Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Carl the Llama]

The thing about congestion is it tends to occur in our old, crowded urban centres. Clearly there's a need for innovative traffic relief measures in our cities and their immediate surroundings, but building over Worzel Gummage's house isn't going to solve the problem of tightly packed streets built in the heart of our towns at a time when nobody was thinking about the kind of traffic flow we experience nowadays.

 

Edit: Never mind I see captain's already covered it.

Edited 9 November 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I was surprised to see so many socialist countries near the top given how much they borrow to invest in infrastructure. 

Which of those countries are socialist?

[Rogstanley]

2 hours ago, Fox Ulike said:

I've no idea you're the local traffic expert around here.

 

Continually addressing each 'first-world problem' by reducing ever more of the planet to concrete isn't really a solution to anything.

 

You've got a bee in your bonnet about congestion, but take that traffic cone off your head for one minute. This is about competing interests. Roads, agriculture, housing, manufacturing, energy etc etc etc . All require land. Yes you can solve the traffic problem by paving over some fields. Great. But then what about everything else?

 

The Countryside isn't a resource to be ruthlessly exploited until it's all gone.

 

If all you're bothered about is the fact that it takes you longer to get to work than you'd like it to - then you're probably quite lucky in your life, and so you should probably just put up with it.

 

Edit: Plus, there's plenty of evidence that building more roads does nothing to ease congestion.

 

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

Comparable countries facing very similar challenges manage to do much better than us so clearly something is wrong with our approach and I'd like us to try and solve the problem. I don't know what the solution is but 'do nothing' isn't it. 

 

I'm bored of repeating that i'm not suggesting and nor does it require us concreting over loads of farms. The point about farms was just to demonstrate that lack of space isn't an issue.

 

Congestion is annoying but the bigger problem is productivity and the fact we're terrible at it. Low productivity influences wages and is part of the reason why wages here are so low. It's not a life or death problem, but just because something isn't life or death doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve. If everyone had your attitude we'd still be living in caves.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Comparable countries facing very similar challenges manage to do much better than us so clearly something is wrong with our approach and I'd like us to try and solve the problem. I don't know what the solution is but 'do nothing' isn't it. 

 

I'm bored of repeating that i'm not suggesting and nor does it require us concreting over loads of farms. The point about farms was just to demonstrate that lack of space isn't an issue.

 

Congestion is annoying but the bigger problem is productivity and the fact we're terrible at it. Low productivity influences wages and is part of the reason why wages here are so low. It's not a life or death problem, but just because something isn't life or death doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve. If everyone had your attitude we'd still be living in caves.

I think rather than build ever widening roads to ever busier cities we'd be better off moving anything that isn't a shop, cafe I'd bar into decentralised spaces away from city centres. Why people think an office block, or manufacturing site NEEDS to be in the centre of a city or town I've no idea. 

[fuchsntf]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

We can't just bulldoze farms, that is not the solution to congestion and overcrowding, unless you are going to turn a large section of farmland into a new town as an industry hub.

 

1. We can improve bus/rail efficiency, effectiveness and price to make public transport more appealing.

2. We can stop being so bloody precious about old buildings in the middle of cities that are not fit for use, but can't be developed because they  are listed due to the King's dog once taking a piss against it. (I'm not saying destroy all old buildings, but there are some prime places ripe for development that are just sitting there untouched due to their "historical value").

3. We need to also look at why congestion occurs and do something about it. For example there is one spot on the M4 on my way home where the 3 lanes of the motorway has to merge into 2. The merge is unavoidable, but what is inexplicable is that the motorway becomes 2 lanes at the Heathrow junction. If they kept it at 2 lanes, then it would be slower, but no congestion. Instead they've put in the third lane for about a mile, which means that loads of cars fly down the outside lane then have to merge with slower moving traffic. Even on the quietest of days it causes congestion.

4. It is not just a work from home culture that needs to be addressed, but this obsession with 9 to 5, we live in a 24 hour global society, I have meetings with the US and the far east, yet everyone works 9-5 Monday to Friday. Some people are morning people some people are night owls, people are at their best at different times. Trust people to do the job as they see fit and stop this obsession with 9-5. This could also be applied to schools.

5. If you really want to build on farms then go Veggie, meat production requires more land than crop farming.

Not saying I disagree, or agree, but good discussion points.

 

We could open up Brown-sites before jumping on land.

We could see how many old train tracks, and old disused railbanks still join, re-invest and put Goods, transports,

Rail/ Goods infrastructure , onto these Old links and re-create logistical hubs, instead of taking new land unused land for Industrial

estates and hubs. Our Modern  industrial areas, were just grabbed, then planned in after thought without any creative logic.

We still, all over Europe have brownsites, that should be re-created for both Small/large businesses and housing and it infrastructure.

But common sense has never been one of  we human's strengths. Financial greed and power still blanks out obvious areas for

re-developement. Building houses on flood plains when no necessity was there, proves our stupidity and total ignorance.

Our planning and organisations, come after the poor absurd political and finacial clout descisions have been made...

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21731115-multiple-crises-engulfing-government-make-her-departure-less-not-more-likely-theresa
 

"Can Theresa May hold on to her job as her government collapses into chaos and confusion? Nigel Farage, a former leader of the UK Independence Party, pronounces that she will be gone by Christmas. Some Tory MPs give her even less time. Leading allies of Jeremy Corbyn are confident that they will be in office within a year. European Union officials worry that they are negotiating with a government that is on the verge of vanishing.........

A glance at two previous administrations—James Callaghan’s government of 1976-79 and the Major governments of 1990-97—suggests that British prime ministers can survive the most extraordinary amount of humiliation. The situation today is more imponderable than it was in the 1970s or 1990s. Britain faces bigger decisions and the atmosphere is more deranged. Mrs May is not as robust as Callaghan. She suffers from diabetes and looks tired and ashen. Yet Bagehot bets that Mrs May is safe in her gilded prison in Downing Street for at least another year: embarrassed by scandal, overwhelmed by problems, battered by crises but nevertheless clinging on to office, the great limpet of Brexit Britain".

[Alf Bentley]

Just one speculative, but interesting opinion on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border

 

The writer is Director of the Centre for European Reform, a thinktank that promotes itself as "pro-European but not uncritical".

Btw, it's weeks since I've posted anything from the Guardian. Text below for anyone who objects to clicking on their page!

 

 

"Article 50 negotiations have stalled over the money Britain is prepared to pay the EU. Neither side expects progress before December, at the earliest. But even if the terms of separation are agreed this year, the negotiation on the future relationship is likely to prove much harder. EU negotiators believe that the British government is deluded about the kind of relationship it can achieve. After speaking to key people on both sides, here are my 10 predictions for the Brexit talks.

1 There will be a deal in December.

The UK will accept a financial settlement involving payments amounting to something close to €50bn, higher than what it has so far indicated it is willing to pay. And the EU will compromise on citizens’ rights by climbing down from demanding a powerful role for the European court. This will allow it to declare “sufficient progress” has been made on the terms of separation, paving the way for talks on a transition and future relations.

2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.

3 The UK will agree to a transition on the EU’s terms.

That transition will feel very much like membership to the British – with free movement of people, and Britain subject to European court rulings – except that it will not have a voice in EU institutions. Both sides will pretend that the transition will last only about two years (Britain’s hardline leavers are very keen to keep it short). In fact, it will take many more years to negotiate the future trading relationship and build the required physical infrastructure at borders, and for the Home Office to set up the IT systems for registering EU migrants.

4 Theresa May’s hope that the future relationship can be sorted out before Britain leaves the EU will not come to pass.

She argues that because UK and EU rules are already aligned, the details of the future relationship can be settled within a year. But most trade experts think that future economic ties will take many years to negotiate. One of the hardest things to agree on will be what punitive action the EU can take when UK rules diverge from its own.

5 The UK will avoid making detailed proposals on a future economic partnership.

A detailed plan would be hard to get through the divided cabinet – and would also increase the chances of an outright rejection by the EU. However, the UK will ask for a bespoke deal that provides better market access than the Canada model (a free trade agreement with only limited provisions on services) but much less than the Norway model (fully in the single market).

6 The EU will reject the British request for a bespoke agreement.

It will insist that the UK choose from a menu limited to Norway, Canada or WTO rules. It will say the single market is a package – you are either in all or none of it. But the UK is counting on the unity of the 27 fracturing. It hopes those most dependent on UK trade will see that it is in their interests to give the British a better deal than the Canadians – that is to say, one with more provisions on services.

7 The EU might eventually soften and agree to something close to single market access in specific areas.

But it will demand cash payments, that Britain remains subject to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice (or something close to it), and perhaps a liberal UK regime on migration.

8 The EU’s top priority in the trade negotiations will be to prevent the UK undercutting its regulatory standards.

It fears the UK will steal investment by eroding social and environmental standards, slashing corporate taxes or diverging from EU rules on state aid and competition. The EU will insist on provisions that allow it to punish the UK for any such undercutting.

9 The City of London will be damaged.

So far, the British government has not made a priority of defending the City’s interests. But even if it does, UK-based firms will lose their “passport” rights for access to the single market. As second best, the City is hoping for a good deal on regulatory equivalence, but even that will be very hard to achieve, and is likely to involve the UK being a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker.

10 A free trade deal of some sort will be agreed.

This is due to two reasons. First, if it looked like the UK would crash out of Europe without a trade agreement, the EU would face a major headache. Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron plan to spend next year concocting new plans for the eurozone. A messy Brexit would get in the way, so they will try to prevent it. Second, if the financial markets believed the UK was going to leave without an agreement, they would panic. The pound would sink, business confidence in Britain would evaporate and investment would dry up. The UK government would come under enormous pressure to return to Brussels to seek a compromise. The Conservatives would fear losing their reputation for economic competence for a generation. Whatever they say in public, May and most of her ministers know that any deal, however bad, is better than no deal."

[Guest MattP]

10 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21731115-multiple-crises-engulfing-government-make-her-departure-less-not-more-likely-theresa
 

"Can Theresa May hold on to her job as her government collapses into chaos and confusion? Nigel Farage, a former leader of the UK Independence Party, pronounces that she will be gone by Christmas. Some Tory MPs give her even less time. Leading allies of Jeremy Corbyn are confident that they will be in office within a year. European Union officials worry that they are negotiating with a government that is on the verge of vanishing.........

A glance at two previous administrations—James Callaghan’s government of 1976-79 and the Major governments of 1990-97—suggests that British prime ministers can survive the most extraordinary amount of humiliation. The situation today is more imponderable than it was in the 1970s or 1990s. Britain faces bigger decisions and the atmosphere is more deranged. Mrs May is not as robust as Callaghan. She suffers from diabetes and looks tired and ashen. Yet Bagehot bets that Mrs May is safe in her gilded prison in Downing Street for at least another year: embarrassed by scandal, overwhelmed by problems, battered by crises but nevertheless clinging on to office, the great limpet of Brexit Britain".

I have no idea how allies of Corbyn still think he'll soon be the PM - despite this utter shambles of a government Labour hold a 1pt lead in the last Yougov poll and May still leads in who would be the best PM.

 

Labour were 12 points ahead under Ed Miliband in 2012 after the omnishambles budget. 

Edited 10 November 2017 by MattP

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Just one speculative, but interesting opinion on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/09/brexit-deal-price-britain-hard-irish-border

 

The writer is Director of the Centre for European Reform, a thinktank that promotes itself as "pro-European but not uncritical".

Btw, it's weeks since I've posted anything from the Guardian. Text below for anyone who objects to clicking on their page!

 

 

"Article 50 negotiations have stalled over the money Britain is prepared to pay the EU. Neither side expects progress before December, at the earliest. But even if the terms of separation are agreed this year, the negotiation on the future relationship is likely to prove much harder. EU negotiators believe that the British government is deluded about the kind of relationship it can achieve. After speaking to key people on both sides, here are my 10 predictions for the Brexit talks.

1 There will be a deal in December.

The UK will accept a financial settlement involving payments amounting to something close to €50bn, higher than what it has so far indicated it is willing to pay. And the EU will compromise on citizens’ rights by climbing down from demanding a powerful role for the European court. This will allow it to declare “sufficient progress” has been made on the terms of separation, paving the way for talks on a transition and future relations.

2 There will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Despite Britain’s public commitment to find “creative solutions” to the border problem, both sides admit there will have to be some sort of checks on or close to the border. This is the inevitable consequence of Britain leaving the single market and customs union.

3 The UK will agree to a transition on the EU’s terms.

That transition will feel very much like membership to the British – with free movement of people, and Britain subject to European court rulings – except that it will not have a voice in EU institutions. Both sides will pretend that the transition will last only about two years (Britain’s hardline leavers are very keen to keep it short). In fact, it will take many more years to negotiate the future trading relationship and build the required physical infrastructure at borders, and for the Home Office to set up the IT systems for registering EU migrants.

4 Theresa May’s hope that the future relationship can be sorted out before Britain leaves the EU will not come to pass.

She argues that because UK and EU rules are already aligned, the details of the future relationship can be settled within a year. But most trade experts think that future economic ties will take many years to negotiate. One of the hardest things to agree on will be what punitive action the EU can take when UK rules diverge from its own.

5 The UK will avoid making detailed proposals on a future economic partnership.

A detailed plan would be hard to get through the divided cabinet – and would also increase the chances of an outright rejection by the EU. However, the UK will ask for a bespoke deal that provides better market access than the Canada model (a free trade agreement with only limited provisions on services) but much less than the Norway model (fully in the single market).

6 The EU will reject the British request for a bespoke agreement.

It will insist that the UK choose from a menu limited to Norway, Canada or WTO rules. It will say the single market is a package – you are either in all or none of it. But the UK is counting on the unity of the 27 fracturing. It hopes those most dependent on UK trade will see that it is in their interests to give the British a better deal than the Canadians – that is to say, one with more provisions on services.

7 The EU might eventually soften and agree to something close to single market access in specific areas.

But it will demand cash payments, that Britain remains subject to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice (or something close to it), and perhaps a liberal UK regime on migration.

8 The EU’s top priority in the trade negotiations will be to prevent the UK undercutting its regulatory standards.

It fears the UK will steal investment by eroding social and environmental standards, slashing corporate taxes or diverging from EU rules on state aid and competition. The EU will insist on provisions that allow it to punish the UK for any such undercutting.

9 The City of London will be damaged.

So far, the British government has not made a priority of defending the City’s interests. But even if it does, UK-based firms will lose their “passport” rights for access to the single market. As second best, the City is hoping for a good deal on regulatory equivalence, but even that will be very hard to achieve, and is likely to involve the UK being a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker.

10 A free trade deal of some sort will be agreed.

This is due to two reasons. First, if it looked like the UK would crash out of Europe without a trade agreement, the EU would face a major headache. Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron plan to spend next year concocting new plans for the eurozone. A messy Brexit would get in the way, so they will try to prevent it. Second, if the financial markets believed the UK was going to leave without an agreement, they would panic. The pound would sink, business confidence in Britain would evaporate and investment would dry up. The UK government would come under enormous pressure to return to Brussels to seek a compromise. The Conservatives would fear losing their reputation for economic competence for a generation. Whatever they say in public, May and most of her ministers know that any deal, however bad, is better than no deal."

P R O J E C T    F E A R

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

I have no idea how allies of Corbyn still think he'll soon be the PM - despite this utter shambles of a government Labour hold a 1pt lead in the last Yougov poll and May still leads in who would be the best PM.

 

Labour were 12 points ahead under Ed Miliband in 2012 after the omnishambles budget. 

It's a 3 point lead but your point holds. It's why the Tories need to own Brexit - at the moment they are holding support due to fear of what the left might do to the economy. Once Brexit completely ****s over our economy the Tories won't have any credibility left.

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

I have no idea how allies of Corbyn still think he'll soon be the PM - despite this utter shambles of a government Labour hold a 1pt lead in the last Yougov poll and May still leads in who would be the best PM.

 

Labour were 12 points ahead under Ed Miliband in 2012 after the omnishambles budget. 

 

Tend to agree. A good assessment in the Economist article, I think.

 

Various complications even if there's an election any time soon: the Tories cannot possibly run such a bad campaign again - and would almost certainly have a new leader; Labour surely has no more mileage from the youth vote so would have to win over more of the middle-aged/old; although they could take more SNP seats, the Lib Dems might perform better under Cable than under Farron, which could hurt them; an early election would force Labour to clarify their Brexit stance earlier than they'd like; the boundary changes are pending (not sure how soon, though).

 

But I cannot see there being another election soon, as it's unlikely to be in the interests of anyone on the Tory/DUP side. Interesting that May has warned off Tory Remainers this morning. That could be her main vulnerability, as I can't see Brexiteers sinking the ship and endangering Brexit or the DUP potentially losing bags of cash for Norn Iron. I don't think Tory Remainers would want to risk another election either, at which they could face great hostility - and their party could suffer for calling so many elections. Where there is a risk to May is that if the Remainers succeed in getting a lot of amendments to the Brexit legislation, it could cause total civil war in the Tory party - and that could bring down the govt. If May is able to limit it to a few amendments, she can probably keep her fragile coalition together. The only other risk that I see for May is if the DUP starts losing a lot of popular support by propping her up.

[Fox Ulike]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It's a 3 point lead but your point holds. It's why the Tories need to own Brexit - at the moment they are holding support due to fear of what the left might do to the economy. Once Brexit completely ****s over our economy the Tories won't have any credibility left.

 

I think Labour might have peaked. Corbyn had a chance to steal the political middle-ground immediately after the election, but Labour seems to have moved further to the Left.

 

Also since the election the Government seem to have adopted a much more sensible approach to Brexit. The problems that they continue to experience are mainly due to the shambolic first twelve months of Theresa May’s reign, and her pandering to the far right of the Conservative Party. With UKIP gone, she no longer needs to do this and can move more to the centre-right.

 

I think sooner or later she’s going to have to bite the bullet and sack Boris. She will forever be considered weak until she grows a pair and gives him the boot!

[breadandcheese]

There is no risk to Theresa May's position:

 

1) There is no obvious unifying candidate within the Tory party, so there would have to be a leadership contest, which would take time.  This is time that our country doesn't have as the clock is ticking on our Brexit negotiations.  Most Tory MPs know that the country cannot afford to waste a month on a leadership contest.  It would be putting Tory rivalry ahead of the country's needs.  It won't happen.

 

2) A new general election. For the reasons above, there isn't the time to have one.  So again, there wouldn't be the majority to pass a bill in the commons to have a new election.  Plus, there isn't the appetite for another one in th ecountry.

 

3) Does Jeremy Corbyn really want to lead a government right now?  Theresa May is on a hiding to nothing. Whatever deal or no deal we end up with, she will be criticised by both sides.  Brexiteers will say she conceded too much.  Remainers will say she didn't go far enough.  Corbyn would face the same in power.  Much better to ride it out as an agitator on the sidelines so that he's in a stronger position come the next election.

[Fox Ulike]

11 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

There is no risk to Theresa May's position:

 

1) There is no obvious unifying candidate within the Tory party, so there would have to be a leadership contest, which would take time.  This is time that our country doesn't have as the clock is ticking on our Brexit negotiations.  Most Tory MPs know that the country cannot afford to waste a month on a leadership contest.  It would be putting Tory rivalry ahead of the country's needs.  It won't happen.

 

2) A new general election. For the reasons above, there isn't the time to have one.  So again, there wouldn't be the majority to pass a bill in the commons to have a new election.  Plus, there isn't the appetite for another one in th ecountry.

 

3) Does Jeremy Corbyn really want to lead a government right now?  Theresa May is on a hiding to nothing. Whatever deal or no deal we end up with, she will be criticised by both sides.  Brexiteers will say she conceded too much.  Remainers will say she didn't go far enough.  Corbyn would face the same in power.  Much better to ride it out as an agitator on the sidelines so that he's in a stronger position come the next election.

 

It all hinges on how bad Brexit is going to be.  Another recession like the 2008 one isn’t unrealistic.

 

I wouldn’t completely discount the Lib Dems. If they could find a young charismatic leader before the next election,  I wouldn’t mind having a tenner on them being able to win it. Currently 100/1.

 

The Lib Dems are gonna be the only party who will be able to say "We told you so!" in a post-Brexit Britain.

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It's a 3 point lead but your point holds. It's why the Tories need to own Brexit - at the moment they are holding support due to fear of what the left might do to the economy. Once Brexit completely ****s over our economy the Tories won't have any credibility left.

If it does do you think voters will swarm to Labour under Corbyn and McDonnell to sort it out?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

If it does do you think voters will swarm to Labour under Corbyn and McDonnell to sort it out?

If it does it's going to take investment to drag us out of the hole. It wouldn't be possible to do what was tried may time round as there's no rim for manoeuvre. That's generally when labour get voted in. Normally the Tories get in when the economy needs tightening. 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If it does it's going to take investment to drag us out of the hole. It wouldn't be possible to do what was tried may time round as there's no rim for manoeuvre. That's generally when labour get voted in. Normally the Tories get in when the economy needs tightening. 

If it's going to be as bad as you say it is we'll struggle to even borrow money to invest.

[katieakita]

https://news.sky.com/story/uber-loses-appeal-over-workers-rights-court-ruling-11120723

 

Oh dear, wonder when the government will put its own house in order regarding dodgy working practices.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Tend to agree. A good assessment in the Economist article, I think.

 

Various complications even if there's an election any time soon: the Tories cannot possibly run such a bad campaign again - and would almost certainly have a new leader; Labour surely has no more mileage from the youth vote so would have to win over more of the middle-aged/old; although they could take more SNP seats, the Lib Dems might perform better under Cable than under Farron, which could hurt them; an early election would force Labour to clarify their Brexit stance earlier than they'd like; the boundary changes are pending (not sure how soon, though).

 

But I cannot see there being another election soon, as it's unlikely to be in the interests of anyone on the Tory/DUP side. Interesting that May has warned off Tory Remainers this morning. That could be her main vulnerability, as I can't see Brexiteers sinking the ship and endangering Brexit or the DUP potentially losing bags of cash for Norn Iron. I don't think Tory Remainers would want to risk another election either, at which they could face great hostility - and their party could suffer for calling so many elections. Where there is a risk to May is that if the Remainers succeed in getting a lot of amendments to the Brexit legislation, it could cause total civil war in the Tory party - and that could bring down the govt. If May is able to limit it to a few amendments, she can probably keep her fragile coalition together. The only other risk that I see for May is if the DUP starts losing a lot of popular support by propping her up.

I agree with every word of that.

 

I don't think the new boundaries will pass a vote though, the DUP would lose 3 seats on them.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I agree with every word of that.

 

I don't think the new boundaries will pass a vote though, the DUP would lose 3 seats on them.

I thought the boundary changes had already been passed through Parliament?

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I thought the boundary changes had already been passed through Parliament?

 

Process still ongoing.

 

Final recommendations to be put before parliament in September 2018: https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2018-boundary-review-revised-proposals-published/

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

If it's going to be as bad as you say it is we'll struggle to even borrow money to invest.

Out of interest, the pound lost 20% just from the Brexit vote. You're of the opinion that we could happily walk away - but I presume you'd possibly admit the pound will fall again upon no deal being reached given what business is saying - how much more of a fall are you happy with?

 

 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Out of interest, the pound lost 20% just from the Brexit vote. You're of the opinion that we could happily walk away - but I presume you'd possibly admit the pound will fall again upon no deal being reached given what business is saying - how much more of a fall are you happy with?

 

 

Where are you getting 20% from?

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Where are you getting 20% from?

Think the 20% is from what it "could/should" have been compared to what it is. Not what it was and is. 

[Strokes]

Just now, Innovindil said:

Think the 20% is from what it "could/should" have been compared to what it is. Not what it was and is. 

I thought 14% but I might be mistaken, I can’t be arsed to go searching now.  Are you sure @toddybad?