[cherdano]

Here are some possible trade partnerships the next US president could pursue to improve:
- EU
- China
- Other developing countries in East Asia
- Industrial nations on the other side of the Pacific
- Africa
- Latin America
- Somehow hoping that more trade with Russia will help improve the overall mess that Putin created
- UK

I am on the other side of the Atlantic since 4 years ago, so maybe you are in a better position to prioritise/ze this queue than I am... but I would be surprised if you put the UK near the top (And I didn't even mention middle east, nor the fact that there might be little sense in negotiating with a country that might be about to split up.)

[1eyedjack]

Well perhaps you could employ separate teams of negotiators to pursue deals in parallel? Then there would be no need to prioritise.

Regardless of where UK stands in the list I doubt that those who stand second to bottom or third to bottom will be all that chuffed to learn that no-one will speak to them before all the rest have been resolved.

[cherdano]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-June-19, 15:20, said:

Well perhaps you could employ separate teams of negotiators to pursue deals in parallel? Then there would be no need to prioritise.

The bottleneck is not the team of negotiators. The bottleneck is that every deal has to go through Congress. A Congress that is not eager to approve trade deals for now.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-June-19, 15:16, said:

Here are some possible trade partnerships the next US president could pursue to improve:
- EU
- China
- Other developing countries in East Asia
- Industrial nations on the other side of the Pacific
- Africa
- Latin America
- Somehow hoping that more trade with Russia will help improve the overall mess that Putin created
- UK

I am on the other side of the Atlantic since 4 years ago, so maybe you are in a better position to prioritise/ze this queue than I am... but I would be surprised if you put the UK near the top (And I didn't even mention middle east, nor the fact that there might be little sense in negotiating with a country that might be about to split up.)

I would expect/hope that if the vote goes for the Leaves, sorting through the turmoil would receive very high priority. There was a piece in WaPo about the magnitude of inveestment by the US in the UK and the investment by the UK in the US and other related matters. I won't dwell on my lack of expertise here but it is significant. Still, it seems obvious to me that if the vote is to leave, there will be a lot of things to sort out.

I am claiming that "a lot of things to sort out' is the sensible way to frame this. I have no idea what the result will be. But there will be work to be done and I think that is the way to phrase it. It is obviously true, and it carries no hint of a threat.

Oh damn, I violated my Kenexit pledge. Can't help myself.

[shyams]

http://www.breitbart...mp-white-house/

Five Reasons Brexit could signal Trump win?!!
Normally, headlines like the one above would put me off reading the whole article. However, this one is attributed to Katty Kay, a BBC journalist who has a reputation of being a thoughtful and analytical journalist. So I thought, let's post it here....

In the article, Katty says "... the [Brexit] result could give us some indication of how Americans will vote in November" and goes on to list the five reasons that will influence the voting patterns as:

• Angry electorate
  
• Globalisation
  
• Immigration
  
• Lost pride
  
• Populism

[1eyedjack]

One of the aspects of the campaign, by both sides, which has perplexed me is the transparency of the lies that have been peddled. It is was bad enough to get the figures wrong in the first place, but then to continue to bang on about them after they have been resoundingly debunked struck me as incredibly self-damaging to their respective causes.

My point being that there was really no need to over-egg the pudding quite so much. If you get away with it, fine, but the damage from being exposed more than compensates for any possible benefit, and the inevitability of exposure is predictable when you exaggerate by such a large margin.

Take, for example the Brexit comment that we pay £350m per week to Brussels. They conveniently omitted that about half of that comes straight back to us. In that omission, they completely decimate their credibility, leaving the voter wondering whether there is any point believing anything that they say. Had they restricted their claim to saying that we pay net £160m to Brussels (or whatever the correct figure is), it would have drawn the teeth from their adversaries at day one, and probably would not have had any less impact on the voter than the original £350m claim (had it been left unchallenged). £160m per week? £350m per week? Do you think that the average voter has any concept of either amount of money? Harping on about £160m per week would have had only minor reduced impact, and certainly less of a negative impact than having £350m claim demolished and then, despite that comprehensive demolition, continuing to run with it.

The Bremainers have perhaps learned that lesson in part. Having come up with a figure of each household being £4300 pa worse off if we exit, they had the decency to crawl back under their eurorock after the absurdity was exposed (for the most part - although George Osborne stood by the figure in a TV interview recently).

[helene_t]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-June-22, 01:34, said:

One of the aspects of the campaign, by both sides, which has perplexed me is the transparency of the lies that have been peddled.

Transparency depends on the audience.

If your audience is Murdoc newspaper readers then you may get away with saying that the Moon is made of green cheese. Besides, what is the point of telling the truth if the media will claim that you are lying anyway?

And the number of The Independent readers who have not already made their mind up is too small to worry about.

Also, if you have by accident told a half-truth (I don't know the history of the 350 M/weak and the 4000/year claims but I can imagine that neither were conceived as deliberate lies) then it is maybe better tactic to stick to it than to admit that it was a half-truth.

[cherdano]

 helene_t, on 2016-June-22, 03:03, said:

Also, if you have by accident told a half-truth (I don't know the history of the 350 M/weak and the 4000/year claims but I can imagine that neither were conceived as deliberate lies) then it is maybe better tactic to stick to it than to admit that it was a half-truth.

I think you are too generous. The 350M/weak figure does not even include the famous UK discount. It seems hard to imagine that someone even remotely interested in politics and the EU versus the UK would not know about that.

[PeterAlan]

 cherdano, on 2016-June-22, 03:13, said:

 helene_t, on 2016-June-22, 03:03, said:

Also, if you have by accident told a half-truth (I don't know the history of the 350 M/weak and the 4000/year claims but I can imagine that neither were conceived as deliberate lies) then it is maybe better tactic to stick to it than to admit that it was a half-truth.

I think you are too generous. The 350M/weak figure does not even include the famous UK discount. It seems hard to imagine that someone even remotely interested in politics and the EU versus the UK would not know about that.

I agree. I have no doubt at all that the £350 million amount was deliberately put forward by people who knew full well that it was effectively a lie, on the cynical basis that if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough then a fair number of people will believe you. They also reckon that it has a substantial "dog whistle" appeal to their target voting audience. These reasons are why they have continued to use it all the way through the campaign, despite its comprehensive debunking. Similarly, their presentation of the immigration issue has been deceitful and calculated to pander to xeno-, islamo- and a whole range of racist and other phobias.

I despise such cynicism in political campaigning, and it is a major reason why I have no time at all for the Leave campaign. Theirs has been Project Cynical Deceit.

Peter

[1eyedjack]

 PeterAlan, on 2016-June-22, 04:41, said:

I agree. I have no doubt at all that the £350 million amount was deliberately put forward by people who knew full well that it was effectively a lie, on the cynical basis that if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough then a fair number of people will believe you. They also reckon that it has a substantial "dog whistle" appeal to their target voting audience.

This still does not, to my mind, address the point that I raised.
They had effectively two choices:. They could peddle a mythical £350m or they could peddle a factual £160m. In choosing the higher figure over the lower figure they expose themselves to being debunked, but presumably consider that risk (or should I say certain negative impact) to have a lesser effect than the marginal additional impact of persuading the electorate of the higher figure over that of the lower figure. My argument (pure speculation) is that much of the effect of their case would have been achieved by peddling £160m, so that the marginal benefit of peddling the higher fictitious figure £350m is slight. It is that marginal benefit that is eroded by having the higher fraudulent claim exposed, and I am just surprised that (if it is the case), that marginal benefit exceeds the cost.

[PeterAlan]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-June-22, 05:14, said:

 PeterAlan, on 2016-June-22, 04:41, said:

I agree. I have no doubt at all that the £350 million amount was deliberately put forward by people who knew full well that it was effectively a lie, on the cynical basis that if you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough then a fair number of people will believe you. They also reckon that it has a substantial "dog whistle" appeal to their target voting audience.

This still does not, to my mind, address the point that I raised.
They had effectively two choices:. They could peddle a mythical £350m or they could peddle a factual £160m. In choosing the higher figure over the lower figure they expose themselves to being debunked, but presumably consider that risk (or should I say certain negative impact) to have a lesser effect than the marginal additional impact of persuading the electorate of the higher figure over that of the lower figure. My argument (pure speculation) is that much of the effect of their case would have been achieved by peddling £160m, so that the marginal benefit of peddling the higher fictitious figure £350m is slight. It is that marginal benefit that is eroded by having the higher fraudulent claim exposed, and I am just surprised that (if it is the case), that marginal benefit exceeds the cost.

I wasn't trying to address your point, but in general I agree with you. Just guessing now (I can't face researching the issue), but it might well be that some of the Leave group (eg UKIP) had been peddling the £350m figure for some time before the referendum, and they didn't want to use the true figure of £160m or so in the campaign because they'd then have to answer questions about why the number had been downgraded.

[kenberg]

Regrettably, whether we are speaking of the US or the UK or probably most other places, people who have a modest but legitimate point to make often make a hash of it by jazzing it up to far more than will stand up to scrutiny. After which the discussion moves to "Liar,liar pants on fire" and nothing good comes of it. We are masters of this art over here.

Good luck tomorrow.

[Zelandakh]

 PeterAlan, on 2016-June-22, 05:46, said:

Just guessing now (I can't face researching the issue), but it might well be that some of the Leave group (eg UKIP) had been peddling the £350m figure for some time before the referendum,

This is absolutely the origin. UKIP were always quite open about not including the rebate in their figures when challenged on the subject but had the standard follow-up line that the rebate came "with strings attached" and that it was therefore wrong to state only the net figure.

[Vampyr]

 helene_t, on 2016-June-22, 03:03, said:

And the number of The Independent readers who have not already made their mind up is too small to worry about.

Yes, very small, given the non-existence of The Independent.

They do have an online presence, and their position is to remain, but I think that most people still get their news from a print edition.

[shyams]

OK, here is a digression from the discussion on political/economic "justifications" to a "what-if" discussion.

Financial markets have priced in ‘Remain’ outcome in Brexit vote – but what if they are wrong?
Link here: (click)

The authors are making a very valid point, viz the financial markets have (erroneously) overpriced the likelihood of Remain. The markets' move to an eventual ‘Remain’ result is likely to be positive but muted. Whereas, if the eventual vote is 'Leave', the markets are likely to crash like crazy!

As per the article, "... estimates of a rally in sterling to $1.50 if we stay (ie, up 3 cents), while a fall to $1.20 if we leave (down 27 cents from a current $1.47).”

Interesting! Hopefully, we won't uncover that financial markets have got it wrong.

[shyams]

Fortunately, all opinion polls indicate that Remain is likely to be the outcome of today's referendum (which reminds me, I still have to vote!)

I found this particular snippet very interesting! From the Guardian (see update of 12:04pm)

Quote

Most of the key figures in the campaign, including David Cameron, Michael Gove, Jeremy Corbyn, Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage cast their votes early. As he left a polling station in Islington, Corbyn said: “The bookies usually get it right [but] they got it wrong on me big time last year, didn’t they?”

Is he suggesting that deep inside he wishes that the Leave campaign wins? His own vote is obviously secret, but I have a sneaky feeling he voted "Leave"


Edit: Demarcated the Guardian quote clearly from my own comment

[cherdano]

Betfair predicts about a 55%-45% win for Remain, but still about a 12% chance for Leave to win. Quite the uncertainty!

[Winstonm]

Has rampant nationalism ever worked out well?

[shyams]

Absolutely crazy movements in the FX markets today (GBP:USD). And there have been nearly zero indications of how voting is actually progressing (although a couple of "informed" opinion pollsters say Remain has grown its lead).

Another developing news (an attack on a German cinema complex) could also heighten uncertainty in the voting outcomes.

Looks like a crazy roller-coaster evening/night coming up.

[shyams]

 shyams, on 2016-June-23, 08:54, said:

Absolutely crazy movements in the FX markets today (GBP:USD). And there have been nearly zero indications of how voting is actually progressing (although a couple of "informed" opinion pollsters say Remain has grown its lead).

Another developing news (an attack on a German cinema complex) could also heighten uncertainty in the voting outcomes.

Looks like a crazy roller-coaster evening/night coming up.

More indications of potential stress in the financial markets:

* Swiss bank UBS, another of the big six lenders that dominate the $5 trillion a day currency market, warned clients earlier this week it may fail to execute some orders on its electronic trading platform should the referendum affect liquidity or cause extreme volatility.
* A note to clients from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, the currency market's fifth largest player, warned of a number of service disruptions. "BofAML's electronic trading platforms have volatility controls that may temporarily suspend execution and price streaming in response to rapid and adverse market movements," the communication said.
* Reuters reports that Barclays has killed all stop loss orders in its system and won't allow new ones to be placed.