Post Brexit political issues within the UK

[Boggit]

The markets recovering is good, but there's still a gap between "recovering" and "recovery".

Barclays share and GBP/USD exchange rate.

I never said it wasn't. Give it time, it will recover. No one is saying it's there yet. Give it time.

We are only talking 4 days since the Brexit decision, and yet you are showing the dramatic day 1 drop on the money markets with graphs showing the first 4 days and a 3 month trend graph. Given the mere few days that have elapsed, with the stock markets recovering already I think those graphs are potentially misleading as to the real economy. The underlying economy is much the same as it was last Wednesday. What you are seeing is the fallout to what is a political crisis not an economic one. The markets got it very wrong, and they have panicked. It'll come good when they calm down.

When they realise that this matter creates probably more business opportunities than it destroys you'll see even stronger growth IMO. Brexit is a reality, and the first steps to a negotiated divorce are being mooted. The EU are being bullish at the moment, but I think that will change in their own self interest as much as anything. I seriously think that non EU investors have a lot to gain from a Brexit, to the cost of the EU.

The EU being bullish will do nothing to help EU exports to the UK, other than hardening British attitudes too. That won't help anyone. In the meantime, with the media attention on Brexit, the internal economies of many EU member states continue to decline. What will be the fallout with the almost imminent Greek bailout on the EU, and the likely success of anti-austerity parties in the upcoming Spanish elections, both of which deal with ACTUAL economic crises?

This is a political crisis, now starting the process of resolution. But for the politics, there would be no crisis at all.

[Anguille]

I don't think they are being bullish but if you get out of the EU, GB has to be treated like it. There's no reason why GB should get a special treatement. Like Switzerland, GB will have to make bilateral deals with the EU and this will take time as every deal has to be accepted by all the members of the EU.

I agree with Boggit. The real effects on the economy can be seen only on a long period. The drop is however a sign on the mental impact it has on the Economic and Financial actors.

[Boggit]

it never was going to be the armageddon that was predicted, i hope even the remain camp thought that!

whats pissing me off now is a deliberate attempt by the EU to punish us for leaving, to show an example by way of closed trade and tariffs, to teach all other exit wannabes thats what happens to you for leaving - these are nation states FFS, its not nursery where little jimmy has pushed a sand castle over

I'm going to have to find an automatic +1 button for when you post. Once again Geek states pragmatism, and common sense. O0

I'm not at all convinced that the EU will keep the attitude it is adopting at the very outset of negotiation. They are terrified of giving the citizens of the other member states their say, most likely because with few exceptions they are a house of cards. We could see the iceberg, and when it started to breach the hull as it did a few years back, wanted the chance to get off. Now we are in a lifeboat - ok taking our chances on the open sea - but the EU is sinking. The captains of the EU don't know how to change course, and the pumps cannot cope, so they act in denial. They will have to wake up when the bulk heads rupture.

The simple fact is that the EU will ultimately have to negotiate generously with the EU, whether they like it or not. Trying to be punitive as an object lesson to intimidate other member states who would like to leave shows just how bankrupt in ideas the people who run the EU are. Cooler heads will prevail, and you'll see a different stance within a few months when the time of reactive thinking is over. For the UK, it will be nice to remain cooperative with the EU, but if not so be it. The UK economy represents a huge opportunity to the rest of the world, and they would be utter fools not to exploit that weakness faced by the EU. I don't think the non EU world is populated by fools, but with people who will see opportunity for what it is.

[Boggit]

I don't think they are being bullish but if you get out of the EU, GB has to be treated like it. There's no reason why GB should get a special treatement. Like Switzerland, GB will have to make bilateral deals with the EU and this will take time as every deal has to be accepted by all the members of the EU.

I agree with Boggit. The real effects on the economy can be seen only on a long period. The drop is however a sign on the mental impact it has on the Economic and Financial actors.

I agree. The drop is the shock effect of being very wrong on the minds of the economic and financial actors.

Both sides will do the best they can by themselves. The UK market is much more important to the EU than is Switzerland (and I do not mean that in any derogatory way, merely in terms of the volume of trade). Even the Swiss and Norwegian economies are functioning far better than those of many member states, which says something of itself.

I am sure that if the UK agrees a free trade agreement but refuses to pay tribute, accept an unmodified free movement of people to the EU, they will seriously consider it. It is certainly convenient for the UK to trade with the Eurozone, but trade we will and I doubt very much that any vacuum in the markets will last long. At the end of the day the EU is an inward looking protectionist trade bloc. The UK's future is with free trade, not protectionism.

At the end of the day we have rejected EU membership, so why would we remain de facto members by accepting their internal rules, and paying tribute in exchange for access to their markets? It is not as though the EU is running a trade deficit with the UK, quite the opposite. So I think we can negotiate a unique UK model of relationship with the EU over time. When we do so, I am sure that Canada, Norway, and Switzerland will all want to renegotiate a less one sided agreement with the EU for the benefit of their own citizens, and the EU will have to seriously consider it.

Whether there will be an EU in 10 years time, who knows. They cannot silence the Eurosceptic voices throughout the EU forever, without long term consequences to its future. The EU might well break up some more on a voluntary basis. If some vote to remain, that is for them, but I'd suggest in that scenario the citizens remaining in the EU will at least be those that believe in it.

[ComradeP]

I partly agree with you on the strength of the French catholic right, but they were primarily strong supporters of Sarkozy's Republican Party (the conservative former UMP led by Sarkozy). That doesn't explain why Marine le Pen has got ever increasing support from the French electorate. I think this is a significant response to the failure of mainstream politicians to engage with the concerns of the electorate. Marine le Pen is populist, but isn't the whole issue of populism related to responding to popular demands? It is no accident either that Francois Hollande is at an all time low in voter confidence in the polls.

Can you say with any real confidence that the same principle holds true for similar trends in countries like Austria, Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Spain etc?

One of the difficulties with judging how many people support the Front National, UKIP and similar parties, is determining the number of "true" supporters as opposed to those who vote anti-government. You're right that there are many European countries where mainstream politicians and parties are unpopular. The question is how much support for populists is genuine in the sense that the program of their parties is supported, as opposed to their criticism of the politicians of the (more) mainstream parties.

In the European countries you mention, history has in my opinion made its contribution to the current trends.

In Austria and Germany, denazification after World War II was only partially completed, and with the communists next door there remained a strong conservative powerbase that could be exploited. Whereas Germany had to wait a few decades due to having to shake the mark of having started the war and the crimes committed by the Nazi's, Austria was proclaimed "the first victim" of Hitler which has given the right more room. The FPÖ has been participating with success at the national level for decades, more than German conservative parties who are only now starting to appear. Previously, conservative voters could find a home in the CDU/CSU, but with the current immigration issues that is no longer always the case.

The other countries you mention have limited experience with democracy, and had or have self-serving and corrupt political parties, with various degrees of dislike aimed at them. I don't find it surprising that people look for an alternative as reform within the parties didn't work, particularly in Eastern Europe. In my opinion, the Northwestern European countries having experienced political turmoil during a period when they had a functional democracy made them more resilient to populistic trends until very recently than the countries in the rest of Europe.

Farage is a factor in Brexit, but look at who were actually running the official vote leave campaign. You will see that he ran an alternate leave campaign. The Eurosceptic consensus is a cross party consensus. A vast number of Labour, not UKIP voters voted for leave hence the present crisis for the Labour party. Without massive cross party support for Brexit it would not have happened.

You are attaching far more importance to Nigel Farage and UKIP to the Brexit outcome than you should.

With both the Conservatives and Labour (temporarily) in chaos, Farage is the man we see in Europe. Considering the narrow margin in favour of Leave, I'm sceptical if the current result would've been achieved without the voters he could mobilize.

Immigration in the numbers we have seen, has put a downward pressure on wages. Big business love it, as the workforce costs drop as the result of the oversupply of labour, particularly at the lower skilled end of the workforce. Thus the workforce subsidise their profits. The principle argument by the Leave campaign focuses not so much on present immigration, but on future immigration without any control with regards to the needs of the UK economy. The open door policy is not economically sustainable, given our own unemployment, the pressure of a higher population on schools, hospitals, housing etc, which are all under considerable pressure.

There are fewer jobs for the lower skilled end of the workforce due to how the economy has changed in the last 30-40 years with mines closing, factories moving to low wage countries and computers taking over their jobs. Immigrants create more competition for the remaining jobs, but the changing economy did more to harm lower skilled living standards than immigrants, yet the trend is to blame the immigrants.

You may be right. There is no doubt that voting areas that were net beneficiaries of EU funding voted to remain, and that many areas that voted to Leave have a case to make that their local economies are ignored, both at the UK, but most certainly at the EU level. But economies in the EU don't necessarily improve as the result of membership of the EU. Greece is probably the best example, but >50% youth unemployment in Spain is another good one, that the EU is no silver bullet. I think a lot of people think that given the chance, we will have a brighter future outside of the EU.

Both Greece and Spain suffered heavily due to their own social, political and economical flaws. The EU is not the great equalizer that can nullify all mistakes. I blame the EU for not coming up with a quick and efficient solution to the euro and Greek crisis, but not for the start of the problems in any member states. The Dutch economy also had and has flaws that we paid a price for. Again, the EU didn't cause them. The EU didn't close the mines or factories in England either.

As to the EU attitude: if the EU is weak (again) they will only encourage Farage's counterparts throughout Europe. I'm convinced that if EU referendums would be held across the entirety of the EU, the results might not be appealing to the European Parliament although I don't think many nations will gladly depart. I'm also convinced that the people who vote on those referendums will be heavily influenced by the economic situation in their own country instead of what the EU has done or will do for their countries. Judging by the results seen thus far, it's easy for populists to ride a wave of popular resentment to get the result they want. You can't guarantee people will vote based on their opinion on the actual subject of the referendum.

Less than half of the total UK electorate voted to Leave, but those people formed the majority of the people who did vote on the referendum, leaving others with the feeling that they've been royally had. A similar referendum would be unlikely to improve the tense mood in a number of EU countries with political problems or upcoming elections.

[bayonetbrant]

[Boggit]

One of the difficulties with judging how many people support the Front National, UKIP and similar parties, is determining the number of "true" supporters as opposed to those who vote anti-government. You're right that there are many European countries where mainstream politicians and parties are unpopular. The question is how much support for populists is genuine in the sense that the program of their parties is supported, as opposed to their criticism of the politicians of the (more) mainstream parties.

In the European countries you mention, history has in my opinion made its contribution to the current trends.

In Austria and Germany, denazification after World War II was only partially completed, and with the communists next door there remained a strong conservative powerbase that could be exploited. Whereas Germany had to wait a few decades due to having to shake the mark of having started the war and the crimes committed by the Nazi's, Austria was proclaimed "the first victim" of Hitler which has given the right more room. The FPÖ has been participating with success at the national level for decades, more than German conservative parties who are only now starting to appear. Previously, conservative voters could find a home in the CDU/CSU, but with the current immigration issues that is no longer not always the case.

The other countries you mention have limited experience with democracy, and had or have self-serving and corrupt political parties, with various degrees of dislike aimed at them. I don't find it surprising that people look for an alternative as reform within the parties didn't work, particularly in Eastern Europe. In my opinion, the Northwestern European countries having experienced political turmoil during a period when they had a functional democracy made them more resilient to populistic trends until very recently than the countries in the rest of Europe.

I don't disagree. You make some good points. :)

With both the Conservatives and Labour (temporarily) in chaos, Farage is the man we see in Europe. Considering the narrow margin in favour of Leave, I'm sceptical if the current result would've been achieved without the voters he could mobilize.

At present, I think you overestimate him. He has one seat in Parliament. I agree with you that his party is presently well placed to capitalise on his popularity, but I have my own doubts post Brexit how long his party will survive long term unless they develop appealing policies beyond those tied to a Brexit. UK independence has been the flagship of his party, so it remains to be seen how UKIP will adapt post Brexit.

There are fewer jobs for the lower skilled end of the workforce due to how the economy has changed in the last 30-40 years with mines closing, factories moving to low wage countries and computers taking over their jobs. Immigrants create more competition for the remaining jobs, but the changing economy did more to harm lower skilled living standards than immigrants, yet the trend is to blame the immigrants.

I generally agree with you. But the volume of immigration has increased competition for jobs, driving down wages. It is not the fault of individual migrants per se, it is the global effect. Most people were they in a similar situation, would do exactly the same as the EU migrants. I don't blame them, but understand the effect the phenomenon of mass unrestricted EU migration has had on ordinary people. It hasn't helped them, and they expressed their view on it.

I certainly don't support any of the xenophobic attacks by extreme nationalists on some EU migrants post Brexit. I have spent time today writing to my MP, town councillors and my local paper asking them to publicly reassure EU migrants that they are welcome in the UK, and their rights unaffected. Brexit was never about these people, but in part on the control of future immigration. The migrants who are legally here have every right to be reassured of their rights and right to residency. I am comforted by emails from both Polish and Greek friends that overwhelmingly the British people, many of whom have told them they voted leave, are being supportive towards them.

Both the Greece and Spain suffered heavily due to their own social, political and economical flaws. The EU is not the great equalizer that can nullify all mistakes. I blame the EU for not coming up with a quick and efficient solution to the euro and Greek crisis, but not for the start of the problems in any member states. The Dutch economy also had and has flaws that we paid a price for. Again, the EU didn't cause them. The EU didn't close the mines or factories in England either.

No one is saying that the EU is responsible for pre-existing economic and political conditions. That said they are responsible for failing to apply their own criteria for accession to the Eurozone, and for failing to supply credible leadership in the crises that followed. Moreover, Frau Merkel's unilateral decision (without any other consensus) to open the EU to unrestricted immigration caused chaos and again the EU attempts to manage it were weak and late. The rampant bureaucracy, opaqueness, and perceived corruption in its dealings with big business, has done nothing to improve these economies, or its legitimacy as a good model of government.

As to the EU attitude: if the EU is weak (again) they will only encourage Farage's counterparts throughout Europe. I'm convinced that if EU referendums would be held across the entirety of the EU, the results might not be appealing to the European Parliament although I don't think many nations will gladly depart. I'm also convinced that the people who vote on those referendums will be heavily influenced by the economic situation in their own country instead of what the EU has done or will do for their countries. Judging by the results seen thus far, it's easy for populists to ride a wave of popular resentment to get the result they want. You can't guarantee people will vote based on their opinion on the actual subject of the referendum.

I don't think it was weak to have Brexit. It was a courageous decision that on 72.5% turnout - which is unprecedented in any national election for decades - reflected the general will of the British people. Now we can move on. Even within the Leave campaign there were a lot of people who don't hate Europe, but don't share the federal vision. It's just my opinion, but I think now the genie is out of the bottle, you have to let other nations have their say to determine their future. It doesn't automatically mean that they will leave the EU, though they might. Again it is just my opinion, but I think denying the people of Europe a say in their political future is a moral cowardice.

Like you I am a great believer in European cooperation. I just think the EU is the wrong vehicle to achieve it. It doesn't mean that the same general aims we both have common ground in are doomed simply because the UK and other member states find a looser relationship is more compatible.

As to the guarantee that voters will vote on the actual issue, it's a fair point. That's democracy. Would you rather someone who claims to know better should tell them? That's dictatorship. You have to trust the people and keep your fingers crossed that good sense will prevail. Again that's democracy.

The irony in all this is that we're not too different to the end result, it's just the vehicle we use to get there.

Less than half of the total UK electorate voted to Leave, but those people formed the majority of the people who did vote on the referendum, leaving others with the feeling that they've been royally had. A similar referendum would be unlikely to improve the tense mood in a number of EU countries with political problems or upcoming elections.

Well there was nothing stopping those who didn't vote from voting. The government even extended the voting deadline by a couple of days when the registration website was down for a few hours, meanwhile pummelling the public to vote remain. Even then, this has been on the cards for months, so if someone did not vote they had absolutely no excuse. Seriously? That is a most desperate and weak argument. :(

Your other point regarding tensions in Europe is valid, but we've had just the same here. Have the courage to roll the dice, and respect the decision. We'll all be there the next day, and if we respect the votes we can cooperate. If anything I think the remaining EU will gain prestige from it, and there is no reason for exit member states not to wish to cooperate with each other either. Quite the opposite.

[Boggit]

A free space. Now is Obama's chance to put you in it! Lol! Good luck! >:D

[ComradeP]

Before I forget: good points as always.

I don't think it was weak to have Brexit. It was a courageous decision that on 72.5% turnout - which is unprecedented in any national election for decades - reflected the general will of the British people. Now we can move on. Even within the Leave campaign there were a lot of people who don't hate Europe, but don't share the federal vision. It's just my opinion, but I think now the genie is out of the bottle, you have to let other nations have their say to determine their future. It doesn't automatically mean that they will leave the EU, though they might. Again it is just my opinion, but I think denying the people of Europe a say in their political future is a moral cowardice.

I meant the EU was weak during the euro and Greek crisis, the Brexit being a national UK thing that the EU has no direct influence over.

No one is saying that the EU is responsible for pre-existing economic and political conditions. That said they are responsible for failing to apply their own criteria for accession to the Eurozone, and for failing to supply credible leadership in the crises that followed. Moreover, Frau Merkel's unilateral decision (without any other consensus) to open the EU to unrestricted immigration caused chaos and again the EU attempts to manage it were weak and late. The rampant bureaucracy, opaqueness, and perceived corruption in its dealings with big business, has done nothing to improve these economies, or its legitimacy as a good model of government.

At the time of Merkel's speech about "wir schaffen das", refugees were already pouring into Europe. From my perspective, it was an attempt to make the until that point uncontrolled migration more controlled both by letting immigrants know they would be welcome and prodding the other EU members into action. Before that point, little had happened and Greece was slowly being turned into a 3rd world country under the burden of immigrants coming in.

Well there was nothing stopping those who didn't vote from voting. The government even extended the voting deadline by a couple of days when the registration website was down for a few hours, meanwhile pummelling the public to vote remain. Even then, this has been on the cards for months, so if someone did not vote they had absolutely no excuse. Seriously? That is a most desperate and weak argument. :(

I'm also not sure why it is implied by some of the people who didn't vote that they were somehow limited in their chance to do so, it indeed seems like a desperate argument from the people who suddenly find out they belonged to the Remain camp, but didn't actually vote. Personally, I don't think there's ever a legitimate reason not to vote, either directly or by giving someone permission to vote for you if you're ill or otherwise not physically able to vote. If you don't agree with any political party, you can always make a blank or invalid vote.

[Boggit]

Before I forget: good points as always.

Thank you Pieter. I appreciate the courtesy. :)

I don't think it was weak to have Brexit. It was a courageous decision that on 72.5% turnout - which is unprecedented in any national election for decades - reflected the general will of the British people. Now we can move on. Even within the Leave campaign there were a lot of people who don't hate Europe, but don't share the federal vision. It's just my opinion, but I think now the genie is out of the bottle, you have to let other nations have their say to determine their future. It doesn't automatically mean that they will leave the EU, though they might. Again it is just my opinion, but I think denying the people of Europe a say in their political future is a moral cowardice.

I meant the EU was weak during the euro and Greek crisis, the Brexit being a national UK thing that the EU has no direct influence over.

Fair enough. I may have misinterpreted what you said.

No one is saying that the EU is responsible for pre-existing economic and political conditions. That said they are responsible for failing to apply their own criteria for accession to the Eurozone, and for failing to supply credible leadership in the crises that followed. Moreover, Frau Merkel's unilateral decision (without any other consensus) to open the EU to unrestricted immigration caused chaos and again the EU attempts to manage it were weak and late. The rampant bureaucracy, opaqueness, and perceived corruption in its dealings with big business, has done nothing to improve these economies, or its legitimacy as a good model of government.

At the time of Merkel's speech about "wir schaffen das", refugees were already pouring into Europe. From my perspective, it was an attempt to make the until that point uncontrolled migration more controlled both by letting immigrants know they would be welcome and prodding the other EU members into action. Before that point, little had happened and Greece was slowly being turned into a 3rd world country under the burden of immigrants coming in.

Maybe, but her unilateral action was a red rag to a bull, and compounded the problem. It would have been better just to deport the migrants back to Turkey where they had come from. Save perhaps the Christians and Kurds, where there is evidence that they were unsafe in Turkish camps and were therefore legitimate refugees. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that the Turks were putting their co-religionists in a dangerous situation. Going to Greece, most were no longer refugees, but economic migrants.

Sure there is a valid case for the EU to help Turkey with earmarked financial and practical help, but there was no obligation for the EU to open their doors and precipitate a crisis, which has a good chance of many migrants becoming citizens of the EU rather than eventually return to their country of origin.

The EU had no obligation to these illegal migrants, and in spite of the concerns throughout Europe - not just by the extremists who loved the support they got as a result - these concerns were ignored for a long time. Now the far right can legitimately point to the uncontrolled immigration, the islamisation, the cultural differences leading to the mass sexual assaults an put the blame on the EU.

Of course, the problem is down to the EU in that they failed to robustly deal with the issue at the outset, but tell that to the citizens that have been robbed, raped, or sexually assaulted. We all know about Germany's New Years day, but there are lots of incidents that have been either unreported, or under reported. One of the guys at my local Aldi is from southern Hungary and he was telling me of some horror stories from his village near the border with Serbia a few weeks ago. Of course the media don't report these things unless like in Germany the truth could not be suppressed any more. I'm not surprised that the far right is rising in Hungary, when the government is trying to calm things down and the EU just seems powerless to provide any direction.

Well there was nothing stopping those who didn't vote from voting. The government even extended the voting deadline by a couple of days when the registration website was down for a few hours, meanwhile pummelling the public to vote remain. Even then, this has been on the cards for months, so if someone did not vote they had absolutely no excuse. Seriously? That is a most desperate and weak argument. :(

I'm also not sure why it is implied by some of the people who didn't vote that they were somehow limited in their chance to do so, it indeed seems like a desperate argument from the people who suddenly find out they belonged to the Remain camp, but didn't actually vote. Personally, I don't think there's ever a legitimate reason not to vote, either directly or by giving someone permission to vote for you if you're ill or otherwise not physically able to vote. If you don't agree with any political party, you can always make a blank or invalid vote.

The answer is obvious. Sour grapes... and a heavily biased public media in favour of Remain.

The Remain campaign did not get the result they wanted and have resorted to the most specious arguments in their desperation to try to win allies to overturn the legitimate result. You register to vote once a year, and the voting period was like I said even extended for two days long beyond the actual time their registration servers were down (around 7 hours before cut off), as the government were desperate to get more Remain voters.

I speculate, but I doubt that if many more Leave voters were likely to vote they would have done that.

I share exactly the same view as you regarding the vote. People fought and died so that we could have one. I always vote, even though I live in a Conservative safe seat and will never be represented unless I vote for the incumbent. It is the principle of the thing. You can see why for me, the direct voting system used in the Brexit referendum was so liberating, compared to the sh*t system we usually have to vote under.

[Boggit]

As predicted...
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/684231/FTSE-100-Brexit-stock-market

As ComradeP said, not a "recovery" but "recovering." Please be patient folks. :) In the meantime, it seems that the UK is a good place to invest.

Renault cars have been toying with the idea they will put up prices in the UK. Go ahead. I'm sure the US car makers will be glad to take your market share... Watch out EU, you're not the only player in the world. ^-^

http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?code=8n96iplc

[jomni]

Wonder how those who dump their shares are feeling now?

[Sir Slash]

Just my luck. I invested in 'Remain' Posters futures and England Soccer teams.

[undercovergeek]

Now the fun begins - you have tusk and junker, unelected and accountable to no one banging their fists and demanding punitive deals for the uk and then Germany and France who have to get reelected, because you know, democracy and they have to promise all the wine farmers and car makers they'll have jobs next year saying 'hold on' let's talk nice

Interesting times

[Boggit]

Now the fun begins - you have tusk and junker, unelected and accountable to no one banging their fists and demanding punitive deals for the uk and then Germany and France who have to get reelected, because you know, democracy and they have to promise all the wine farmers and car makers they'll have jobs next year saying 'hold on' let's talk nice

Interesting times

Geek's auto +1 again O0
I think cooler heads will prevail in the interest of all too. The "let's talk nice" is going to be the way it will be despite the initial EU horror. No one in the UK (save perhaps for a small minority of xenophobes who have jumped onto the Brexit bandwagon for their own reasons) wants to be unreasonable with the EU, but the EU must also realise that we've rejected their rules. The door will be open for business. The EU has everything to gain on trade with a reciprocal trade arrangement. While I note that the currency markets are still depressed, the stock market ha now nearly recovered to where it was last week before the referendum. I reiterate the crisis is political not economic, and even that is showing progress towards a resolution.

I was chatting with my local butcher today about post Brexit. He's an Australian, and apparently he's hearing on the Australian grapevine that there is a lot of interest in investment opportunities with the low pound to dollar ratio, supported by the recovering stock market. With the low pound this is great for our exports, but should be a point of interest for foreign investors who will get much more for their investment money re UK stocks. I'd be interested in knowing from our US friends how they see the US benefiting from eventual Brexit. For sure if they don't open their eyes at the opportunities there are others that will. I hope that Europe has a good trading relationship with the UK, but I think the prospect of global trade is even more exciting.