become clear he is not only out of sync with his MPs (a debilitating problem whichever way you look at it), he's also, if we're being honest about this, highly unlikely to win a general election (for several reasons, both personal and political) and a general election may be sooner than we think. Labour needs to be strong and united now more than ever, and that's why, while the student in me feels a certain respect for him holding firm, I think ultimately the Momentum crowd and the £3 members are inadvertently causing great damage.

I've got mixed feelings on the challenge by Angela Eagle. Mostly I like her soft-left politics, an impressive performer at the despatch box, a unifier. Not the sharpest out there I admit, but capable. I don't think she'll be successful in her leadership challenge in fact it will just make Corbyn's supporters rally round him even more. If they were hoping to replace Corbyn, the Tom Watson 'wait for him to fail' approach might have been better.

 

[signature]

I suppose it depends how we define Blairite. Obviously the PLP are nearly all to the right of Corbyn, but I'm not sure that makes them all Blairites. There have been quite a few who might be termed 'Corbyn sympathisers' who have resigned.

I like Corbyn. I've admired him for years for his stance on international issues and I totally understand what you are saying about his views on Hamas, IRA etc which have largely been taken out of context and embellished. He advocated speaking to Sinn Fein when everyone said we must never speak to them. He opposed apartheid when the British government supported it. He championed gay rights when the government, the media and public opinion were all against it. He has been the very definition of 'progressive' for decades and that's why I was genuinely excited when he became leader. The difficulty is that it's become clear he is not only out of sync with his MPs (a debilitating problem whichever way you look at it), he's also, if we're being honest about this, highly unlikely to win a general election (for several reasons, both personal and political) and a general election may be sooner than we think. Labour needs to be strong and united now more than ever, and that's why, while the student in me feels a certain respect for him holding firm, I think ultimately the Momentum crowd and the £3 members are inadvertently causing great damage.

I've got mixed feelings on the challenge by Angela Eagle. Mostly I like her soft-left politics, an impressive performer at the despatch box, a unifier. Not the sharpest out there I admit, but capable. I don't think she'll be successful in her leadership challenge in fact it will just make Corbyn's supporters rally round him even more. If they were hoping to replace Corbyn, the Tom Watson 'wait for him to fail' approach might have been better.

There is a lot of pressure from the right of labour to make it difficult for Corbyn to appoint Shadow cabinet, it can even be class as hatred for Corbyn, they are all out to humiliate him to submission.
Corbyn cant win election is a narative that has been played everytime, that he wont cut it with the public. He came from been the unknown and build a crowed of voters, new voters for Labour.

By the way, Corbyn won all the three sections majority votes of the labour party not just the £3 voters.

You stated good point about Corbyn, most of those point are always played as negatives in the media.

As per Angela and why members wont vote for her, she support all the wars, she vote for tuition fees increase, she abstained on the vote to cut welfare Bill, she voted against the Chilcot report and currently her CLP are given her problems at the moment because they ask her not support Corbyn and she is not doing that, which means she could face de-selection. If she stands she is wasting her time and I don't think Corbyn will loose to any MP at the moment anyway because the labour party memebers see this as action against Democracy.

A lot of constituents have seen members grow, I read about Worthing growing their membership from 150 to about 800 since Corbyn came in and they came second in recent Councillor elections in a lot of wards and they usually come behind Tory and Libdem. This kind of news are not really shown in the media and I think the PLP are trying every possible ways to undermine him since he became the leader of the party.

One person does not make a strong team, you need people to make you strong and the problem is that these current PLP don't see why Corbyn should be the leader when they have served in ministerial roles and he came from no where to be the leader. I think this is one of the main problem.

Just watch News night, they spoke with 50 leaders and 45 said they are still collectively in support of Corbyn, which means, he might even win with a bigger margin than the last time.

 

[Edwin]

Brexit: the disaster decades in the making
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/brexit-disaster-decades-in-the-making

Goes into the "deep background" of the forces that shaped the referendum, and highlights (as if we didn't know!) just how out of touch the politicians really are. I learned a few things from it, and this in particular resonated with me:

Those on the remain side who felt they didn’t recognise their own country when they woke up on Friday morning must spare a thought for the pensioner in Redcar or Wolverhampton who has been waking up every morning for the last 30 years, watching factories close and businesses move while the council cuts back services and foreigners arrive, wondering where their world has gone to.

In fact, the quote above swings both ways. Along with the rest of the piece, it provides a lucid explanation of why many on the Leave side voted that way. At the same time, it also encapsulates the utter despair, alienation and shock most Remainers are feeling now: our world didn't change over years or decades, but in a single day. Not a drip drip drip descent into despair, but a plunge straight off the edge of the cliff into the abyss.

This was also important:

Many of those who voted leave will undoubtedly feel that they have had their say after years of being ignored. But they are beginning to discover that they have been lied to. Even when it feels that there is nothing left to lose, it turns out that things can always get worse. And even when it feels like nobody tells you the truth, it turns out that some factions of the elite can and will do more damage to your life than others.

This morning, it's emerging that negotiations are likely to take at least 5 years (and if that seems incompatible with Article 50, it means we either have years of foot-dragging before A50 is activated, or several years out in the cold with only a handful of deals and WTO rules governing everything else). I doubt even 1% of Leavers anticipated it might take that long - or potentially how little we'll get at the end of it.

It can only be hoped that this won't turn into civil unrest - that would be the rotten icing on this whole stinking cake...

 

[Edwin]

Boris Johnson is launching his leadership campaign this morning. He will apparently promise to deliver "a chance to believe in ourselves" and "a chance to believe in the values of this country".

That and £1 will buy you anything at Poundland... Have emptier platitudes ever been crafted?

 

[Edwin]

Something good that may come out of Brexit: a renewed interest in tackling run-away executive pay...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/29/brexit-executive-pay-reform-fund-manager

 

[VSC]

There is a finite amount of wealth on the planet, the value of which fluctuates, but mostly increases, which decreases the value of the money that buys it. But all the while, the money in circulation is never enough to pay off what is owed.

Firstly I have to say that I am really enjoying the debate between you and bonusmedia ... making me think (!) and I am discovering new points of view ...

BUT (here we go), is there truly a finite amount of wealth on the planet?
Wealth is measured by assets, but is it the case that periodically we discover/create new assets.
While some assets may devalue previous assets (so may cancel each other out), there are some that simply add value without devaluing any others.

There was an announcement this week of a large helium gas find. Helium had been regarded as in short supply (and is used in MRI scanners and other devices - not just balloons!) Prices had been rising. The pricing is not expected to dip in proportion to the new find as demand is increasing ... So is this a case that a new discovery has increased wealth (assets)?

And what about "new" discoveries that create a new market without effecting any other market?

To be honest, it's just gone 8am, and my brain isn't in full working order yet. I need more coffee.

 

[websaway]

I'm back, for now at least. I think when you make enemies things get difficult.

where am I now on Brexit.
Just to refresh.
My reasons for Brexit were about loss of sovereignty and uncontrolled immigration.
The cost for pursuing Brexit was that the UK would have economic consequences.
The experts, most of whom had a vested interest in remaining in the EU, almost to a man or woman said that those consequences were to be negative to the extent from severe to catastrophic.
My view, as with the majority of the UK electorate who participated in the referendum, was that even if you believed the doomsayers, these risks were a price worth paying. Self interest was the prominent factor in the referendum, from the person who did not want their area taken over by economic migrants to the person who controlled a multi million pound property portfolio built and mostly reliant on increased immigration projections. All had their own reason to remain or leave. Everyone had but one vote and my view is that that's fair democracy, the only imbalance comes where individuals wield more power than their individual vote warrants, mostly through either access to media attention or blackmail by way of scaremongering.
Despite all those obstacles Brexit triumphed and I believe that victory rescued our freedom, our rights as a sovereign nation and our democracy.
That is my belief and it's based on the road we were going along and where that road was taking us. Now on the anniversary of the battle of the somme I am proud to believe that this revolution to preserve the power of self determination that some of us still hold dear was far far less expensive than that paid by our forefathers and for me anything less than economic Armageddon can be viewed as a bonus.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Firstly I have to say that I am really enjoying the debate between you and bonusmedia ... making me think (!) and I am discovering new points of view ...

BUT (here we go), is there truly a finite amount of wealth on the planet?
Wealth is measured by assets, but is it the case that periodically we discover/create new assets.
While some assets may devalue previous assets (so may cancel each other out), there are some that simply add value without devaluing any others.

There was an announcement this week of a large helium gas find. Helium had been regarded as in short supply (and is used in MRI scanners and other devices - not just balloons!) Prices had been rising. The pricing is not expected to dip in proportion to the new find as demand is increasing ... So is this a case that a new discovery has increased wealth (assets)?

And what about "new" discoveries that create a new market without effecting any other market?

To be honest, it's just gone 8am, and my brain isn't in full working order yet. I need more coffee.

The helium has always been there, so the new find hasn't created it. And it doesn't add to the money supply. Whoever owns that gas field will be able to trade the gas for money. The new find will decrease the value of any other stock of helium, perhaps only by a tiny amount but it will, because the new find doesn't proportionally increase the demand for it.

That's why we see the price of a commodity fall if someone dumps a significant amount of it on the market. Availability vs. demand creates price fluctuation.

 

[grandwizard]

I'm back, for now at least. I think when you make enemies things get difficult.

where am I now on Brexit.
Just to refresh.
My reasons for Brexit were about loss of sovereignty and uncontrolled immigration.
The cost for pursuing Brexit was that the UK would have economic consequences.
The experts, most of whom had a vested interest in remaining in the EU, almost to a man or woman said that those consequences were to be negative to the extent from severe to catastrophic.
My view, as with the majority of the UK electorate who participated in the referendum, was that even if you believed the doomsayers, these risks were a price worth paying. Self interest was the prominent factor in the referendum, from the person who did not want their area taken over by economic migrants to the person who controlled a multi million pound property portfolio built and mostly reliant on increased immigration projections. All had their own reason to remain or leave. Everyone had but one vote and my view is that that's fair democracy, the only imbalance comes where individuals wield more power than their individual vote warrants, mostly through either access to media attention or blackmail by way of scaremongering.
Despite all those obstacles Brexit triumphed and I believe that victory rescued our freedom, our rights as a sovereign nation and our democracy.
That is my belief and it's based on the road we were going along and where that road was taking us. Now on the anniversary of the battle of the somme I am proud to believe that this revolution to preserve the power of self determination that some of us still hold dear was far far less expensive than that paid by our forefathers and for me anything less than economic Armageddon can be viewed as a bonus.

urrmm Fantastic speech but nothing has changed. Politically Yes, legally NO, Reality NO,"feeling good is great" but by the looks of things nothing will be implemented. Leavers should hold their breathe for a while before claiming any sign of freedom.