Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And your point is? By the way have we had the recession or the emergency budget yet from our "i am going to stay on " PM. The sun still rose this morning and I will bet my life on it it will still do so tomorrow All the statements from both sides show is that most politicians talk crap " The lie that Cameron made is the one thing that we should all be grateful for. He said that Article 50 would be immediately invoked following a Brexit vote. The reason that we did not immediately have a recession is because Article 50 wasn't invoked. The reason that there was no emergency budget is because that this would also have stymied the economy and as Cameron had tended his resignation and there was no immediate prospect of Article 50 being invoked, Osborne just abandoned his pledge to balance the budget by 2020. The actiobns of Osborne & Cameron postponed the need for a Brexit budget and we won't know anything about a recession until we know what Brexit looks like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And your point is? By the way have we had the recession or the emergency budget yet from our "i am going to stay on " PM. The sun still rose this morning and I will bet my life on it it will still do so tomorrow All the statements from both sides show is that most politicians talk crap The lie that Cameron made is the one thing that we should all be grateful for. He said that Article 50 would be immediately invoked following a Brexit vote. The reason that we did not immediately have a recession is because Article 50 wasn't invoked. The reason that there was no emergency budget is because that this would also have stymied the economy and as Cameron had tended his resignation and there was no immediate prospect of Article 50 being invoked, Osborne just abandoned his pledge to balance the budget by 2020. The actiobns of Osborne & Cameron postponed the need for a Brexit budget and we won't know anything about a recession until we know what Brexit looks like. " . This is of course opinion and not fact! We should try to be clear between opinion and facts..... Like trace gases of c02 causing a heating effect... That's a fucking fact, scientifically proven in a laboratory, now that fact may not suit your bias but there you go!!. So there's a reasonable chance that markets have settled until whatever brexit means is stipulated.... Nobody actually knows what will happen afterwards but experts will go with a 70/30 that things might be worse off  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And your point is? By the way have we had the recession or the emergency budget yet from our "i am going to stay on " PM. The sun still rose this morning and I will bet my life on it it will still do so tomorrow All the statements from both sides show is that most politicians talk crap The lie that Cameron made is the one thing that we should all be grateful for. He said that Article 50 would be immediately invoked following a Brexit vote. The reason that we did not immediately have a recession is because Article 50 wasn't invoked. The reason that there was no emergency budget is because that this would also have stymied the economy and as Cameron had tended his resignation and there was no immediate prospect of Article 50 being invoked, Osborne just abandoned his pledge to balance the budget by 2020. The actiobns of Osborne & Cameron postponed the need for a Brexit budget and we won't know anything about a recession until we know what Brexit looks like. . This is of course opinion and not fact! We should try to be clear between opinion and facts..... Like trace gases of c02 causing a heating effect... That's a fucking fact, scientifically proven in a laboratory, now that fact may not suit your bias but there you go!!. So there's a reasonable chance that markets have settled until whatever brexit means is stipulated.... Nobody actually knows what will happen afterwards but experts will go with a 70/30 that things might be worse off "Except there are no 'experts' in a Brexit situation. No one has experienced it before. And one has to note that all the 'experts' who 'forecast' calamity in the IMMEDIATE aftermath (not on the triggering of Article 50) of the vote have been proved totally wrong. So I suspect that the longer term 'forecasts' are as equally flawed. Its sad that some folks like the OP cannot just accept we are where we are and we can only trust the data of real events. And all that data has been far more positive than expected let alone 'forecast'. And in the case of the FTSEs where the REAL money goes its at a year long high. So for investors, companies and their employees the Brexit vote has had a very welcome and beneficial effect. I suspect exporters are rather grateful as well. Also given the latest trade figures are now swinging back in our favour with a massively reduced trade deficit and Government deficits being reduced the country as a whole is now having to borrow less as well. But maybe that is seen by some as a bad thing ..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"................ The reason that we did not immediately have a recession is because Article 50 wasn't invoked. The reason that there was no emergency budget is because that this would also have stymied the economy and as Cameron had tended his resignation and there was no immediate prospect of Article 50 being invoked, Osborne just abandoned his pledge to balance the budget by 2020. The actions of Osborne & Cameron postponed the need for a Brexit budget and we won't know anything about a recession until we know what Brexit looks like. ............ This is of course opinion and not fact! We should try to be clear between opinion and facts..... Like trace gases of c02 causing a heating effect... That's a fucking fact, scientifically proven in a laboratory, now that fact may not suit your bias but there you go!!. So there's a reasonable chance that markets have settled until whatever brexit means is stipulated.... Nobody actually knows what will happen afterwards but experts will go with a 70/30 that things might be worse off "Why have you brought up the global warming scam? No one had mentioned the bullshit science and opinion of CO2 (not c02) until you decided to mention it 
As for MY points about a recession being avoided because Article 50 was not immediately triggered. What on earth do you think would have happened had Article 50 been invoked at the end of June? The emergency budget was entirely dependant on Article 50 being triggered and as it wasn't, there was no need for a budget.
The terms of Brexit will eventually have to be disclosed and if those terms are going to reflect badly on the UK economy then of course there will have to be a compensatory budget and any slow down, recession or other nightmare scenario that follows will depend on the terms of Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh God ... snipped - much typical Leavers aggressive ranting FOR GOD'S SAKE .... "The almost 50% of Remain voters will not go away. They will ensure that the UK is not sold down the river for the sake of populist politics. There are no simple solutions - albeit there appear to be simple solutions for some simple people as was made apparent in June. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And your point is? By the way have we had the recession or the emergency budget yet from our "i am going to stay on " PM. The sun still rose this morning and I will bet my life on it it will still do so tomorrow All the statements from both sides show is that most politicians talk crap The lie that Cameron made is the one thing that we should all be grateful for. He said that Article 50 would be immediately invoked following a Brexit vote. The reason that we did not immediately have a recession is because Article 50 wasn't invoked. The reason that there was no emergency budget is because that this would also have stymied the economy and as Cameron had tended his resignation and there was no immediate prospect of Article 50 being invoked, Osborne just abandoned his pledge to balance the budget by 2020. The actiobns of Osborne & Cameron postponed the need for a Brexit budget and we won't know anything about a recession until we know what Brexit looks like. " Not one of the remain side ever mentioned the armageddon we would face 'when article 50 is invoked'... they all said "if we vote leave today, thus is what will happen tomorrow"... So then, total and utter bollocks by the remainers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh God ... snipped - much typical Leavers aggressive ranting FOR GOD'S SAKE ....
The almost 50% of Remain voters will not go away. They will ensure that the UK is not sold down the river for the sake of populist politics.
There are no simple solutions - albeit there appear to be simple solutions for some simple people as was made apparent in June."Simple Solution for 48% of the voters apparently... Simpletons who want a simple life, who want to take the simple option of having the EU set the UK's agenda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh God ... snipped - much typical Leavers aggressive ranting FOR GOD'S SAKE ....
The almost 50% of Remain voters will not go away. They will ensure that the UK is not sold down the river for the sake of populist politics.
There are no simple solutions - albeit there appear to be simple solutions for some simple people as was made apparent in June."Oh I see. Someone asks a series of challenging questions of nyou and your allegations and you call it 'aggressive ranting'. Hmmmm
I may be 'simple' as you crudely put it ( so I will record it alongside racist, xenophobe, uneducated, ill-informed etc etc..) but there is a 'simple' rule: There is no such thing as a daft question. Only daft answers. And you just proved that rule without even answering anything ...
One day you Lefties and Remoaners will realise the more you resort to personal abuse, misinformation and downright stupidity in the face of factual challenges the more you look the sad, angry and disaffected people you are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just like the way that people try to deny the 350 million claim was ever put up there.. like it was front and centre... oh... by the way... whatever happened to that bloody big battlebus!!!!! "Well Fabio we have already had you calling me a liar and then spouting 'misinformation' straight after on another Thread so your accuracy isn't all that which is a shame because you normally talk sense.. Now lets be very clear shall we? Personally I would not have used the £350 Mn a week figure. It IS accurate but opponents can 'play games' with it. I always used the £13 Bn average figure with which you agreed at the time as I recall. The publicity given out said 'we could' not 'we will'. And that was absolutely truthful. For the simple reason that if we did nothing else with our EU TOTAL money budget we could indeed plough £350 Mn a week into the NHS. Again on a personal opinion note I think it would be a waste of good money as, much as I admire the NHS, it is a hugely wasteful organisation as the Public Accounts Committee Chairwoman frequently reports and has done today. The publicity also said 'we could' do a lot of other things with our EU money but that didn't get reported so much. Like helping our Fishermen and women rebuild their fleets. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just like the way that people try to deny the 350 million claim was ever put up there.. like it was front and centre... oh... by the way... whatever happened to that bloody big battlebus!!!!! "If you can post a link to any interview where a leave campaigner said they WOULD spend it all on nhs i would be grateful because im sure i only ever heard anyone say tat they COULD | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just like the way that people try to deny the 350 million claim was ever put up there.. like it was front and centre... oh... by the way... whatever happened to that bloody big battlebus!!!!!
If you can post a link to any interview where a leave campaigner said they WOULD spend it all on nhs i would be grateful because im sure i only ever heard anyone say tat they COULD"cool.... asterix politics!!!! well we could* spend it on the NHS.... or we could* just blow the whole lot on lottery and eurolottery tickets...... but since the pledge was they you would* cover all the farming and fishing subsidies.... the 350 million* could* never have happened by the way do we know how much of the savings* are going on the NHS yet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just like the way that people try to deny the 350 million claim was ever put up there.. like it was front and centre... oh... by the way... whatever happened to that bloody big battlebus!!!!!
If you can post a link to any interview where a leave campaigner said they WOULD spend it all on nhs i would be grateful because im sure i only ever heard anyone say tat they COULD
cool.... asterix politics!!!!
well we could* spend it on the NHS.... or we could* just blow the whole lot on lottery and eurolottery tickets......
but since the pledge was they you would* cover all the farming and fishing subsidies.... the 350 million* could* never have happened
by the way do we know how much of the savings* are going on the NHS yet? "The point is remoaners keep on harking on about a pledge that was never made However even if we comitted to spendin the same amount as the rebate on exactly the same things it gives us 160m a week i dont see why a good portion of that cant go on the nhs though i personally believe the nhs problems will not be solved by money alone | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And your point is? By the way have we had the recession or the emergency budget yet from our "i am going to stay on " PM. The sun still rose this morning and I will bet my life on it it will still do so tomorrow All the statements from both sides show is that most politicians talk crap " We never had Camerons world war 3 either, just a load of lies and bollocks put out by project Fear and the Remain campaign. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh God ... snipped - much typical Leavers aggressive ranting FOR GOD'S SAKE ....
The almost 50% of Remain voters will not go away. They will ensure that the UK is not sold down the river for the sake of populist politics.
There are no simple solutions - albeit there appear to be simple solutions for some simple people as was made apparent in June."If Brexit were to cause any long term problems, it seems odd that it is not being reflected in the performance of the stock market. Companies such as JCB have no regrets about the result. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now lets be very clear shall we? Personally I would not have used the £350 Mn a week figure. It IS accurate but opponents can 'play games' with it. The publicity given out said 'we could' not 'we will'. And that was absolutely truthful. For the simple reason that if we did nothing else with our EU TOTAL money budget we could indeed plough £350 Mn a week into the NHS. " Thing is we never had a £350 million per week figure to start with as the rebate is deducted from our total EU "bill" before we even paid anything. Then deduct the approximate 4.5 billion per year the UK economy benefited from by payments from the EU to farmers and poorer areas of the UK plus over another billion a year to research grants in the private sector all of a sudden we're a fucking million miles away from paying £350 million a week to the EU. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now lets be very clear shall we? Personally I would not have used the £350 Mn a week figure. It IS accurate but opponents can 'play games' with it. The publicity given out said 'we could' not 'we will'. And that was absolutely truthful. For the simple reason that if we did nothing else with our EU TOTAL money budget we could indeed plough £350 Mn a week into the NHS. Thing is we never had a £350 million per week figure to start with as the rebate is deducted from our total EU "bill" before we even paid anything. Then deduct the approximate 4.5 billion per year the UK economy benefited from by payments from the EU to farmers and poorer areas of the UK plus over another billion a year to research grants in the private sector all of a sudden we're a fucking million miles away from paying £350 million a week to the EU. " Be very careful as some of us do know the real numbers. The 6 year annual average figures for the costs of belonging to the EU to 2016 were as follows: Our Gross liability as charged by the EU was: £16.9 Bn Our Rebate was: £3.8 Bn Our Nett payments to the EU were: £13.1 Bn EU CAP payments were: £3.1 Bn EU Fisheries payments were: £0.3 Bn EU Research and Horizon202 were: £0.7 Bn. The 2 things that you seem to have forgotten are that 1) the 27 countries of the EU can change our rebate at any time by changing the rules and assessments and 2) the money the 'EU' spends in the UK is of course UK money recycled back to us. So the 'Budget' the UK had to use is the gross figure of £16.9 Bn or £325 Mn a week. Recognise that number? And THAT is the Budget the Treasury works to every year. The simple fact is that just taking the cash figure alone means we have control over £13.1 Bn a year MORE than we did in the EU. A control that means we can spend it as we wish on what we wish when we wish for the sole benefit of the British people. That will do for me ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Now lets be very clear shall we? Personally I would not have used the £350 Mn a week figure. It IS accurate but opponents can 'play games' with it. The publicity given out said 'we could' not 'we will'. And that was absolutely truthful. For the simple reason that if we did nothing else with our EU TOTAL money budget we could indeed plough £350 Mn a week into the NHS. Thing is we never had a £350 million per week figure to start with as the rebate is deducted from our total EU "bill" before we even paid anything. Then deduct the approximate 4.5 billion per year the UK economy benefited from by payments from the EU to farmers and poorer areas of the UK plus over another billion a year to research grants in the private sector all of a sudden we're a fucking million miles away from paying £350 million a week to the EU. Be very careful as some of us do know the real numbers. The 6 year annual average figures for the costs of belonging to the EU to 2016 were as follows: Our Gross liability as charged by the EU was: £16.9 Bn Our Rebate was: £3.8 Bn Our Nett payments to the EU were: £13.1 Bn EU CAP payments were: £3.1 Bn EU Fisheries payments were: £0.3 Bn EU Research and Horizon202 were: £0.7 Bn. The 2 things that you seem to have forgotten are that 1) the 27 countries of the EU can change our rebate at any time by changing the rules and assessments and 2) the money the 'EU' spends in the UK is of course UK money recycled back to us. So the 'Budget' the UK had to use is the gross figure of £16.9 Bn or £325 Mn a week. Recognise that number? And THAT is the Budget the Treasury works to every year. The simple fact is that just taking the cash figure alone means we have control over £13.1 Bn a year MORE than we did in the EU. A control that means we can spend it as we wish on what we wish when we wish for the sole benefit of the British people. That will do for me ..." I don't need to be very careful at all, my figures are taken from https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ *looks over shoulder* *shrugs* just pointing out that no matter which way its painted, spun, stretched, disfigured, the £350m million a week that was banged on about by brexit side to death was incorrect | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why are remainers looking for excuses as to why they lost and still don't understand the reasons? The thing is it doesn't matter what was painted on a bus, it doesn't matter what was said by either side of the campaign, the decision to leave the EU was made the day the referendum was announced, the only thing that surprised me was that the vote was anywhere near as close as it was, so having said that, maybe project fear did influence some of the weaker minded people. What the EU and political elite do not understand is that you cannot dictate to people who do not want to be dictated to and this will become even more evident over the next few years as more countries vote to leave. The EU will fall as all empires fall, (which is basically what they are trying to create) because they have over reached themselves, going from a trading bloc to trying to affect every aspect of peoples lives and the people have had enough. Ramble over "I think the majority for Leave would have been a lot higher if it wasn't for the tragic death of MP Jo Cox. Her death may have swung a few percentage points back over to the Remainers side with the sympathy vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think the majority for Leave would have been a lot higher if it wasn't for the tragic death of MP Jo Cox. Her death may have swung a few percentage points back over to the Remainers side with the sympathy vote. " The way her tragic death was used by the remain side was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in politics in this country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think the majority for Leave would have been a lot higher if it wasn't for the tragic death of MP Jo Cox. Her death may have swung a few percentage points back over to the Remainers side with the sympathy vote. The way her tragic death was used by the remain side was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in politics in this country " Well said  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i just like the way that people try to deny the 350 million claim was ever put up there.. like it was front and centre... oh... by the way... whatever happened to that bloody big battlebus!!!!!
If you can post a link to any interview where a leave campaigner said they WOULD spend it all on nhs i would be grateful because im sure i only ever heard anyone say tat they COULD
cool.... asterix politics!!!!
well we could* spend it on the NHS.... or we could* just blow the whole lot on lottery and eurolottery tickets......
but since the pledge was they you would* cover all the farming and fishing subsidies.... the 350 million* could* never have happened
by the way do we know how much of the savings* are going on the NHS yet? "I thought the most recent news was about the £20bn of savings the NHS was going to have to make? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think the majority for Leave would have been a lot higher if it wasn't for the tragic death of MP Jo Cox. Her death may have swung a few percentage points back over to the Remainers side with the sympathy vote. The way her tragic death was used by the remain side was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in politics in this country " You are trying to make a political point about it now.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling." Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ..."facts are not the lefts strong point. and with outlets like BBC peddling nonsense we can't be shocked. i dont think trolls for 1 min. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ..."We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ..."Due to forum rules I cant post directly to the publication from The Royal United Services Institute, but here are some salient quotes. "Since Britain’s EU referendum result, the pound has fallen against the US dollar by around 15 per cent. If this decline is sustained, the cost of Britain’s defence imports could increase by around £700 million per annum from 2018–19 – around 2 per cent of the total defence budget" "The starting point for the calculations is the scale of UK defence imports which rose from $7.2 billion in 2002 to $11.8 billion in 2012, according to the US State Department’s World Military Expenditure and Arms Transfers 2015 report. The assumption is made that these numbers for defence imports are unlikely to fall massively given the continuing support costs of in-service imported equipment for purchases made since 2012 – including the Rivet Joint fleet and the additional Chinooks – and the commitments to buy 138 F-35s, as well as replacements for the Reaper and Apache fleets, and nine P-8A aircraft. Thus, it is assumed here that UK defence imports will run on at least $10 billion a year" "The next assumption is that not all UK military list imports stay in the UK; some get re-exported in ‘British’ or collaborative goods like the Eurofighter Typhoon. According to the UK government’s Defence and Security Organisation, British defence export orders over the past decade have averaged £7.2 billion a year and the MoD itself spends over £16 billion a year on equipment and its support. Given this, it is a reasonable assumption that one third of UK defence imports may be re-exported, leaving the MoD with an import bill of between $6.5 billion and $7 billion. The great majority of this must be for the US as the inventory of American equipment in UK forces indicates, but the pound has also fallen significantly against other currencies, including the euro. " Moreover, this analysis reasonably assumes that the depreciation in the sterling will not be reversed for the foreseeable future. Clearly, that may prove to be wrong, but it is a reasonable possibility for which the MoD should make provision. In sum, the calculations comprise the following: The pound has fallen approximately from £1:$1.50 a year ago to £1:$1.30 today. At a rate of £1:$1.50, $6.5 billion per year equals £4.33 billion per year. At a rate of £1:$1.30, even $6.5 billion per year equals £5.0 billion per year. This is a difference of approximately £700 million per year. With a defence budget of slightly more than £35 billion, the £700-million shortfall amounts to a 2 per cent cut in the purchasing power of Britain’s defence budget, and a much larger cut in the purchasing power of the equipment and support budgets. This must be a substantial challenge for defence planners and programmers. The implications for the British defence industry of the devaluation of the pound are complex and beyond this commentary’s scope. Clearly, a cheaper pound could make British exports more competitive, but the cost of the imported content of its systems will increase, including the costs of raw materials that are not covered by the military surveys from the US State Department. Given the political and military commitment to specific imported systems, there will be less money available for contracts with British firms, but in the medium to long term, a weak pound could make imports less appealing. However, capability rather than price has often been the dominant appeal of imported systems, so it would be rash to place too much emphasis on the cost of items alone in mapping out future procurement trends. The previously published analysis noted the possibility that the British government may have hedged against losses in the value of the pound; it is now clear that the MoD has indeed covered itself for what the then procurement minister referred to as ‘the short term’, which is understood to be two years over which the hedging ‘positions’ of the British government could mitigate direct financial losses in currency transactions. Obviously that does not cover the delivery periods for most of the major buys to which the UK is at least politically committed, nor does it deal with the periods of in-service costs for imported equipment. Several factors could negate the significance of the arguments here: the import figures could be shown to be significantly incorrect and/or the re-export calculation could be shown to be under-estimated. But if the numbers are broadly right, the calculations are straightforward and the conclusion apparent. A final possibility is that the defence budget could be increased significantly in real terms, as Julian Lewis, the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee would prefer. Perhaps, but this is obviously not a possibility that the MoD can rely on. Clearly, the MoD has scope for ‘re-profiling’: extending the period under which equipment will be bought, but the basic consideration remains that in the decade covered by the current Equipment Plan, the MoD is likely to have a lot less spending power for important elements of capability than it had before the referendum vote on 23 June." So that is RUSIs take is on it, the world's oldest independent military think tank. Do you think you know more about the military than they do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
Due to forum rules I cant post directly to the publication from The Royal United Services Institute, but here are some salient quotes.
"Since Britain’s EU referendum result, the pound has fallen against the US dollar by around 15 per cent. If this decline is sustained, the cost of Britain’s defence imports could increase by around £700 million per annum from 2018–19 – around 2 per cent of the total defence budget"
"The starting point for the calculations is the scale of UK defence imports which rose from $7.2 billion in 2002 to $11.8 billion in 2012, according to the US State Department’s World Military Expenditure and Arms Transfers 2015 report. The assumption is made that these numbers for defence imports are unlikely to fall massively given the continuing support costs of in-service imported equipment for purchases made since 2012 – including the Rivet Joint fleet and the additional Chinooks – and the commitments to buy 138 F-35s, as well as replacements for the Reaper and Apache fleets, and nine P-8A aircraft. Thus, it is assumed here that UK defence imports will run on at least $10 billion a year"
"The next assumption is that not all UK military list imports stay in the UK; some get re-exported in ‘British’ or collaborative goods like the Eurofighter Typhoon. According to the UK government’s Defence and Security Organisation, British defence export orders over the past decade have averaged £7.2 billion a year and the MoD itself spends over £16 billion a year on equipment and its support. Given this, it is a reasonable assumption that one third of UK defence imports may be re-exported, leaving the MoD with an import bill of between $6.5 billion and $7 billion. The great majority of this must be for the US as the inventory of American equipment in UK forces indicates, but the pound has also fallen significantly against other currencies, including the euro. "
Moreover, this analysis reasonably assumes that the depreciation in the sterling will not be reversed for the foreseeable future. Clearly, that may prove to be wrong, but it is a reasonable possibility for which the MoD should make provision. In sum, the calculations comprise the following:
The pound has fallen approximately from £1:$1.50 a year ago to £1:$1.30 today. At a rate of £1:$1.50, $6.5 billion per year equals £4.33 billion per year. At a rate of £1:$1.30, even $6.5 billion per year equals £5.0 billion per year. This is a difference of approximately £700 million per year.
With a defence budget of slightly more than £35 billion, the £700-million shortfall amounts to a 2 per cent cut in the purchasing power of Britain’s defence budget, and a much larger cut in the purchasing power of the equipment and support budgets. This must be a substantial challenge for defence planners and programmers.
The implications for the British defence industry of the devaluation of the pound are complex and beyond this commentary’s scope. Clearly, a cheaper pound could make British exports more competitive, but the cost of the imported content of its systems will increase, including the costs of raw materials that are not covered by the military surveys from the US State Department. Given the political and military commitment to specific imported systems, there will be less money available for contracts with British firms, but in the medium to long term, a weak pound could make imports less appealing. However, capability rather than price has often been the dominant appeal of imported systems, so it would be rash to place too much emphasis on the cost of items alone in mapping out future procurement trends.
The previously published analysis noted the possibility that the British government may have hedged against losses in the value of the pound; it is now clear that the MoD has indeed covered itself for what the then procurement minister referred to as ‘the short term’, which is understood to be two years over which the hedging ‘positions’ of the British government could mitigate direct financial losses in currency transactions. Obviously that does not cover the delivery periods for most of the major buys to which the UK is at least politically committed, nor does it deal with the periods of in-service costs for imported equipment.
Several factors could negate the significance of the arguments here: the import figures could be shown to be significantly incorrect and/or the re-export calculation could be shown to be under-estimated. But if the numbers are broadly right, the calculations are straightforward and the conclusion apparent. A final possibility is that the defence budget could be increased significantly in real terms, as Julian Lewis, the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee would prefer. Perhaps, but this is obviously not a possibility that the MoD can rely on.
Clearly, the MoD has scope for ‘re-profiling’: extending the period under which equipment will be bought, but the basic consideration remains that in the decade covered by the current Equipment Plan, the MoD is likely to have a lot less spending power for important elements of capability than it had before the referendum vote on 23 June."
So that is RUSIs take is on it, the world's oldest independent military think tank. Do you think you know more about the military than they do? "did you read and actually understand the important parts of that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year? "Is it 60 billion or 70 billion? You can't even decide with yourself on that one! Lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Is it 60 billion or 70 billion?
You can't even decide with yourself on that one! Lol"£70billion of monetary policy measures, £60billion of quantitative easing, and a further £10billion of company bonds. Please try to keep up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Is it 60 billion or 70 billion?
You can't even decide with yourself on that one! Lol
£70billion of monetary policy measures, £60billion of quantitative easing, and a further £10billion of company bonds. Please try to keep up. "Are these the measures that along with interest rate cut that he "had" to do to prop the economy only for figures to be released less than a fortnight later showing everything is fine and he was way too hasty? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year? "Oh dearie me ... QE is a leverage tool to force markets to buy other stocks and bonds in times of stress while the B of E keeps Yields low on Government debt. Plus of course the B of E can't actually go trading willy nilly as you suggest. A small matter of Regulation and the Law. Once again you show a lack of knowledge of your subject. By May 2010 the B of E had an £8 Bn profit from its QE investments. I can't be arsed to explain it. Read it all here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7791073/Bank-of-England-made-8bn-profit-from-quantitative-easing-fund.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So that is RUSIs take is on it, the world's oldest independent military think tank. Do you think you know more about the military than they do?" Jesus H Christ we had all this in 2 other Threads. It was taken apart then so I can't be arsed with your stupid idea that if you keep repeating the same crap it eventually becomes true. And repeating something in different Threads when people have proved you wrong REPEATEDLY is trolling... The really sad thing is you copy paste stuff and haven't a bloody clue what it means. Bottom line is THERE IS NO £2 Bn BLACK HOLE IN DEFENCE. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Is it 60 billion or 70 billion?
You can't even decide with yourself on that one! Lol
£70billion of monetary policy measures, £60billion of quantitative easing, and a further £10billion of company bonds. Please try to keep up. "Thank you for clarifying this for me. Now maybe you could also clear something else up.. Why do you attribute anything negative that has happened since June 23rd 2016 as 'because of Brexit', but everything positive has 'nothing to do with Brexit, because Brexit hasn't happened yet'? The anti-Brexit bollocks that you spout has, on every occasion, been blown out of the water by many people on all the threads that you have 'contributed to' to do with Brexit. You exhibit a Childish Lack of Coherent Comprehension | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Is it 60 billion or 70 billion?
You can't even decide with yourself on that one! Lol
£70billion of monetary policy measures, £60billion of quantitative easing, and a further £10billion of company bonds. Please try to keep up.
Thank you for clarifying this for me. Now maybe you could also clear something else up..
Why do you attribute anything negative that has happened since June 23rd 2016 as 'because of Brexit', but everything positive has 'nothing to do with Brexit, because Brexit hasn't happened yet'?
The anti-Brexit bollocks that you spout has, on every occasion, been blown out of the water by many people on all the threads that you have 'contributed to' to do with Brexit. You exhibit a
Childish
Lack of
Coherent
Comprehension "I think your post really gets to the crux of it. You chose to believe that the opinion of someone you have never met, don't know the name of, don't know the background or experience of, over the opinion of the Bank of England, or of respected, credible independent sources such as RUSI in this case. The only reason you are choosing to believe them, is because they are saying something that you WANT to hear, not because they are actually qualified in any way to express such an opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So that is RUSIs take is on it, the world's oldest independent military think tank. Do you think you know more about the military than they do? Jesus H Christ we had all this in 2 other Threads. It was taken apart then so I can't be arsed with your stupid idea that if you keep repeating the same crap it eventually becomes true. And repeating something in different Threads when people have proved you wrong REPEATEDLY is trolling... The really sad thing is you copy paste stuff and haven't a bloody clue what it means. Bottom line is THERE IS NO £2 Bn BLACK HOLE IN DEFENCE." Please provide proof from a similarly independent and respected organisation that RUSIs conclusions are incorrect and then maybe I'll believe you. If you can't, then its just the words of a van man vs the words of research processors with decades of experience in the field. (by the way its a 2%, not £2billion blackhole) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Oh dearie me ... QE is a leverage tool to force markets to buy other stocks and bonds in times of stress while the B of E keeps Yields low on Government debt. Plus of course the B of E can't actually go trading willy nilly as you suggest. A small matter of Regulation and the Law.
Once again you show a lack of knowledge of your subject. By May 2010 the B of E had an £8 Bn profit from its QE investments. I can't be arsed to explain it. Read it all here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7791073/Bank-of-England-made-8bn-profit-from-quantitative-easing-fund.html"So why did the bank of England introduce QE in August, but not May, if you think it has nothing to do with the referendum? You say they can't do it Willynilly, so why couldn't they do it earlier (because of course they want to do this money making scheme as often as possible), what changed in terms of the law and regulatory framework you refer to between May and August? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Oh dearie me ... QE is a leverage tool to force markets to buy other stocks and bonds in times of stress while the B of E keeps Yields low on Government debt. Plus of course the B of E can't actually go trading willy nilly as you suggest. A small matter of Regulation and the Law.
Once again you show a lack of knowledge of your subject. By May 2010 the B of E had an £8 Bn profit from its QE investments. I can't be arsed to explain it. Read it all here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7791073/Bank-of-England-made-8bn-profit-from-quantitative-easing-fund.html
So why did the bank of England introduce QE in August, but not May, if you think it has nothing to do with the referendum? You say they can't do it Willynilly, so why couldn't they do it earlier (because of course they want to do this money making scheme as often as possible), what changed in terms of the law and regulatory framework you refer to between May and August? "Just stop. Your Trolling wind ups are getting very boring as they are either really badly informed (for which read ignorant) or are a deliberate attempt to cause argument where there is none and give yourself a platform to throw the 'racist' crap about both of which you have done far too frequently. You can copy / paste all you like but when you are in a hole sometimes it is best to stop digging. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Oh dearie me ... QE is a leverage tool to force markets to buy other stocks and bonds in times of stress while the B of E keeps Yields low on Government debt. Plus of course the B of E can't actually go trading willy nilly as you suggest. A small matter of Regulation and the Law.
Once again you show a lack of knowledge of your subject. By May 2010 the B of E had an £8 Bn profit from its QE investments. I can't be arsed to explain it. Read it all here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7791073/Bank-of-England-made-8bn-profit-from-quantitative-easing-fund.html
So why did the bank of England introduce QE in August, but not May, if you think it has nothing to do with the referendum? You say they can't do it Willynilly, so why couldn't they do it earlier (because of course they want to do this money making scheme as often as possible), what changed in terms of the law and regulatory framework you refer to between May and August?
Just stop. Your Trolling wind ups are getting very boring as they are either really badly informed (for which read ignorant) or are a deliberate attempt to cause argument where there is none and give yourself a platform to throw the 'racist' crap about both of which you have done far too frequently.
You can copy / paste all you like but when you are in a hole sometimes it is best to stop digging."Its not trolling, I'm asking you a question, but you cant answer it. QE is bad, and its not good that Brexit has already cost us £70 billion in monetary policy measures, it's that simple. Any savings that we will get from leaving the EU will be insignificant compared to what it has already cost in monetary policy measures, and future costs of measures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Oh dearie me ... QE is a leverage tool to force markets to buy other stocks and bonds in times of stress while the B of E keeps Yields low on Government debt. Plus of course the B of E can't actually go trading willy nilly as you suggest. A small matter of Regulation and the Law.
Once again you show a lack of knowledge of your subject. By May 2010 the B of E had an £8 Bn profit from its QE investments. I can't be arsed to explain it. Read it all here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7791073/Bank-of-England-made-8bn-profit-from-quantitative-easing-fund.html
So why did the bank of England introduce QE in August, but not May, if you think it has nothing to do with the referendum? You say they can't do it Willynilly, so why couldn't they do it earlier (because of course they want to do this money making scheme as often as possible), what changed in terms of the law and regulatory framework you refer to between May and August?
Just stop. Your Trolling wind ups are getting very boring as they are either really badly informed (for which read ignorant) or are a deliberate attempt to cause argument where there is none and give yourself a platform to throw the 'racist' crap about both of which you have done far too frequently.
You can copy / paste all you like but when you are in a hole sometimes it is best to stop digging.
Its not trolling, I'm asking you a question, but you cant answer it. QE is bad, and its not good that Brexit has already cost us £70 billion in monetary policy measures, it's that simple. Any savings that we will get from leaving the EU will be insignificant compared to what it has already cost in monetary policy measures, and future costs of measures. "How much, and for how long has the ECB been exercising QE? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Is it 60 billion or 70 billion?
You can't even decide with yourself on that one! Lol
£70billion of monetary policy measures, £60billion of quantitative easing, and a further £10billion of company bonds. Please try to keep up.
Thank you for clarifying this for me. Now maybe you could also clear something else up..
Why do you attribute anything negative that has happened since June 23rd 2016 as 'because of Brexit', but everything positive has 'nothing to do with Brexit, because Brexit hasn't happened yet'?
The anti-Brexit bollocks that you spout has, on every occasion, been blown out of the water by many people on all the threads that you have 'contributed to' to do with Brexit. You exhibit a
Childish
Lack of
Coherent
Comprehension
I think your post really gets to the crux of it. You chose to believe that the opinion of someone you have never met, don't know the name of, don't know the background or experience of, over the opinion of the Bank of England, or of respected, credible independent sources such as RUSI in this case. The only reason you are choosing to believe them, is because they are saying something that you WANT to hear, not because they are actually qualified in any way to express such an opinion."Actually, I think you'll find that the very experts you quote (from before brexit), are now changing their tune. Like I asked before, where's The emergency budget The immediate deep global recession The immediate job losses on an unprecedented scale The banks vacating Britain The 18% fall in house prices The terrorist atrocities that we can no longer defend ourselves from Etc Etc Etc All of these, and more, we're going to happen on the 24th June if we voted leave. All of the 'experts' you quote, who predicted the above, are now starting to say they were wrong, or have been proved so,.. But you refuse to believe what they are now saying... And then, to cap it all, I ask you to name some of your experts, and you named Steve Keen.... who actually was pro-brexit! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dont forget we won't see any of these benefits until after we have recouped the £70bn of monetary policy measures that the Bank of England had to make to prop up the economy. I think its funny that in the OP it talks about extra spending on the MOD, when actually the MOD budget has fallen by 2% (£700m) since the referendum due to the fall in sterling. Once again you peddle two complete and utter lies which have been destroyed time and time again. When are you going to STOP peddling this shit? The money the B of E spends on QE is an INVESTMENT. It produces REVENUE. And eventually a PROFIT. Just like it has from the 2008 /09 QE round of spending. Never see you criticise that do we? Oh wait no ... that was when Brown was PM! Idiot Leftie EU Luvvies like you peddle the terminology and haven't a bloody clue what it actually is. (cue a Wiki copy / paste reply). The MoD budget has NOT fallen in any way since Brexit. Your tenuous linking of the depreciation of the Pound with this fabricated 'Black Hole' is laughable for the reasons given many times. Odd that you never mention how the work BAE do on the F-35 programme (where we build some 20% of every aircraft) has actually increased in value by 10% due to that depreciation? Hmmmm
Please stop Trolling these Threads with your hypocrisy and lies ...
We'll look at this in two parts, firstly lets look at QE. It is not an investment that creates a profit. If it were, then why has the Bank of England only done £60billion? Why not £100billion or £200billion? Why does the Bank of England only do it when the economy is in a bad state? For example now and during the financial crash in 2008? If it is such a good "investment" and provides a "profit" why isn't the bank doing it day in day out, year after year?
Is it 60 billion or 70 billion?
You can't even decide with yourself on that one! Lol
£70billion of monetary policy measures, £60billion of quantitative easing, and a further £10billion of company bonds. Please try to keep up.
Thank you for clarifying this for me. Now maybe you could also clear something else up..
Why do you attribute anything negative that has happened since June 23rd 2016 as 'because of Brexit', but everything positive has 'nothing to do with Brexit, because Brexit hasn't happened yet'?
The anti-Brexit bollocks that you spout has, on every occasion, been blown out of the water by many people on all the threads that you have 'contributed to' to do with Brexit. You exhibit a
Childish
Lack of
Coherent
Comprehension
I think your post really gets to the crux of it. You chose to believe that the opinion of someone you have never met, don't know the name of, don't know the background or experience of, over the opinion of the Bank of England, or of respected, credible independent sources such as RUSI in this case. The only reason you are choosing to believe them, is because they are saying something that you WANT to hear, not because they are actually qualified in any way to express such an opinion.
Actually, I think you'll find that the very experts you quote (from before brexit), are now changing their tune.
Like I asked before, where's
The emergency budget
The immediate deep global recession
The immediate job losses on an unprecedented scale
The banks vacating Britain
The 18% fall in house prices
The terrorist atrocities that we can no longer defend ourselves from
Etc
Etc
Etc
All of these, and more, we're going to happen on the 24th June if we voted leave.
All of the 'experts' you quote, who predicted the above, are now starting to say they were wrong, or have been proved so,..
But you refuse to believe what they are now saying...
And then, to cap it all, I ask you to name some of your experts, and you named Steve Keen.... who actually was pro-brexit!
"The forecasts were based on the assumption that article 50 would be invoked the day after the referendum (don’t believe me? Please see here: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21699969-there-some-dispute-over-mechanics-how-leave-eu-if-it-were-done "If there is a Brexit vote, David Cameron has promised that Britain would “straightaway” invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which sets a two-year timetable to agree the terms of departure.”) But David Cameron fled at the first sign of trouble didn’t he, and didn’t want to go down in the history books as the PM who pulled out of the EU (neither did Boris or Farage as they both quickly ran and hid when they got what they had campaigned for) As for the emergency budget, well the chancellor who said that he would produce one got sacked didn’t he? Do you want him to write one as a backbencher? Organisations like NATO, MI5, MI6 etc. didn’t say that there would be terrorist attacks the day after the referendum. If thats what you thought, it shows how little you understood of what they were saying. I would have thought that it has been proved above with the 2% hole in the defence budget the kind of warnings that NATO were making. We will just have to wait and see if the banks leave when the UK is not longer in the Single Market. Experts on the environment like the RSPB, WWF and Wildlife Trusts warned about Brexit, please can you show me their public statements where they say they were wrong? Experts on science and research like the Royal Society warned about Brexit, please can you show me their public statements where they say they were wrong? Experts on Defence and Security like RUSI, NATO, MI5, MI6 warned about Brexit, please can you show me their public statements where they say they were wrong? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"(With thanks to Open Britain) Below, a selection of statements made by prominent Leave campaigners and/or Organisations regarding the £350,000,000 per week that the UK will stop paying to the EU on Brexit and what instead it will/could/should, be spent on. We are going to be rich, beyond our wildest dreams. Hundreds of new schools: “Let’s imagine what else this money could buy:…hundreds of new schools” Vote Leave, Take Control, YouTube More primary school places in our current schools: “Just 2.4% of our gross EU contributions could eliminate the shortfall in school places in England. It has been estimated that as many as 100,000 parents will miss their first preference for primary school places…The £461.2m needed to fund the additional 100,000 school places is just over a week’s worth of contributions to the EU”. Vote Leave press release, 18 April 2016 More spending on scientific research “Let’s imagine what else this money could buy:…pioneering health and scientific research”. Vote Leave, Take Control, YouTube More health spending. “Let’s give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week”. Vote Leave website Raise pay for junior doctors. “A small fraction of the money that the EU takes from us each year could be used to give junior doctors the pay settlement they are looking for”. Gisela Stuart, Vote Leave press release, 25 April 2016 Abolish prescription charges. “If we Vote Leave we will be able to stop handing over so much money to the EU and we would be able to spend our money on priorities here in the UK like abolishing prescription charges”. Gisela Stuart, Vote Leave press release, 5 April 2016 Building new hospitals. “Let’s imagine what else this money could buy: state of the art hospitals”. Vote Leave, Take Control, YouTube Maintain all current EU spending. “There is more than enough money to ensure that those who now get funding from the EU - including universities, scientists, family farmers, regional funds, cultural organisations and others - will continue to do so while also ensuring that we save money that can be spent on our priorities. If the public votes to leave on 23 June, we will continue to fund EU programmes in the UK until 2020, or up to the date when the EU is due to conclude individual programmes if that is earlier than 2020.” Joint letter from Vote Leave ministers, Vote Leave press release, 14 June 2016, More public support for agriculture. “‘Let's get one thing straight. The UK government will continue to give farmers and the environment as much support - or perhaps even more - as they get now.’” George Eustice, Vote Leave press release, 23 March 2016, New roads. “Let’s imagine what else this money could buy:…we could build new roads”. Vote Leave, Take Control, YouTube Improving railways. “Let’s imagine what else this money could buy:…improve the railways”. Vote Leave, Take Control, YouTube Expanding regional airports. “Let’s imagine what else this money could buy:…expand regional airports”. Vote Leave, Take Control, YouTube Paying state aid to the steel industry. “Imagine if we Vote Leave… we will be able to end unfair state aid rules, and support struggling industries like Steel”. Vote Leave Campaign News, 10 February 2016 New submarines. “even if we acknowledge the rebate and the sums already spent here, £10.6 billion of taxpayers money is given to the EU in a year…Just think what we could do with this money… It could pay for fourteen Astute Class Submarines”. Michael Gove, Vote Leave press release, 19 April 2016 Protecting Research Grants. “We are not talking about scrapping any funding when it comes to subsidies for farmers or research grants for universities or any other sort of EU funding”. Matthew Elliott, Yorkshire Post, 20 November 2015 Pothole repairs. “The EU has spent £264 million on just four bridges in Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, more than the £250 million that is forecast to be spent on the UK’s Pothole Action Fund in the next five years. After we Vote Leave, we can spend our money on our priorities like fixing our roads. Taxpayers’ money should be spent on filling in potholes in Britain, rather than being squandered on foreign bridges to nowhere”. Vote Leave Campaign Email, 2 February 2016 Lower taxes: “If you are still wondering what it will look like if we came out, think about this:…lower taxes as a result of no longer having to pay into the EU budget”. Vote Leave press release, 6 January 2016 Lower business taxes: “there are areas where government spending is a detriment to an efficient economy since it wastes money which could be going towards helping businesses which creates jobs and income. I think that the billions we spend on our EU contributions and the foreign aid budget would be a good place to start”. Nigel Farage, SunNation, 8 April 2015 Cut VAT on fuel: “A special Finance Bill. This would abolish the 5% rate of VAT on household energy bills by the date of the next general election by amending the Value Added Tax Act 1994, and will be a major benefit for low income households. This will be paid for by savings from the UK’s contributions to the EU budget.” Vote Leave press release, 15 June 2016 Reducing council tax: “Without our EU budget contributions, we could give everyone a 60 per cent council tax cut.” Daniel Hannan, Twitter, 1 September 2015 Abolish VAT on tampons: “'After we Vote Leave the public need to see that there is immediate action to take back control from the EU. We will need a carefully managed negotiation process and some major legislative changes before 2020, including taking real steps to limit immigration, to abolish VAT on fuel and tampons”. Chris Grayling, Vote Leave press release, 15 June 2016" good job we all voted to leave | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
