Cable Forum - Brexit

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Brexit (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33707507)

And what's all this Gordon Brown cobblers got to do with Brexit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999783)

And what's all this Gordon Brown cobblers got to do with Brexit?

nothing at all we will see if Boris lets all your brexiteers down which i think he will

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999793)

nothing at all we will see if Boris lets all your brexiteers down which i think he will

BoJo may well be the grinch that betrays Brexit. ;) He's not a fundamentalist Brexiter in the way that Raab is, he sees Brexit (correctly in my opinion) as his route to No.10

Meanwhile, a reminder that the EU member states don't have much patience left.

Quote:

Speaking as the contest to replace Theresa May reached a crucial stage, Leo Varadkar said on Thursday he believed leaders would only grant Britain a delay to its October 31 exit date in order to hold a general election or a second referendum.
He added that any bid to revise the terms of Mrs May’s deal would fail, remarks that suggest the EU is closing ranks ahead of a possible attempt to renegotiate the exit treaty by Boris Johnson or another new UK prime minister.
Mr Varadkar made his comments after meetings with the EU’s centre-right leaders and Michel Barnier, the bloc’s Brexit negotiator. “There’s very much a strong view across the EU that there shouldn’t be any more extensions [to the October 31 date],” he said. “While I have endless patience, some of my colleagues have lost patience quite frankly with the UK, and there is enormous hostility to any further extension.”
The Irish prime minister said Britain would not be granted more time for further negotiations or further House of Commons vote on different Brexit options, adding “the time for that has long since passed.”

https://www.ft.com/content/58561858-...1-2b1d33ac3271

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999783)

And what's all this Gordon Brown cobblers got to do with Brexit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999793)

nothing at all we will see if Boris lets all your brexiteers down which i think he will

It might mean we're sick of people telling lies and half truths to suit a particular political agenda, with a bit of luck....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35999742)

They weren’t asked the question "do you buy the argument that there will be significant damage to the British Economy", and you are being duplicitous to try and rewrite the narrative.

They were asked

And 61% said it was worth it.

And whilst the deficit has reduced, our debt as a % of GDP has doubled - not so good.

I can't but see a contradiction on Northern Ireland. Happy for it to leave the UK to secure Brexit but not happy for it to be in a backstop with Ireland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35999762)

Brown did sell off a lot of gold but I don't see the massive issue around it. You can only sell it once, it doesn't provide a stream of income, we don't use it to back our currency. So the only real reason to hold it is to later have an intent to sell it. The issue is then when do you sell it and this is where Brown made a mistake as gold later increased in price. However we only know that in hindsight - gold doesn't naturally have to increase in value. You might as well call him an idiot for not moving the money into Apple shares.

I agree. In fact, at the time, interestingly the FT agreed with him at the time - see below. Also, apparently, the Health government also did the same thing:

Gordon Brown and the Gold sell off Myth

Quote:

Between 1970-71 the Bank of England sold nearly half of our gold reserves. Just like the Brown sell-off it was sold at a historic low of about $42.5/oz in October 1971. Only a year later it was worth $65/oz. This was done under the Tories and Edward Heath and had to be a much larger sale and loss as by the time Brown got to it half had already been sold so in effect Brown only sold a quarter of what was originally held in reserve with the Conservative Heath government selling off half.

The FT article:

Britain was right to sell off its pile of gold

Quote:

The continued run of the gold price is a global investment sensation. Recently it broke the $1,500 an ounce barrier for the first time, 30 per cent higher than a year ago. Surely this lays bare the extraordinary foolishness of Gordon Brown’s announcement, 12 years ago this week, that the UK Treasury would sell off some of Britain’s gold holdings?

Actually, no. On this one occasion, Mr Brown’s decision was the right one. Let speculators go gambling on a shiny metal, if they want to. For most governments in rich countries, holding gold remains a largely pointless activity.

With hindsight, of course, Mr Brown could have gained a better price by waiting. At current rates, the $3.5bn the UK received selling bullion between 1999 and 2002 would have been closer to $19bn. The difference at current exchange rates, by the way, would be enough to cover a little over three weeks of the UK’s expected public deficit for the fiscal year 2010-2011 – not negligible, but hardly pivotal.

Mr Brown, his critics say, must be kicking himself. Similarly, the French no doubt still suffer sleepless nights for prematurely taking profit on their Louisiana claim by offloading it to Thomas Jefferson in 1803. And had I put my life savings on Ballabriggs at 20-1 before last month’s Grand National, I’d be writing this on a solid platinum laptop while being sprayed with pink champagne in my new beachfront villa in Barbados.

That is the way of things with speculative assets. The truth is that no one has a good explanation why the gold price is currently where it is. The familiar story – a hedge against inflation or government insolvency – is flatly contradicted by the low yields and inflation expectations in US Treasury bonds. The volatility of gold (and other precious metals – witness the huge drop in silver prices this week) merely underlines the risk of holding it. The $1,500 landmark is a nominal price: had governments listened to the bullion fanatics and loaded up on gold in the last big bull market in the early 1980s, they would still be waiting to earn their money back in real terms.

More substantively, criticism of Mr Brown’s sale also betrays a misunderstanding of why a country such as the UK has gold at all.

In common with most rich nations, the function of British foreign exchange reserves is not for the government to manage wealth on behalf of the country. British citizens do that themselves. The UK does not have a sovereign wealth fund that aims to maximise returns, and nor should it. It is not a big net oil and gas exporter such as Norway – UK net foreign exchange reserves are about $40bn, equivalent to 2 per cent of nominal gross domestic product, while Norway’s sovereign fund has $525bn, equivalent to almost 140 per cent of its GDP.

Nor does the UK pile up foreign assets by persistently selling its own currency to manipulate the exchange rate, as does China. It is notable that the much-vaunted official purchases of gold over the past year are mainly by countries such as China and Russia – and, to a lesser extent, Mexico– with big excess reserves.

UK reserves are there mainly for precautionary reasons – to intervene in currency markets to stop a run on sterling or to pursue monetary policy objectives. Yet gold is badly suited for this task because, despite recent interest from private investors, a large proportion of global above-ground stocks – 18 per cent in 2010 – is still held by governments.

Any attempt to sell off large amounts quickly risks driving down the world price, which is what happened after Mr Brown’s announcement in 1999, leading to an international agreement between central banks to restrict further sales.

A precautionary reserve asset held for intervention purposes whose price is likely to fall the instant it is used to intervene is singularly pointless. Of course, central banks selling into a rising market like today’s may not have the same impact as in 1999, but who knows what demand for gold will be like if and when the intervention is needed?

There remains only one other main reason for governments to hold gold – to set monetary policy by linking the national currency to the gold price. This remains as bad an idea as ever. It would have meant sharply tightening monetary policy since the fall of 2008. This would have been madness.

Private investors, and sovereign wealth funds out to make returns, can punt their money on what they like. If they choose to plonk it down on the blackjack table of the commodity markets, that is their decision. But there is no good reason that governments that hold reserves for purely precautionary purposes should feel the need to follow them.

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35999783)

And what's all this Gordon Brown cobblers got to do with Brexit?

Because it illustrates the lies that underpin this fiasco and how we got here. The nonchalant use of lies to promote arguments has got us in this perilous position. "Gordon Brown sold all the gold", "We can trade tariff free under GATT Article 24 without any EU agreement", etc.

The constant use of this "cobblers" as you put it leaves us where no one believes anyone anymore. A recipe for disaster ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999814)

I agree. In fact, at the time, interestingly the FT agreed with him at the time - see below. Also, apparently, the Health government also did the same thing:

Gordon Brown and the Gold sell off Myth

The FT article:

Britain was right to sell off its pile of gold

Because it illustrates the lies that underpin this fiasco and how we got here. The nonchalant use of lies to promote arguments has got us in this perilous position. "Gordon Brown sold all the gold", "We can trade tariff free under GATT Article 24 without any EU agreement", etc.

The constant use of this "cobblers" as you put it leaves us where no one believes anyone anymore. A recipe for disaster ...

Important to note also that Old Boy's accusation was "which saw Gordon Brown plunder our gold reserves". The reality was that he converted half of the gold reserves into other assets. That's not plundering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999816)

Important to note also that Old Boy's accusation was "Gordon Brown plunder our gold reserves". The reality was that he converted half of the gold reserves into other assets. That's not plundering.

Exactly my point. Reality is so different from the rubbish spouted by the current crop of politicians and swallowed by the gullible.

Here's a topical example. The GATT article 24 lie that Johnson and co are promoting:

Brexit: Carney rejects Boris Johnson's no-deal trade claim

Quote:

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has said that the UK would be hit automatically by tariffs on exports to the EU in a no-deal Brexit, rejecting a claim made by Boris Johnson that this could be avoided.

Tory leadership candidate Johnson said this week that tariffs would not necessarily have to be paid if the UK left the EU without a deal because the UK could rely on article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade (Gatt).

Some Brexit supporters have claimed that the Gatt, a treaty under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), would allow a “standstill” in which tariffs are avoided, even in the absence of any agreement on trade.

Many trade experts say this is not the case without agreement from both sides. Carney cited the head of the WTO and Liam Fox, the minister for international trade who backed the Vote Leave campaign in 2016, to contradict Johnson.

Talking to the BBC, Carney said: “Gatt 24 applies if you have an agreement, not if you’ve decided not to have an agreement or have been unable to come to an agreement.

“Not having an agreement with the EU means that there are tariffs automatically because the Europeans have to apply the same rules to us as they apply to everyone else. If they were to decide not to put in place tariffs they also have to lower their tariffs with the United States, with the rest of the world. And the same would hold for us.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999818)

Like the £350m lie, I'm pretty sure that BoJo and pals know the GATT 24 statement to be one too. its job is to get BoJo into No. 10. After that, he knows that many will have forgotten about it and there will be plenty of scapegoats and dead cats to throw into the mix.

---------- Post added at 12:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

The reality of what's next for Brexit.

Ivan Rogers, the UK's former ambassador to Brussels this week said there are four options open to the next PM:
1) UK leaves on 31 October without a deal.
2) Makes unreasonable demands of the EU as a pretext for calling a general election which would be run on a no-deal platform.
3) Seek another extension in the forlorn hope of discovering a new solution to the Irish border question.
4) et the existing withdrawal agreement through parliament alongside a marginally changed declaration on Britain’s future relations with the EU.

According to the Financial Times

Quote:

Sir Ivan’s options compress into two plausible outcomes: this autumn Britain will suffer either the rupture of a no-deal Brexit in the first two or accusations of betrayal from Leavers with the others.
Even without believing economic forecasts, we know no deal would come at a price. It would bring tariffs on trade with the EU, the administrative burden of customs declarations and infrastructure on the Northern Ireland border. At any time, Brussels could revoke temporary permissions for planes to fly, trucks to drive on the continent and finance to flow.
We do not know how bad short-term disruption might be or the consequences for community relations in Ireland. But adjusting to new trade barriers with the EU would inevitably cause pain in many exposed industries, and this would not be offset by lower trade barriers with the rest of the world.
The alternative of failing to leave on October 31 would anger large sections of society and the Conservative party. Whether a further delay or revocation of Article 50 is caused by parliament, the prime minister or the people, Britain’s relationship with Europe is likely to be a festering sore, not a healing wound. The uncertainty now clouding business decisions would persist for a long time.

https://www.ft.com/content/3f40e4da-...a-60e35ef678d2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35999742)

Are you seriously suggesting that these people had not figured out the narrative behind that question? It is not me being disingenous or duplicitous here, Hugh.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999759)

Vintage OB, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant about Labour!

Vintage maybe, but so true. That one act set the scene for the serious situation we faced when the economic crash came, which led to the austerity. It is important that people remember that, just as it is important to remember that the electorate voted to leave the EU.

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35999781)

well known tory lie

It is not a lie. Are you trying to re-write history? Of course he sold off our gold reserves. Economically, so inept.

---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999814)

I agree. In fact, at the time, interestingly the FT agreed with him at the time - see below. Also, apparently, the Health government also did the same thing:

Gordon Brown and the Gold sell off Myth

The FT article:

Britain was right to sell off its pile of gold

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

Because it illustrates the lies that underpin this fiasco and how we got here. The nonchalant use of lies to promote arguments has got us in this perilous position. "Gordon Brown sold all the gold", "We can trade tariff free under GATT Article 24 without any EU agreement", etc.

The constant use of this "cobblers" as you put it leaves us where no one believes anyone anymore. A recipe for disaster ...

I think you are deliberately ignoring the point that he cashed in the gold and squandered the money. Had he invested it, this debate would not be happening.

As for Article 28, perhaps you need to read this for yourself instead of relying on what the leavers are saying. Of course we need to agree the triggering of Article 28, but given that both sides want a trade deal, there would be no disagreement on both sides agreeing what they wanted from this and setting out the extent of the negotiations that had yet to be carried out. Given that the protection period lasts for up to 10 years, there's plenty of time to sort out the backstop.

Instead of finding imaginary obstacles, surely it would be a better use of this thread to discuss ways in which the decision of the electorate can actually be implemented.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35999816)

He eventually sold all the assets. There was nothing left when the coalition took over in 2010. They said so themselves, just as they did in 1979.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999833)

Are you seriously suggesting that these people had not figured out the narrative behind that question? It is not me being disingenous or duplicitous here, Hugh.

---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Vintage maybe, but so true. That one act set the scene for the serious situation we faced when the economic crash came, which led to the austerity. It is important that people remember that, just as it is important to remember that the electorate voted to leave the EU.

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

It is not a lie. Are you trying to re-write history? Of course he sold off our gold reserves. Economically, so inept.

---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:06 ----------

I think you are deliberately ignoring the point that he cashed in the gold and squandered the money. Had he invested it, this debate would not be happening.

As for Article 28, perhaps you need to read this for yourself instead of relying on what the leavers are saying. Of course we need to agree the triggering of Article 28, but given that both sides want a trade deal, there would be no disagreement on both sides agreeing what they wanted from this and setting out the extent of the negotiations that had yet to be carried out. Given that the protection period lasts for up to 10 years, there's plenty of time to sort out the backstop.

Instead of finding imaginary obstacles, surely it would be a better use of this thread to discuss ways in which the decision of the electorate can actually be implemented.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------

He eventually sold all the assets. There was nothing left when the coalition took over in 2010. They said so themselves, just as they did in 1979.

Yoi say "potato", I say "reality"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999833)

He eventually sold all the assets. There was nothing left when the coalition took over in 2010. They said so themselves, just as they did in 1979.

I'm afraid you're wrong.
1. The gold sale was a move from one asset class to another.
2. It was only half of our gold reserves, not all of them.
3. Liam Byrne wrote the note which was intended to be a joke. He explains so here:

Quote:

And so in my final hours of office, I was writing thank-you notes to my incredible team of civil servants. And then I thought I’d write one letter more to my successor. Into my head came the phrase I’d used to negotiate all those massive savings with my colleagues: “I’m afraid there is no money.” I knew my successor’s job was tough. I guess I wanted to offer them a friendly word on their first day in one of government’s hardest jobs by honouring an old tradition that stretched back to Churchill in the 1930s and the Tory chancellor Reginald Maudling, who bounced down the steps of the Treasury in 1964 to tell Jim Callaghan: “Sorry to leave it in such a mess, old cock.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...neral-election

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35999833)

Instead of finding imaginary obstacles, surely it would be a better use of this thread to discuss ways in which the decision of the electorate can actually be implemented.

Nah. I prefer to stick to facts and live in the real world. Your cartoon-like narrative of "Labour bad, Tory good" is losing its entertainment value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999848)

Nah. I prefer to stick to facts and live in the real world. Your cartoon-like narrative of "Labour bad, Tory good" is losing its entertainment value.

But remember L is for Labour, L is for Lice ;)
https://youtu.be/L8rapth5Cno

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35999848)

Nah. I prefer to stick to facts and live in the real world. Your cartoon-like narrative of "Labour bad, Tory good" is losing its entertainment value.

Indeed. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but not their facts. If we look at table 5 from the ONS we can see that government debt was £1,194.3bn in 2010 or 75.2% of GDP and is currently £1,837.5bn or 86.7% of GDP.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...t/december2018