RayC

And assuming that they do, you would agree that they should be helped?

Wow .... the Americans were also in on this Franco/ German conspiracy to subjugate the UK! Given this evil empire's combined economic and military might we did well to resist it. Can't say that I have noticed it myself, although I was out of the country for +/-25 years so it must have happened while I was away. Given that the EU is nothing but bad in your eyes, I'd have thought that you would want their Brit-hating laws off the stature book asap?

I totally agree????

Presumably you understand that? I certainly don't.

Is it too much to hope that in the capital city of a G7 nation the number of people sleeping rough and/or having to resort to food banks would be decreasing rather than increasing. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64799232.amp https://www.statista.com/statistics/382731/london-foodbank-users/

I don't suppose you'd care to elaborate?

The Supreme Court ruled that a bill authorising the serving of Article 50 had to be presented to Parliament. This bill passed through parliament and Article 50 was served on 27 March 2017. Given that Theresa May had said in October 2016 that she intended to serve Article 50 in the first quarter of 2017, it is clear that the Supreme Court's decision had no effect on timescales. ... or perhaps they voted against the various proposals because they didn't think that it would be a good deal for the UK. What's passed up to now suggests that they have a point. (For information, a private member's bill proposing a second referendum did not get a second reading) Anyway, wasn't it a Brexiter argument that the UK parliament should be sovereign? Isn't this an example of that principle?

Yet again, a Brexiter refuses to take responsibility and accountability for a situation of their making. Having served Article 50, the UK would have left the EU on the first anniversary of this date by default with no deal and it was completely within the UK government's power to have done just that. The EU, the UK parliament or any other group of remainers could not have prevented this happening (which is what you are implying). There is no one to blame for the current situation other than successive Tory governments.

And from the same link: " ... EU laws pass through several stages of negotiations in the Council and the European Parliament. So the UK government’s ability to influence policies doesn’t only occur through voting—which is a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ situation—but also in negotiations over the actual text of a draft law. Many accounts have shown that the UK diplomatic service has—at least historically—been very skilled in such negotiations over important laws. Second, the records only relate to votes on proposed laws that eventually pass ... " and does not include those which do not pass or fail to reach the 'voting' stage. Is it a surprise that in an multi-national organisation, there are occasions where an individual country's interests do not align with a majority of the other members'? An individual member state cannot expect to get its' own way all the time; compromise is sometimes necessary. Which begs what is, the more pertinent question: 'Are we better off in or out of the EU?'. Eight years after the referendum, and three years since we officially left, there is little to indicate that being out of the EU has been beneficial.

I quoted your post in full, so I can hardly be accused of not taking it into account! In any event, it's hardly my fault if the phrasing of your posts is ambiguous.

There is another category. In 2016, I had been resident in Belgium for 17 years. I was therefore ineligible to vote in the referendum despite it (potentially) directly affecting my day-to-day life more than 99% of the electorate. Am I bitter? Absolutely; especially as this issue would have been simple to fix.

Your original post: "No they haven't. I'm in UK now. Things looking OK. Can't see any evidence of destruction." I would suggest that the sentence "Things looking OK." is fairly categoric rather than comparative, even within the context of the whole paragraph.

I didn't claim that it equaled "destruction". I was taking issue with your description that, "Things (are) looking ok".

Maybe where you are but not in parts of South London. Increased numbers of people sleeping rough and more food banks doesn't indicate that things are ok.

It's an illusion. Outside of the EU, the UK has little influence on the world stage. Biden shoehorning a 20-minute meeting with Sunak between landing and going off to the pub showed what importance the US now attaches to the UK. Unless you want to condemn the UK to economic decline, it will need to trade with the rest of the world. Contrary to what Michael Gove said in 2016, the UK does not hold all the cards: If we want trade deals with the US, India and China, the UK will have to play by their rules. The Brexit negotiations with the EU have shown that.

Surely there must be, at least, one MP who is courageous enough to put their political career at risk by tabling an 'Early Day Motion' on this subject? It's an outrage that such critical matters haven't been debated in Parliament.

Hardly (low risk(-free) strategy which is what is needed for a rainy day contingency fund. In any event not everyone has this level of knowledge about - or interest in - the financial markets. We both seem entrenched in our positions and neither of us seems able to convince the other with our respective argument, so I'm going to bow out of this exchange.

Then you are in the minority in being able to time the market (almost) to perfection.

You would have prepared for 5% interest rates at any point in time since 2010 (and presumably kept your money in an instant access/fixed rate short-term notice account)? If so, then you would have cost yourself an awful lot of money: £10k invested in an FTSE-Worldwide tracker fund would be worth +/-£40k now. What would the bank account be worth? £12k if you were lucky. No doubt some people are spendthrift and some others do not plan or budget for unforeseen events, but you and others seem to suggest that all those now experiencing financial difficulty fall into this bracket. I disagree. This comment could equally be directed at the government. Perhaps this is the reason why the local election results were so bad for the Tories? (Mods: Back on topic????) (See my second comment above)

Please refrain from introducing logic into the argument.

The reasons are explained if you read the complete (BBC) article.

And no doubt there were people in 2010, 2011 .... 2018 who were arguing the exact same thing when, in fact, interest (mortgage) rates either decreased or remained at the same level. What does "living within one's means" mean? Would you have considered an individual who budgeted for a 50% rise in mortgage rates and 5% inflation for other goods and services in 2019 reckless (and living outside their means)? I wouldn't have but, unfortunately, individuals who made similar provisions 18 months ago may well now be facing financial difficulty.

Don't waste your time trying to understand the incomprehensible (Note to self: Take your own advice)

I agree that allowing some contingency for rate rises is prudent but why 3% and not 2% or 4%? It is an arbitrary figure. Given that the trend in mortgage rates has been downwards since 1990 there was little indication that rates would rise so high, so quickly. As I said previously, no one foresaw that mortgage rates would rise by 75%+ within 18 months. Tying up 3% of one's capital in contingency (+/-£4kpa on a £250k mortgage@6%) has an opportunity cost; that money could be invested elsewhere.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/mortgage-rate Even taking your figure of 6.3% that amounts to a +/-75% rise. My point about it being unreasonable to criticise people for not planning for increases of that magnitude remains valid.