UK EU Referendum Aftermath

[version]

Is it really a conspiracy theory when they've openly admitted to it and it's been widely reported? You can search 'hedge funds shorting pound brexit' or whatever and get articles from FT, Reuters, Bloomberg, The Telegraph, The Guardian and probably a bunch of others too.

 

[DannyL]

Yeah, but the story I mentioned above is journalists leading with that story and getting it wrong 'cos they don't understand how markets work/the data they are looking at. Adds to my general feel that these are complex phenomena and simple stories don't match the realities In the field.

 

[version]

I haven't read the Byline thing. I'm going on what the hedge funds themselves have declared.

 

[version]

I don't think it's a smoking gun, especially when these things are so easy to get wrong. Have a look at the thread I posted above re. Byline.

What was the gist of the Byline thing? The tweet they were responding to in the thread has been deleted.

 

[IdleRich]

I read something a while back about how the so-called spike in shorting stocks after the Brexit vote was down to the journalists misreading the data, then this went away for a bit but it's come back now, I'm not sure if it's cos of new revelations but it seems to be the same story.
The thing is, when I worked as a trader, short selling was something you could do as a hedge as well as to bet against a security. For example you might be long calls and so you could hedge that by selling the shares but that would in no sense mean that I was hoping that stock went down. So just cos someone is short a security doesn't necessarily mean they want it to go down. You need to know the whole position before you can work out what they hope, and it might even be something weird that they want it to go down and then go up and they stay at the same level for a month or something.
Also, perhaps more importantly, if you're in finance - if you supported Leave or Remain - you're gonna bet against the pound cos it's gonna go down. That's just common sense. The thing that's hard (for me) to swallow and which will be hard to prove, is that Boris Johnson is pursuing this course to illegally further enrich his already rich mates at the risk of fucking up his career, his legacy and so on. I think he's too selfish to do something so risky to benefit other people. What's it supposed to be that he will gain from this?
Again, I could be wrong, I would love it if he could get caught making a promise to someone that he'll fuck up the country so they can get rich but it seems unlikely.

 

[baboon2004]

But what is his career and legacy before this point? It's all vastly unimpressive. He thinks this will be the making of his legend.

So it's the Civil Contingencies Act that is likely to be invoked. Govt creates a riot so that it can pass emergency laws. Apparently on Oct 19 march for people's vote. And then a coup.

This is nuts, and no reason whatsoever to believe it won't be tried

 

[IdleRich]

But what is his career and legacy before this point? It's all vastly unimpressive. He thinks this will be the making of his legend.

So it's the Civil Contingencies Act that is likely to be invoked. Govt creates a riot so that it can pass emergency laws. Apparently on Oct 19 march for people's vote. And then a coup.

This is nuts, and no reason whatsoever to believe it won't be tried

Well they've said they won't do it... but then again he also said that he wouldn't porogue parliament so his word is worthless.

 

[IdleRich]

Well, his career has been unimpressive but now he's prime minister. He has a chance to do almost anything, but in his desperation to Brexit at all costs he's lost loads of votes, lost a court case and is looking useless. I think this Brexit obsession is blowing, or has blown in fact, his chance to be a statesman.

 

[baboon2004]

But I think he'd have floundered without Brexit. He's an incompetent, as shown by his stint as Foreign Secretary - he can only survive in a fevered atmosphere where competence is not required, is not really the issue. Brexit could be cast, among other ways, as a coincidence of his fantasies about Churchill, and his (alleged) mates' wish to make some big money.

 

[baboon2004]

Well they've said they won't do it... but then again he also said that he wouldn't porogue parliament so his word is worthless.

Possible to say that it's more likely it'll happen precisely because they say it won't? The idea of a coup that everyone knows about weeks before the fact, seems bizarrely post-modern though.

 

[DannyL]

What was the gist of the Byline thing? The tweet they were responding to in the thread has been deleted.

I guess it's been deleted 'cos they were embarassed by it? Carole Calldwalldr was retweeting a story from Byline Times which looked at the short positions held "against the pound" by a range of Boris donors and added some huge amount of money. They spelt out the total in words to make it look even bigger. The tweet I posted above which still works to me is a bunch of financial analysts looking at their data they'd used and going "wut?". Apparently they (the Byline journos) just didn't understand the spreadsheet they were looking at. Fuller explanation here - in short, they were looking at the first page of the spreadsheet, and didn't look at the second:
I kinda side with Rich's post above. These things are complicated and people make dicks of themselves make simple morality tales out of them.

On that note, this is worth reading - leading Labout economic commentator getting wrong understanding the basics of money creation. Not that I understood it either, before I read this but I'm not informing policymakers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/france...and-banks-dont-write-about-them/#16eef782e693

 

[IdleRich]

But I think he'd have floundered without Brexit. He's an incompetent, as shown by his stint as Foreign Secretary - he can only survive in a fevered atmosphere where competence is not required, is not really the issue. Brexit could be cast, among other ways, as a coincidence of his fantasies about Churchill, and his (alleged) mates' wish to make some big money.

Well I think that you and I can look at him and think "he's an idiot and he'll fuck up" but I don't think that BJ himself can examine himself with such a clear-eyed vision. I strongly doubt that he was sitting there thinking "Fuck I've ended up as prime minister and I'm manifestly unqualified and incapable, I'd better cause a crisis so I can look as though I'm doing something".

 

[baboon2004]

Definitely it's not that conscious, but he is a narcissist who wants to be remembered, and I think he is - perhaps dimly - aware that he cannot (or lacks the patience/work ethic etc) achieve that through 'normal' means. He loves adoration, so the populist vs parliament angle is perfect for him - he can be a hero to people. Doubt it matters much to him which people those are. Plus, of course, he has exhibited similar opinions to the far right for many years, so it works from that angle too.

I def don't think he's an idiot in an intellectual sense, but I don't think he's suited to the job he's in, or any other political job (even before he judge him as a person). His performances in the Commons have largely been shambolic, and embarrassing for him in any normal circs. He's surviving because this situation is most definitely not normal.

I suppose a distant analogue is the way Corbyn played a blinder during the election campaign in 2017, but was mediocre at the day-to-day business of politics. Johnson takes that logic to its virtual conclusion. Without any distractions, he's a walking disaster of a politician

 

[IdleRich]

It's demagoguery in its purest form. It can only work on people who don't really know what is going on. For instance calling Labour chicken for not calling an election is dishonest, the strategy of waiting for an extension to be confirmed and then calling an election has been clearly explained and makes perfect sense... but that doesn't matter, stupid people who aren't paying attention will swallow it so they keep saying it.

 

[IdleRich]

'And the comeuppance they will get if they defy the electorate will come in the ballot box when we come to a general election.
'So fear nothing that they do, fear nothing of their schemes and strategies, because ultimately we will have a general election and parties that deny democracy get into great trouble when people have the chance to vote.'

Jacob Rees-Mogg predicts a dark future for the party of poroguing during his impotent attack on Bercow at the Tory conference.

 

[IdleRich]

Mr Barclay, in his speech to members at the conference, said: 'Delaying Brexit has come at a cost.
'It has cost us trust in our democracy.
'For those who in good faith at the last general election believed the promises of MPs who said they would honour our vote to leave the EU.
'And it has a massive financial cost - in extra payments to the EU.
'It costs an extra £1 billion in payments to Brussels every month we delay.
'And how much has the delay cost us in lost opportunities?
'The very opportunities which we voted for - to lower living costs by forging new trade deals around the world.'

I just find it staggering that they can still get up on stage and claim people will be better off after Brexit. Shameless lies. I know I should be used to it by now but I never will be.

 

[IdleRich]

Now, as you might have heard, I love the NHS.
And I think the NHS embodies timeless Conservative values:
Patriotism – because we look out for each other in this country.
Global leadership – because in many ways it’s the finest health service in the world.
Public service – because so many people give so much, day in day out, to care for others.
These values are Conservative values, they are British values, and they are the values of the NHS.

Vote conservative for the NHS!

 

[comelately]

So Ireland's fucked then right?

I will give Boris and his acolytes credit; they've done a good job of making Brexiteers into Unionists, whereas before they patently didn't give two shits.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I can't see how this isn't going to mean a return to more or less open warfare in NI.

 

[comelately]

There's a danger that one is seen to condone things by merely talking about them. But the GFA was 1999, and..erm...terrorism has moved on since then.

This is really not good.