New Brexit polls suggest shift in favour of leaving the EU

[Thaiwine]

"Britain is the world’s most vulnerable state on a key measure of short-term debt and credit markets might suddenly seize up if voters opt for Brexit, Standard & Poor’s has warned. The US credit rating agency is crystal clear that Britain will be stripped of its coveted AAA status immediately and may face a double-barrelled downgrade if the country takes a leap in dark, jeopardizing its trading and financial ties to its biggest market.“We are categorical about this,” said Moritz Kraemer, the agency’s head of sovereign ratings".

"the British financial system is extremely dependent on external financing. This is the Achilles Heel for an economy that relies so heavily on the City of London, and has a current account deficit above 5pc of GDP – the highest in Britain’s peace-time history. The level of debt coming due over the next 12 months is 755pc of the country’s external receipts, the highest for all 131 sovereign states rated by S&P. This compares to 318pc for the US and 316pc for France, the next two states most exposed".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/09/brexit-might-trigger-run-on-britains-record-financial-debts-sp-w/

I started to highlight the important parts and then realised there are so many key phrases in it that it's all important - folks should read the above slowly, twice.

I was never a believer in the NWO conspiracy theory, slowly I am starting to believe.

It's nothing to do with the NWO hogwash of course, it's all about paying the piper. I've been harping on about debt and deficit for years yet few seemed to think anything was wrong, if the US can run such a huge deficit then why can't we is what people said. Every month we run a deficit the debt gets accumulated and we have to borrow more, that debt has to be serviced and repaid, that's what the 755% is all about. So when the Chancellor makes cuts to services and benefits and people complain that's nothing more than a reflection of them living a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget, credit cards all maxed out. Successive labour governments are mostly to blame for all of this and now that piper has got one hefty bill that must be paid and it's going to be ugly.

I didn't read your link upon my first reply as I had started to take you comments at face value.

I just opened the link and the second word I read is "might" pfttt I need to take your posts less seriously in the future.

[Caps]

George Osborne and Hilary Benn get a hard time from Andrew Neil

Looking forward to the Farage interview what is on in the UK tonight

[chiang mai]

The Telegraph piece is another example where the Remain camp seize on negative news and highlight only that,

in order to try to gain advantage in this debate. In this instance, Chiang Mai has "cherry-picked" the alarming stuff

to support the contention that Britain will face calamity if it leaves the EU.

In fact, the article itself is reasonably balanced, which a thorough reading of it reveals. Not only does Standard & Poors

use words like "may", "might", and "potentially", which the Remain contingent also frequently use in order to equivocate

all of their doom-laden comments, but it also says the following:

(Note: I have redacted the equivocating comments linked to the quotes below).

"Much of this short-term debt is owed by banks operating in the City, some of them American, Japanese,

European, or Mid-East institutions. In theory, the liabilities are matched by assets and therefore simply

‘net out’ if stress forces banks to shrink their operations

“If there is no currency and maturity mismatch, then there is no big issue.

(Mr Kraemer) said any storm is likely to blow over"

It would seem to me that providing the negotiated terms of Brexit between the British government and the

EU Commission were kept professional and cordial, and if one reads the remainder of the Telegraph piece it

would seem that the EU has every reason not to rock the boat, then the transition will be an orderly one, and

without crisis.

You stopped writing and presumably reading also, too early, I suppose that semi or partial critique of the article suited your purpose at the time, sadly for you there is more! Had you gone on you would have read:

"These sums are very large and have to be rolled over constantly. Nobody has ever hesitated in the past because it was always assumed that Britain is a safe haven and there is no risk,” he said. Mr Kraemer said any storm is likely to blow over but there could be a dramatic impact if capital flight suddenly picks up or large sums switch from London to Dublin or other financial centres. Data from the Bank of England shows that a net £65bn left the country in March and April, the highest since the global financial crisis. "Creditors might decide to rebalance their portfolios until the dust settles. All it takes is a little less money coming in, and a little moving somewhere else, and the implications could be large," he said".

So, Brexit represents a risk, we've seen that already because the 65 bill. was exchanged out of Sterling or out of the UK period whereas the norm would be only about 2 bill! Ergo, creditors (and investors) are now doubtful, in light of the potential move towards Brexit, that the UK continues to be a safe haven.

And now to the words "could" and "might" et al: nobody can see the future hence until an event arrives, it's path and outcome are purely conjecture, therefore, in terms of logic and English language usage those are the correct words, the only words in fact, that can be used.

But don't tell me that you didn't know those things, the attempts to discredit by reviewing half an article negatively is a weak tactic, as is using the terminology to discredit the article and the argument, if that's the best argument you have you need to consider giving up now.

Straws to be grasped at!

[chiang mai]

It's nothing to do with the NWO hogwash of course, it's all about paying the piper. I've been harping on about debt and deficit for years yet few seemed to think anything was wrong, if the US can run such a huge deficit then why can't we is what people said. Every month we run a deficit the debt gets accumulated and we have to borrow more, that debt has to be serviced and repaid, that's what the 755% is all about. So when the Chancellor makes cuts to services and benefits and people complain that's nothing more than a reflection of them living a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget, credit cards all maxed out. Successive labour governments are mostly to blame for all of this and now that piper has got one hefty bill that must be paid and it's going to be ugly.

I didn't read your link upon my first reply as I had started to take you comments at face value.

I just opened the link and the second word I read is "might" pfttt I need to take your posts less seriously in the future.

When you open the link and the second word reads "will", it's far too late and it's game over.

[Thaiwine]

It's nothing to do with the NWO hogwash of course, it's all about paying the piper. I've been harping on about debt and deficit for years yet few seemed to think anything was wrong, if the US can run such a huge deficit then why can't we is what people said. Every month we run a deficit the debt gets accumulated and we have to borrow more, that debt has to be serviced and repaid, that's what the 755% is all about. So when the Chancellor makes cuts to services and benefits and people complain that's nothing more than a reflection of them living a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget, credit cards all maxed out. Successive labour governments are mostly to blame for all of this and now that piper has got one hefty bill that must be paid and it's going to be ugly.

I didn't read your link upon my first reply as I had started to take you comments at face value.

I just opened the link and the second word I read is "might" pfttt I need to take your posts less seriously in the future.

When you open the link and the second word reads "will", it's far too late and it's game over.

The artical is littered with ammunition for both sides should you wish to cherry pick.

[allanos]

The Telegraph piece is another example where the Remain camp seize on negative news and highlight only that,

in order to try to gain advantage in this debate. In this instance, Chiang Mai has "cherry-picked" the alarming stuff

to support the contention that Britain will face calamity if it leaves the EU.

In fact, the article itself is reasonably balanced, which a thorough reading of it reveals. Not only does Standard & Poors

use words like "may", "might", and "potentially", which the Remain contingent also frequently use in order to equivocate

all of their doom-laden comments, but it also says the following:

(Note: I have redacted the equivocating comments linked to the quotes below).

"Much of this short-term debt is owed by banks operating in the City, some of them American, Japanese,

European, or Mid-East institutions. In theory, the liabilities are matched by assets and therefore simply

‘net out’ if stress forces banks to shrink their operations

“If there is no currency and maturity mismatch, then there is no big issue.

(Mr Kraemer) said any storm is likely to blow over"

It would seem to me that providing the negotiated terms of Brexit between the British government and the

EU Commission were kept professional and cordial, and if one reads the remainder of the Telegraph piece it

would seem that the EU has every reason not to rock the boat, then the transition will be an orderly one, and

without crisis.

You stopped writing and presumably reading also, too early, I suppose that semi or partial critique of the article suited your purpose at the time, sadly for you there is more! Had you gone on you would have read:

"These sums are very large and have to be rolled over constantly. Nobody has ever hesitated in the past because it was always assumed that Britain is a safe haven and there is no risk,” he said. Mr Kraemer said any storm is likely to blow over but there could be a dramatic impact if capital flight suddenly picks up or large sums switch from London to Dublin or other financial centres. Data from the Bank of England shows that a net £65bn left the country in March and April, the highest since the global financial crisis. "Creditors might decide to rebalance their portfolios until the dust settles. All it takes is a little less money coming in, and a little moving somewhere else, and the implications could be large," he said".

So, Brexit represents a risk, we've seen that already because the 65 bill. was exchanged out of Sterling or out of the UK period whereas the norm would be only about 2 bill! Ergo, creditors (and investors) are now doubtful, in light of the potential move towards Brexit, that the UK continues to be a safe haven.

And now to the words "could" and "might" et al: nobody can see the future hence until an event arrives, it's path and outcome are purely conjecture, therefore, in terms of logic and English language usage those are the correct words, the only words in fact, that can be used.

But don't tell me that you didn't know those things, the attempts to discredit by reviewing half an article negatively is a weak tactic, as is using the terminology to discredit the article and the argument, if that's the best argument you have you need to consider giving up now.

Straws to be grasped at!

I read the whole of the article.

Now I shall emulate YOUR tactic, and cherry-pick from the words you have written above. Your extracted commentary is laced with the following:

There COULD BE a dramatic impact . . .

IF capital flight picks up . . .

Creditors MIGHT decide . . .

The implications COULD BE large . . .

You have tried to use a certain sophistry regarding this kind of terminology in your argument, but any normal person using sound judgement

would deem this to be the ongoing fear-mongering which the Remain side constantly trots out.

It has long been discredited!

[chiang mai]

You stopped writing and presumably reading also, too early, I suppose that semi or partial critique of the article suited your purpose at the time, sadly for you there is more! Had you gone on you would have read:

"These sums are very large and have to be rolled over constantly. Nobody has ever hesitated in the past because it was always assumed that Britain is a safe haven and there is no risk,” he said. Mr Kraemer said any storm is likely to blow over but there could be a dramatic impact if capital flight suddenly picks up or large sums switch from London to Dublin or other financial centres. Data from the Bank of England shows that a net £65bn left the country in March and April, the highest since the global financial crisis. "Creditors might decide to rebalance their portfolios until the dust settles. All it takes is a little less money coming in, and a little moving somewhere else, and the implications could be large," he said".

So, Brexit represents a risk, we've seen that already because the 65 bill. was exchanged out of Sterling or out of the UK period whereas the norm would be only about 2 bill! Ergo, creditors (and investors) are now doubtful, in light of the potential move towards Brexit, that the UK continues to be a safe haven.

And now to the words "could" and "might" et al: nobody can see the future hence until an event arrives, it's path and outcome are purely conjecture, therefore, in terms of logic and English language usage those are the correct words, the only words in fact, that can be used.

But don't tell me that you didn't know those things, the attempts to discredit by reviewing half an article negatively is a weak tactic, as is using the terminology to discredit the article and the argument, if that's the best argument you have you need to consider giving up now.

Straws to be grasped at!

I read the whole of the article.

Now I shall emulate YOUR tactic, and cherry-pick from the words you have written above. Your extracted commentary is laced with the following:

There COULD BE a dramatic impact . . .

IF capital flight picks up . . .

Creditors MIGHT decide . . .

The implications COULD BE large . . .

You have tried to use a certain sophistry regarding this kind of terminology in your argument, but any normal person using sound judgement

would deem this to be the ongoing fear-mongering which the Remain side constantly trots out.

It has long been discredited!

In terms of quality this "debate" was never going to get very high in the league tables, of late however it's dragging it's sorry arse along the bottom reaching new lows almost daily. If your only arguments are that all the Remain related arguments represent lies and fear mongering and you're reduced to attacking vocabulary and posters, you've already lost, are no longer credible ergo there is no further debate.

[Grouse]

"Britain is the worlds most vulnerable state on a key measure of short-term debt and credit markets might suddenly seize up if voters opt for Brexit, Standard & Poors has warned. The US credit rating agency is crystal clear that Britain will be stripped of its coveted AAA status immediately and may face a double-barrelled downgrade if the country takes a leap in dark, jeopardizing its trading and financial ties to its biggest market.We are categorical about this, said Moritz Kraemer, the agencys head of sovereign ratings".

"the British financial system is extremely dependent on external financing. This is the Achilles Heel for an economy that relies so heavily on the City of London, and has a current account deficit above 5pc of GDP the highest in Britains peace-time history. The level of debt coming due over the next 12 months is 755pc of the countrys external receipts, the highest for all 131 sovereign states rated by S&P. This compares to 318pc for the US and 316pc for France, the next two states most exposed".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/09/brexit-might-trigger-run-on-britains-record-financial-debts-sp-w/

I started to highlight the important parts and then realised there are so many key phrases in it that it's all important - folks should read the above slowly, twice.

Now that is seriously worrying! That's got to be the decider. The situation is just too dangerous to mess about.

While I am more remain than leave (probably 60/40) I find it deeply frustrating that our country is being strong-armed by market makers with vested interests. Are we destined forever to be a timid people, scared of bold moves lest we upset the speculators?

How did we get into such an exposed position? We were not the only country derailed by the 2008 crisis! Chiang Mai? Any comment?

You can dress it up by saying the cause was:

• "2008-13 recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) The recession particularly hit stamp duty (falling house prices) income tax and lower corporation tax.
• These cyclical factors have also exposed an underlying structural deficit. (deficit caused by spending greater than tax, ignoring cyclical factors)
• Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.
• From 2011-2015, the pace of increase in the public sector debt has slowed due to the government attempts to reduce the budget deficit. The government has announced strict spending limits".
• http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Or you can simply say, labour's mismanagement of the public purse.

Thanks for that!

I'm shocked that we're so much worse than everywhere else!

What's to be done? We can grow our way out of that. Print more money? No idea!

[RuamRudy]

Now that is seriously worrying! That's got to be the decider. The situation is just too dangerous to mess about.

While I am more remain than leave (probably 60/40) I find it deeply frustrating that our country is being strong-armed by market makers with vested interests. Are we destined forever to be a timid people, scared of bold moves lest we upset the speculators?

How did we get into such an exposed position? We were not the only country derailed by the 2008 crisis! Chiang Mai? Any comment?

You can dress it up by saying the cause was:

• "2008-13 recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) The recession particularly hit stamp duty (falling house prices) income tax and lower corporation tax.
• These cyclical factors have also exposed an underlying structural deficit. (deficit caused by spending greater than tax, ignoring cyclical factors)
• Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.
• From 2011-2015, the pace of increase in the public sector debt has slowed due to the government attempts to reduce the budget deficit. The government has announced strict spending limits".
• http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Or you can simply say, labour's mismanagement of the public purse.

You mention the recession as being a factor for lower tax receipts, but this Wikipedia article shows that, as a %age of GDP, UK (& EU in general) business taxes fell from 2000 to 2005 so it was the Tories, was it not, who were experimenting with trickle down economics? Is it not as simple as one country creating a 'business friendly' environment so its neighbours have to follow suit or they lose out on investment or even see their industry relocating? And without a global agreement to the contrary, this is a one-way road - no country will unilaterally increase business costs, so the conservative dream of minimal business taxes and the burden of funding the state transferred to the consumer becomes a reality.

Edit: sorry - just realised that Blair was in power in 2000 but he was delivering the Tory dream nonetheless.

[i claudius]

Anybody see Boris getting handbagged by the ladies on the ITV referendum debate? Great fun! Publically debagged and humiliated.

Made me laugh. Can't see him EVER making PM whatever happens

Well i saw it and he didnt get handbagged in my version

[Mosha]

George Osborne and Hilary Benn get a hard time from Andrew Neil

Looking forward to the Farage interview what is on in the UK tonight

Watching Hilary Benn, he's no Tony. I'm reminded of an ITV interviewer. He used to be on TV Sunday lunchtime. He asked a question, and the MP waffled for 10 mins. After which the interviewer said "That was a very good answer, unfortunately that is not the question I asked".

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[Grouse]

Anybody see Boris getting handbagged by the ladies on the ITV referendum debate? Great fun! Publically debagged and humiliated.

Made me laugh. Can't see him EVER making PM whatever happens

Well i saw it and he didnt get handbagged in my version

Have you no sense of humour man?

The ladies ate him alive

He's obviously not used to herding cats!

[chiang mai]

A decent explanation of the debt and how to reduce/eliminate it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/19/how-large-is-the-uks-national-debt-and-why-does-it-matter/

"The Chancellor plans to eliminate the budget deficit in order to start paying down the national debt. The deficit is the amount by which the Government’s spending exceeds its revenues, forcing it to borrow and therefore adding to the national debt. The deficit can be reduced by cutting Government spending, raising revenues, or both.

Another option for Mr Osborne is to inflate away the nation’s debts. By increasing the amount of money in supply, debasing the currency, and in turn stoking inflation, the Government’s debts can be rendered meaningless".

My money's on option two!

[chiang mai]

How did we get into such an exposed position? We were not the only country derailed by the 2008 crisis! Chiang Mai? Any comment?

You can dress it up by saying the cause was:

• "2008-13 recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) The recession particularly hit stamp duty (falling house prices) income tax and lower corporation tax.
• These cyclical factors have also exposed an underlying structural deficit. (deficit caused by spending greater than tax, ignoring cyclical factors)
• Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.
• From 2011-2015, the pace of increase in the public sector debt has slowed due to the government attempts to reduce the budget deficit. The government has announced strict spending limits".
• http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Or you can simply say, labour's mismanagement of the public purse.

You mention the recession as being a factor for lower tax receipts, but this Wikipedia article shows that, as a %age of GDP, UK (& EU in general) business taxes fell from 2000 to 2005 so it was the Tories, was it not, who were experimenting with trickle down economics? Is it not as simple as one country creating a 'business friendly' environment so its neighbours have to follow suit or they lose out on investment or even see their industry relocating? And without a global agreement to the contrary, this is a one-way road - no country will unilaterally increase business costs, so the conservative dream of minimal business taxes and the burden of funding the state transferred to the consumer becomes a reality.

Edit: sorry - just realised that Blair was in power in 2000 but he was delivering the Tory dream nonetheless.

Delivering Tory dreams perhaps, practising fiscal prudence definitely not. One of the big problems of that period, despite overspending and not tackling the structural issues such as pensions and benefits is that Labour actually went the other way and increased benefits and handouts. So when Treasury finally handed over to the Coalition and famously left that note saying that there was nothing left, they'd spent it all, what they omitted was to say, and then some!

I don't believe it is as simple as creating a business (finance) friendly environment alone, in this day and age it seems to be more about what a country is a part of and what's the added value that country can bring. Anybody can be price competitive, adding significant value is something else entirely and being a part of the EU is part of that equation, independence is not prized in this equation, it's actually, I think, a hindrance and the international banks are an example of that.

[allanos]

How did we get into such an exposed position? We were not the only country derailed by the 2008 crisis! Chiang Mai? Any comment?

You can dress it up by saying the cause was:

• "2008-13 recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) The recession particularly hit stamp duty (falling house prices) income tax and lower corporation tax.
• These cyclical factors have also exposed an underlying structural deficit. (deficit caused by spending greater than tax, ignoring cyclical factors)
• Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.
• From 2011-2015, the pace of increase in the public sector debt has slowed due to the government attempts to reduce the budget deficit. The government has announced strict spending limits".
• http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Or you can simply say, labour's mismanagement of the public purse.

You mention the recession as being a factor for lower tax receipts, but this Wikipedia article shows that, as a %age of GDP, UK (& EU in general) business taxes fell from 2000 to 2005 so it was the Tories, was it not, who were experimenting with trickle down economics? Is it not as simple as one country creating a 'business friendly' environment so its neighbours have to follow suit or they lose out on investment or even see their industry relocating? And without a global agreement to the contrary, this is a one-way road - no country will unilaterally increase business costs, so the conservative dream of minimal business taxes and the burden of funding the state transferred to the consumer becomes a reality.

Edit: sorry - just realised that Blair was in power in 2000 but he was delivering the Tory dream nonetheless.

Delivering Tory dreams perhaps, practising fiscal prudence definitely not. One of the big problems of that period, despite overspending and not tackling the structural issues such as pensions and benefits is that Labour actually went the other way and increased benefits and handouts. So when Treasury finally handed over to the Coalition and famously left that note saying that there was nothing left, they'd spent it all, what they omitted was to say, and then some!

I don't believe it is as simple as creating a business (finance) friendly environment alone, in this day and age it seems to be more about what a country is a part of and what's the added value that country can bring. Anybody can be price competitive, adding significant value is something else entirely and being a part of the EU is part of that equation, independence is not prized in this equation, it's actually, I think, a hindrance and the international banks are an example of that.

I liked and "liked" this post. The second paragraph is well-reasoned, whether it is correct or not. For myself, I would add the "rider" that it is what the UK is "part of" which is the problem for Brexiteers. They do not like some the new "rules" which have been implemented since they originally joined this club and they like the projected and impending "rules" even less. They also believe that they are pretty powerless to temper or modify the "offending" rules going forward. Thus, they see Brexit as the lesser of two evils.

Clearly, Britain has much to thank its erstwhile membership of the European Union for, and can continue to "borrow" from the best of the EU's

decisions in future, but that does not mean that it needs to be joined at the hip, like a "Siamese" twin. Exiting the EU it not simply a matter of

economics; there are fundamental values at stake, which the Brexit camp believe, on balance, are possibly more important.

[Humberstone]

I’ve got a slightly detached view of this as I don’t currently live in the UK. That being said, I’ve been trying to follow the ‘debate’ on the pros and cons of Brexit as much as I can and based on this have not been able to see the Brexit camp offer up any credible arguments for leaving the EU.

The big mistake from both sides (Brexit and Remain) is the hectoring, preachy and downright dishonest claims made – this is an insult to the intelligence of the voters.

To me voting Brexit would be utterly bonkers.

[evadgib]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/JFt-pRIvL9E?&rel=0

and here's the one to which he refers:

https://www.brexitthemovie.com

[wooloomooloo]

To me voting Brexit would be utterly bonkers.

What's your reason?

[Thaiwine]

The Labour party is on the ropes, It would seem Labour voters favour Brexit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36496203

The tide is turning in favour of Brexit.

[chiang mai]

The Labour party is on the ropes, It would seem Labour voters favour Brexit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36496203

The tide is turning in favour of Brexit.

"Turning tides", "Labour voters favours Brexit", what are you imbibing this PM:

Whilst two renegades defy the party mantra, "Labour's leadership is campaigning to stay in the EU" (Remain) "and says Labour votes will be crucial in the referendum".

[Grouse]

Ive got a slightly detached view of this as I dont currently live in the UK. That being said, Ive been trying to follow the debate on the pros and cons of Brexit as much as I can and based on this have not been able to see the Brexit camp offer up any credible arguments for leaving the EU.

The big mistake from both sides (Brexit and Remain) is the hectoring, preachy and downright dishonest claims made this is an insult to the intelligence of the voters.

To me voting Brexit would be utterly bonkers.

Bonkers! Well said!

[Grouse]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/JFt-pRIvL9E?&rel=0

and here's the one to which he refers:

https://www.brexitthemovie.com

Two large buckets of bullshit

We've been there done that!

Anything new to contribute?

No?

[Thaiwine]

The Labour party is on the ropes, It would seem Labour voters favour Brexit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36496203

The tide is turning in favour of Brexit.

"Turning tides", "Labour voters favours Brexit", what are you imbibing this PM:

Whilst two renegades defy the party mantra, "Labour's leadership is campaigning to stay in the EU" (Remain) "and says Labour votes will be crucial in the referendum".

It follows comments by shadow home secretary Mr Burnham, who told BBC Two's Newsnight the party had failed to reach out to traditional Labour voters.

"We have definitely been far too much Hampstead and not enough Hull in recent times and we need to change that. Here we are two weeks away from the very real prospect that Britain will vote for isolation," he told BBC Two's Newsnight.

[Thaiwine]

Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham warned there was a "very real prospect" of Brexit.

[Grouse]

The Labour party is on the ropes, It would seem Labour voters favour Brexit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36496203

The tide is turning in favour of Brexit.

"Turning tides", "Labour voters favours Brexit", what are you imbibing this PM:

Whilst two renegades defy the party mantra, "Labour's leadership is campaigning to stay in the EU" (Remain) "and says Labour votes will be crucial in the referendum".

It follows comments by shadow home secretary Mr Burnham, who told BBC Two's Newsnight the party had failed to reach out to traditional Labour voters.

"We have definitely been far too much Hampstead and not enough Hull in recent times and we need to change that. Here we are two weeks away from the very real prospect that Britain will vote for isolation," he told BBC Two's Newsnight.

I'm inclined to agree. The Islington types will be pro EU, but I think in 'Ull and Bra'ford you'll find the traditional labour voter will be a Brexiteer won't they, Nontabury? Eh? There's nowt as queer as folk.

I'll be voting in a Rotherham suburb and I'll bet I'm the only Remain voter. Sad but true. Shifted my capital into USD, as I am worried now. ?

[Grouse]

How did we get into such an exposed position? We were not the only country derailed by the 2008 crisis! Chiang Mai? Any comment?

You can dress it up by saying the cause was:

• "2008-13 recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) The recession particularly hit stamp duty (falling house prices) income tax and lower corporation tax.
• These cyclical factors have also exposed an underlying structural deficit. (deficit caused by spending greater than tax, ignoring cyclical factors)
• Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.
• From 2011-2015, the pace of increase in the public sector debt has slowed due to the government attempts to reduce the budget deficit. The government has announced strict spending limits".
• http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Or you can simply say, labour's mismanagement of the public purse.

You mention the recession as being a factor for lower tax receipts, but this Wikipedia article shows that, as a %age of GDP, UK (& EU in general) business taxes fell from 2000 to 2005 so it was the Tories, was it not, who were experimenting with trickle down economics? Is it not as simple as one country creating a 'business friendly' environment so its neighbours have to follow suit or they lose out on investment or even see their industry relocating? And without a global agreement to the contrary, this is a one-way road - no country will unilaterally increase business costs, so the conservative dream of minimal business taxes and the burden of funding the state transferred to the consumer becomes a reality.

Edit: sorry - just realised that Blair was in power in 2000 but he was delivering the Tory dream nonetheless.

Delivering Tory dreams perhaps, practising fiscal prudence definitely not. One of the big problems of that period, despite overspending and not tackling the structural issues such as pensions and benefits is that Labour actually went the other way and increased benefits and handouts. So when Treasury finally handed over to the Coalition and famously left that note saying that there was nothing left, they'd spent it all, what they omitted was to say, and then some!

I don't believe it is as simple as creating a business (finance) friendly environment alone, in this day and age it seems to be more about what a country is a part of and what's the added value that country can bring. Anybody can be price competitive, adding significant value is something else entirely and being a part of the EU is part of that equation, independence is not prized in this equation, it's actually, I think, a hindrance and the international banks are an example of that.

I liked and "liked" this post. The second paragraph is well-reasoned, whether it is correct or not. For myself, I would add the "rider" that it is what the UK is "part of" which is the problem for Brexiteers. They do not like some the new "rules" which have been implemented since they originally joined this club and they like the projected and impending "rules" even less. They also believe that they are pretty powerless to temper or modify the "offending" rules going forward. Thus, they see Brexit as the lesser of two evils.

Clearly, Britain has much to thank its erstwhile membership of the European Union for, and can continue to "borrow" from the best of the EU's
decisions in future, but that does not mean that it needs to be joined at the hip, like a "Siamese" twin. Exiting the EU it not simply a matter of
economics; there are fundamental values at stake, which the Brexit camp believe, on balance, are possibly more important.

Erstwhile? That's a bit premature!

[nontabury]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/JFt-pRIvL9E?&rel=0

and here's the one to which he refers:

https://www.brexitthemovie.com

Two large buckets of bullshit

We've been there done that!

Anything new to contribute?

No?

That's the thing. You have side stepped answering Briexit the Movie,just as you have failed to accept facts that go against your views.

[nontabury]

Ive got a slightly detached view of this as I dont currently live in the UK. That being said, Ive been trying to follow the debate on the pros and cons of Brexit as much as I can and based on this have not been able to see the Brexit camp offer up any credible arguments for leaving the EU.

The big mistake from both sides (Brexit and Remain) is the hectoring, preachy and downright dishonest claims made this is an insult to the intelligence of the voters.

To me voting Brexit would be utterly bonkers.

Have you read up on all the facts and opinions,then if you have done so and that is your decisions. OK.

However I wonder if you've read to many of the scare stories spouted out by the remain side.

[chiang mai]

The Labour party is on the ropes, It would seem Labour voters favour Brexit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36496203

The tide is turning in favour of Brexit.

"Turning tides", "Labour voters favours Brexit", what are you imbibing this PM:

Whilst two renegades defy the party mantra, "Labour's leadership is campaigning to stay in the EU" (Remain) "and says Labour votes will be crucial in the referendum".

It follows comments by shadow home secretary Mr Burnham, who told BBC Two's Newsnight the party had failed to reach out to traditional Labour voters.

"We have definitely been far too much Hampstead and not enough Hull in recent times and we need to change that. Here we are two weeks away from the very real prospect that Britain will vote for isolation," he told BBC Two's Newsnight.

"not enough Hull", you are joking of course?

The Deputy Prime Minister of the UK for nine years under Labour lived in Hull and still does so today, we've all had far too much of John Prescott and of Hull thank you and yes, I am a Yorkshireman!

[Thaiwine]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473534

Quote:

MP after MP has returned to Westminster with depressing tales from their home turf; of door-knocking in staunchly Labour areas where apathy towards the EU question has given way to rank hostility. One former minister contacted dozens of local Labour councillors urging them to mobilise behind the Remain campaign. To the MP's fury, the appeal elicited one single reply.

End of Quote:

ROFL