[swang]

I really have no idea bout UK/British politics even though I worked/lived in Europe so...

Can someone explain this part of Brexit. Nigel Farage resigns in July 2016 after he wins the vote. Why? Says he did "his job" and didn't want to be a career politician (according to Wiki)

Then earlier this month he stepped back in as party leader of UKIP after his replacement was forced(?) out/unable to garner support? Did he just get bored and want his job back? Seems like he has ample time to fly over to the States to pump up Trump.

What I'm trying to get at is this whole Brexit triggered a huge depression in the value of the Pound. Yet the Conservatives and UKIP are still in power? Or can no one do anything until the next general elections?

[mseebach]

> Can someone explain this part of Brexit. Nigel Farage resigns in July 2016 after he wins the vote. Why? Says he did "his job" and didn't want to be a career politician (according to Wiki)

UKIP is a single-issue party. It rarely happens for single issue parties, but, well, they won - not "to within a reasonable approximation" or whatever copout one might come up with, they won flat out. The dog caught the tail. Nobody knows what's next; this part was never in the script. There's a chance UKIP will morph into conservatives-in-the-north (where, for context, the Conservative party hasn't really been competitive for a couple of decades mostly because of the Thatcher legacy, but UKIP actually is), but I honestly wouldn't bet on it. They're simply not wired for being a 'real' party.

[agd]

UKIP are not in power and have never been. They have 1 MP out of 650.

In answer to your wider point, I think you're reducing the problem to the value of the pound when there are many more factors at play ('sovereignty', border controls, democracy etc). Plus, many people viewed sterling as overvalued so a fall might not be too bad a thing.

It might be that, in time, the negative economic consequences of Brexit affect the Conservatives in the polls but it's too early for that.

[masklinn]

> Can someone explain this part of Brexit. Nigel Farage resigns in July 2016 after he wins the vote. Why? Says he did "his job" and didn't want to be a career politician (according to Wiki)

> Then earlier this month he stepped back in as party leader of UKIP after his replacement was forced(?) out/unable to garner support?

He didn't want to be the one holding the bag once brexit had passed, so he skipped town for a while, let others handle the early fallout then came back fresh as a rose with little to no blame.

The man's a shit-weasel.

[mcjiggerlog]

Well at the moment we don't really have a well-organised/stable opposition party and the Conservatives are given a pretty free ride by the press. The Conservatives are currently polling at 47% so as you can tell, most people are not too up in arms about the whole situation.

As for Farage - I don't think anyone really understands his actions or motivations - I wouldn't put too much thought into it.

[dx034]

Regarding your last point: A depreciation of the currency is generally positive for a country. Expensive imports give incentive to use local products (e.g. food), at the same time exports become more competitive. That is the reason why the US accused China of keeping it's currency weak for years. It's the volatility in the exchange rate which makes it harder for companies to plan reliably, but most will profit from the new level (except airlines).

So while there will be some inflation (estimated at 3% at the moment), the economy profits from the exchange rate movements. The underlying problem is that the GBP lost value because of the uncertainty, and this uncertainty is not good for the economy. However, people voted for Brexit and a lot of them are happy with the result. So this uncertainty won't necessarily lead to less consumption. Current economic data looks better than what was anticipated before.

So as long as people are happy with the current situation and the outlook, the economy could actually profit from the vote in the short term. The longer term is of course very dependent on the deal that the UK will get.

Regarding your other points: A lot of promises were made in the campaign that are completely unrealistic (£200mln a week for the NHS). Not being part of the government makes it easier to ignore those promises. Boris is probably one of the only ones who could face questions at some point, in case the deal isn't as great as he believes.

As Conservatives are already in favour of a hard Brexit, it's hard for UKIP to get many voters in that space and to gain more seats in the next election. Farage saw the chance to sell the vote as his win (although he wasn't even part of the official campaign) without having to implement any of the consequences. The party is an absolute mess. They don't seem to have a lot of competent people, so Farage basically had to take over again. I don't think he planned that. Especially as they'll have to find a motto now. Their purpose was to get the UK out of the EU. With that done, the question is why people should vote for them.

[vidarh]

> So as long as people are happy with the current situation and the outlook, the economy could actually profit from the vote in the short term.

We'll see over Christmas, as the Christmas shopping is now the first time that people will really feel the rising prices. Given that more Leave voters regret their vote than Remain voters already, it'll be interesting to see polls in Jan/Feb as well.

> (£200mln a week for the NHS). Not being part of the government makes it easier to ignore those promises.

They're now faced with a letter from 40 MPs asking them to either honour the 350m/week (not 200) or explain why several Tory cabinet members misled the public during the campaign. Of course they'll do neither but that isn't the purpose either - the purpose is press. But given that a number of Leave campaigners are part of the goverment you can expect the next two years to consist of a constant stream of attempts to embarrass them over those claims...

> As Conservatives are already in favour of a hard Brexit

Some are. At least on the surface. May has a small enough majority that it is very possible she'd face rebellion over that. But then again, May presided over the Home Office for 6 years and talked up being tough on immigration and achieved pretty much nothing - quite possibly on purpose - so I'm not so convinced that she actually wants hard Brexit, but is using the same tactics of talking up how hardline she'll be to the public and pursue a softer line. Of course the problem with that this time is that her counterparts in Europe are hearing all of this too.

[dx034]

> They're now faced with a letter from 40 MPs asking them to either honour the 350m/week (not 200) or explain why several Tory cabinet members misled the public during the campaign.

You're right, the number was even higher. But I think it's clear to everyone that the NHS will never see that money. And most newspapers are still in favour of Brexit and won't remind politicians of that promise.

> Some are. At least on the surface. May has a small enough majority that it is very possible she'd face rebellion over that. But then again, May presided over the Home Office for 6 years and talked up being tough on immigration and achieved pretty much nothing - quite possibly on purpose - so I'm not so convinced that she actually wants hard Brexit, but is using the same tactics of talking up how hardline she'll be to the public and pursue a softer line. Of course the problem with that this time is that her counterparts in Europe are hearing all of this too.

I agree, don't think either that May really wants a hard Brexit. But it makes her popular with the people. Don't think her strategy will pay off. In the end there will always be a parliament in the EU blocking any Brexit deal that would give sth away to the UK. Belgium has shown that nicely with CETA.

[guitarbill]

> Regarding your last point: A depreciation of the currency is generally positive for a country. Expensive imports give incentive to use local products (e.g. food), at the same time exports become more competitive.

This is true, however a problem is when you cannot substitute expensive imports with local products. Two obvious examples: Cars and computers.

Many computers are priced in USD, so after Brexit many IT departments found they could only buy 9 servers with a budget that was supposed to cover 10 (this happened to us).

> However, people voted for Brexit and a lot of them are happy with the result. So this uncertainty won't necessarily lead to less consumption.

A lot of them are also very unhappy, it being so close and all. Completely anecdotal, but out of an office of ~60, 2 senior and 2 junior programmers decided to leave the UK post-Brexit. I think brain-drain and it's effects is much harder to predict, but quite damaging in the long run.

[lmm]

> Then earlier this month he stepped back in as party leader of UKIP after his replacement was forced(?) out/unable to garner support?

Wasn't there some scandal around his replacement (rumours of a punch-up)? There's also the possibility that this was his plan all along.

> What I'm trying to get at is this whole Brexit triggered a huge depression in the value of the Pound. Yet the Conservatives and UKIP are still in power? Or can no one do anything until the next general elections?

Remember that the public voted for it in a referendum - the Conservative government was opposed, at least officially.

[gadders]

UKIP aren't in power. They have one MP who is an ex-Conservative.

Fluctuations in the value of the pound don't normally bring down governments.

[karmacoda]

Re. Farage - George Costanza: "Leave on a high note."