Brexit.

[muppet]

At the moment there is a short-term problem that needs to be addressed quickly.

Cameron doesn't want to invoke article 50 as he wants out before the mess has to be cleaned up.
The Leave campaign doesn't want to invoke article 50 for <insert any reason you can think of>.
The EU needs Britain to invoke article 50 so they can calm the markets and get on with the business of getting back to normal.

The question is can Britain ignore the market and political volatility as long as it seems to want to?

So what happens here?

[seafoid]

I can't understand the DUP. The mock SF as being economically illiterate. They support Brexit which will see the end of the net contribution from Europe to NI with absolutely no idea how that funding can be replaced. They think that an English Government which will be managing Brexit in order to deliver savings is going to hand over this cash instead of investing it in their own country and to benefit their own voters. To cap all of this they believe that having saved the European money, no-one in England is going to question the continued subvention for NI. Not only that if as is likely Brexit results in Scottish Independence the Barnett formula comes in to sharp focus and I'd say NI's share won't be increased!

FT

"The challenge of reworking the UK's relationship with the EU has been made far harder by the process which took the country into this sad pass. The UK is deeply divided. Passions are running high. The mainstream political parties are in disarray. The best the UK can hope for, absent a collective change of mind among voters and a reversal of the referendum decision by parliament, is for a settlement that ends up as near the status quo as possible. "

The UK is a mess. The DUP is particularly vulnerable because its worldview is horseshit.

[Clov]

There's been a constant barrage of comment since ref result and i hate to add to it but this is one of the more interesting pieces i've read on it

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/alan-finlayson/who-won-referendum#.V2-yjDMiXhQ.twitter

[seafoid]

. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8f2aca88-3c51-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html#ixzz4CnH4hDR3
June 27, 2016 2:04 pm
I do not believe that Brexit will happen
Gideon Rachman
All good dramas involve the suspension of disbelief. So it was with Brexit. I went to bed at 4am on Friday depressed that Britain had voted to leave the EU. The following day my gloom only deepened. But then, belatedly, I realised that I have seen this film before. I know how it ends. And it does not end with the UK leaving Europe.
Any long-term observer of the EU should be familiar with the shock referendum result. In 1992 the Danes voted to reject the Maastricht treaty. The Irish voted to reject both the Nice treaty in 2001 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008.
More

And what happened in each case? The EU rolled ever onwards. The Danes and the Irish were granted some concessions by their EU partners. They staged a second referendum. And the second time around they voted to accept the treaty. So why, knowing this history, should anyone believe that Britain's referendum decision is definitive?
It is true that the British case has some novel elements. The UK has voted to leave the EU altogether. It is also a bigger economy than Ireland or Denmark, which changes the psychology of the relationship. And it is certainly true that the main actors in the drama seem to think it is for real. David Cameron, the UK prime minister, announced his resignation following the vote; and Jonathan Hill, Britain's EU commissioner for financial services, has followed suit.

Yet there are already signs that Britain might be heading towards a second referendum rather than the door marked exit. Boris Johnson, a leader of the Leave campaign and Britain's probable next prime minister, hinted at his real thinking back in February, when he said: "There is only one way to get the change we need — and that is to vote to go; because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No."
Having been a journalist in Brussels at the time of the Danish referendum on Maastricht, Mr Johnson is very familiar with the history of second referendums. It is also well known that he was never a diehard Leaver, and hesitated until the last moment before deciding which side to back.
His main goal was almost certainly to become prime minister; campaigning to leave the EU was merely the means to that end. Once Mr Johnson has entered 10 Downing Street, he can reverse his position on the EU.

But would our European partners really be willing to play along? Quite possibly. You could see that in the talk by Wolfgang Schäuble's finance ministry in Germany of negotiating an "associate" membership status for Britain. In reality, the UK already enjoys a form of associate membership since it is not a participant in the EU's single currency or the Schengen passport-free zone. Negotiating some further ways in which the country could distance itself from the hard core of the bloc, while keeping its access to the single market, would merely elaborate on a model that already exists.

And what kind of new concession should be offered? That is easy. What Mr Johnson would need to win a second referendum is an emergency brake on free movement of people, allowing the UK to limit the number of EU nationals moving to Britain if it has surged beyond a certain level.

In retrospect, it was a big mistake on the part of the EU not to give Mr Cameron exactly this concession in his renegotiation of the UK's terms of membership early this year. It was the prime minister's inability to promise that Britain could set an upper limit on immigration that probably ultimately lost him the vote.
Even so, with 48 per cent of voters opting to stay in the union, the result was extremely close. If the Remain campaign could fight a second referendum with a proper answer to the question of immigration it should be able to win fairly easily.
But why should Europe grant Britain any such a concession on free movement? Because, despite all the current irritations, the British are valuable members of the EU. The UK is a big contributor to the budget and it is a serious military and diplomatic power.
Just as it will be painful for the UK to lose access to the EU's internal market, so it will be painful for the EU to lose access to the British labour market. More than 3m EU nationals live and work in Britain, with more than 800,000 from Poland alone.
Agreeing to an emergency brake on free movement of people might mean some modest limits to future migration. But that would surely be better than the much harsher restrictions that could follow a complete British withdrawal from the EU.
Of course, there would be howls of anger on both sides of the Channel if any such deal is struck. The diehard Leavers in Britain would cry betrayal, while the diehard federalists in the European Parliament — who want to punish the UK and press on with "political union" in Europe — will also resist any new offer.
But there is no reason to let the extremists on both sides of the debate dictate how this story has to end. There is a moderate middle in both Britain and Europe that should be capable of finding a deal that keeps the UK inside the EU.
Like all good dramas, the Brexit story has been shocking, dramatic and upsetting. But its ending is not yet written.

[muppet]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-rbs-halts-trading-eu-referendum-brexit-ftse-100-stock-market-a7105196.html

That article says Barclays down 10% today but the market is currently showing 17.35%: https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=barclays+share+price&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=wkpxV5P3M8eSgAbVoLNQ#

RBS down 15% in the article and currently down about 15%: https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=RBS+share+rpice&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=bUtxV_KcJKXQgAaJ1a_YBw#q=RBS+share+price

[whitey]

If the EU had been able to reach some compromise with the UK on immigration, my guess is that the vote would have gone the other way.  Why were they not able to reach an agreement before it got to this point?

(1) Was it  impractical from a legal standpoint?

(2) Did the EU fear other countries would come seeking their own special deals?

(3) Did the EU decide to call the UK's bluff?

[muppet]

If the EU had been able to reach some compromise with the UK on immigration, my guess is that the vote would have gone the other way.  Why were they not able to reach an agreement before it got to this point?

(1) Was it  impractical from a legal standpoint?

(2) Did the EU fear other countries would come seeking their own special deals?

(3) Did the EU decide to call the UK's bluff?

Freedom of movement for EU citizens is a fundamental principle of the EU.

Much of the xenophobic abuse of the last few days appears to have been directed at Poles for reasons that are beyond me.

[muppet]

http://www.oecd.org/economy/oecd-study-finds-britons-will-be-paying-a-heavy-brexit-tax-for-many-years-if-uk-leaves-eu.htm

[seafoid]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-rbs-halts-trading-eu-referendum-brexit-ftse-100-stock-market-a7105196.html

That article says Barclays down 10% today but the market is currently showing 17.35%: https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=barclays+share+price&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=wkpxV5P3M8eSgAbVoLNQ#

RBS down 15% in the article and currently down about 15%: https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=RBS+share+rpice&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=bUtxV_KcJKXQgAaJ1a_YBw#q=RBS+share+price

the sell off of RBS was cancelled
But markets are stupid.
This is senior hurling and there is a lot of stuff going on in the background
Serious money does not care about the will of the people
Say Goldman Sachs has to relocate its London operations. That would bring its RoE down below 10%
How likely is this ? 

[smelmoth]

http://www.oecd.org/economy/oecd-study-finds-britons-will-be-paying-a-heavy-brexit-tax-for-many-years-if-uk-leaves-eu.htm

Won't matter a f**k. The Leave campaign are fessing up to all sorts of lies. You can call them outright liars and they won't contest it. You can call them anything you like as long as you don't call them racists. And of course not all of them are racist. Enough to carry the vote were though

[seafoid]

http://www.oecd.org/economy/oecd-study-finds-britons-will-be-paying-a-heavy-brexit-tax-for-many-years-if-uk-leaves-eu.htm

I wonder how much the collapse of the economic system will cost

[heganboy]

Barclays has lost fully a third of its value from over 30B to 20B, share price tumble from 186- 125 in two days trading...

[seafoid]

Barclays has lost fully a third of its value from over 30B to 20B, share price tumble from 186- 125 in two days trading...

the pound is back to its 1985 value. almost as if Thatcherism had never happened

[Milltown Row2]

Our Southern brethren are concerned over the ref ... It shouldn't impact them as much surely?? More money in the pot?

It will hardly send them back to the last time we were kicked out

[Rossfan]

ISEQ down 10% today.