You are logged in as a guest. 
  Home Forums Home  Search our Forums Search our Forums    Log in to the Forums Log in to the Forums  register Register on the Forums  

 Forums ->  General Chat -> Chatterbox
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast
Format:  Go
Oh deary deary me!
AuthorMessage
userJohn52
Posted: 13 January 2022 8:34 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11055
5000500010002525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Gremlin - 2022-01-13 1:00 AM
So why on earth would investors buy into a deal whereby they get less back in real terms - or even ACTUAL terms with a negative yield Gilt?


Some of them have no choice. If you are managing a pension fund with £billions in pension payments owing, the only way you can be sure to have the £ to pay them is buying UK Gilts - The UK Government will never run out of £ because they have their own printer.
Its the only situation I can think of where the little man gets a better deal than the big investor. The little man can still earn interest in a retail deposit account with £85k guaranteed - the fund manager can't. His only safe option is Gilts. Anything else could lose value in £ - the fact that the £ itself loses value is irrelevant if their liabilities like pension payments are in £.
The other big gilt buyer is the Government themselves (BOE) - printing money to buy up gilts and rig the market to keep the price high.
Despite all that the only people who can sell Gilts at a negative rate now are strong economies like Germany.
And even if the UK Government could still sell Gilts with a negative yield the money still has to be paid back.
So its better to spend it sensibly.
What Johnson is spaffing away on his 'world beating' test & trace could have built about half a million Council Houses. Made a home for all those homeless families,,generated rental income for hard pressed councils instead of having to pay extortionate rents to Rentier Tory Landowners in Tax Havens
userGremlin
Posted: 13 January 2022 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


Which is rather my point

Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed.

It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it.

Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think?

(I can almost hear the red mist descending…….
userJohn52
Posted: 13 January 2022 1:33 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11055
5000500010002525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:52 AM

Which is rather my point

Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed.

It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it.

Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think?
….


Well it would be if the UK could still do it - but they can't any more
So what you said here is clearly wrong, isn't it

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM
It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper.
userBulletguy
Posted: 13 January 2022 3:24 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 17806
5000500050002000500100100100
Location: Cheshire


pelmetman - 2022-01-12 3:29 PM


The fact that he annoys the hell outa Remoaners is enough for me to vote for him again as a paid up member of the Tory party ..........

This shows the total disconnect you have with reality if that's what you believe. Your love flame is a dead man walking......and thats coming from his own MP's.
userGremlin
Posted: 13 January 2022 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


John52 - 2022-01-13 1:33 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:52 AM

Which is rather my point

Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed.

It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it.

Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think?
….


Well it would be if the UK could still do it - but they can't any more
So what you said here is clearly wrong, isn't it

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM
It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper.


Errrr - No

And please stop being obtuse.
userpelmetman
Posted: 13 January 2022 6:19 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 38147
50005000500050005000500050002000100010025
Location: A different planet to you


Gremlin - 2022-01-13 4:58 PM

John52 - 2022-01-13 1:33 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:52 AM

Which is rather my point

Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed.

It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it.

Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think?
….


Well it would be if the UK could still do it - but they can't any more
So what you said here is clearly wrong, isn't it

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM
It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper.


Errrr - No

And please stop being obtuse.


"And please stop being obtuse."

Good luck with that ..........

...........
userJohn52
Posted: 13 January 2022 6:39 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11055
5000500010002525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Gremlin - 2022-01-13 4:58 PM

John52 - 2022-01-13 1:33 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:52 AM

Which is rather my point

Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed.

It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it.

Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think?
….


Well it would be if the UK could still do it - but they can't any more
So what you said here is clearly wrong, isn't it

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM
It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper.


Errrr - No

And please stop being obtuse.


At the risk of stating the obvious
Government Borrowing was cheaper in May 2020
So how can you say its never been cheaper?
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 13 January 2022 6:57 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


50005000500020002000500100100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding.
Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
They go onto state;-
“Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.”
They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”.
So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact.

This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k

Is the result binding?

The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding.

The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding.

So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void!
userGremlin
Posted: 13 January 2022 8:14 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


John52 - 2022-01-13 6:39 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 4:58 PM

John52 - 2022-01-13 1:33 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:52 AM

Which is rather my point

Negative yield gilts were issued in May 2020 - so the government secured funds via a normal gilt auction whereby the capital repayment at maturity is less than the sum borrowed.

It’s not a new phenomenon- and as you say, strong economies can do it.

Which is a bit of a positive for the U.K. don’t you think?
….


Well it would be if the UK could still do it - but they can't any more
So what you said here is clearly wrong, isn't it

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM
It should also be recognised that Government Borrowing has never been cheaper.


Errrr - No

And please stop being obtuse.


At the risk of stating the obvious
Government Borrowing was cheaper in May 2020
So how can you say its never been cheaper?


Exactly - when the government needed to borrow money - it was never cheaper.

Now, with inflation at 5% and the gilts at less than 1% coupon

You do the maths

If you can……..?
userGremlin
Posted: 13 January 2022 8:33 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding.
Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
They go onto state;-
“Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.”
They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”.
So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact.

This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k

Is the result binding?

The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding.

The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding.

So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void!


Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is.

The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!!

They made it quite clear, in writing via leaflets delivered to every household, in the HoC debates and in every TV debate. It could not have been more clear. They delegated the decision to the population of the U.K.

This was understood by everyone on both sides. I voted Remain and I understood that whatever the result was it was binding!!

The only reason you and other hard core remainers get the simple facts of contract law wrong is because you didn’t get the result you wanted.

It’s sour grapes

Petulant sour grapes at that.

Get over it, move on.

Suck it up

Become more mature

Realise that the EU hacked a lot of people off - Not a lot of people in Southampton voted Remain after the ECB financed Ford (an American company) to the tune of £80million to move Transit production to Turkey (a non-EU Country). Then there was the supply chain to the Transit factory - they lost their jobs too.

So forgive me for really not giving a stuff that you can research the fact that Referendums are not binding unless the Government of the days makes them so - but then you ignore the fact that this is EXACTLY what Cameron’s Government did in its myopic arrogance in thinking that few people would actually vote leave.
userJohn52
Posted: 13 January 2022 10:04 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11055
5000500010002525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM
Government Borrowing has never been cheaper.


Well at least you are changing your tune to

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:14 PM
when the government needed to borrow money - it was never cheaper.


So maybe there is hope for you yet
userBulletguy
Posted: 13 January 2022 10:07 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 17806
5000500050002000500100100100
Location: Cheshire


Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM

Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding.
Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
They go onto state;-
“Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.”
They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”.
So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact.

This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k

Is the result binding?

The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding.

The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding.

So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void!


Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is.

The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!!

Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal.

https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn

As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources.
userCurtainRaiser
Posted: 13 January 2022 10:26 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Forum master

Posts: 2521
2000500


Bulletguy - 2022-01-13 10:07 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM

Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding.
Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
They go onto state;-
“Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.”
They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”.
So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact.

This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k

Is the result binding?

The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding.

The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding.

So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void!


Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is.

The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!!

Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal.

https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn

As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources.


I think people on here need to understand that Grumbling doesn't need to read our links, his opinion is final. Yesterday I linked to the House of Commons Library view containing the statement "These calls were intensified in January 2021, when the EU briefly suggested it might trigger Article 16 to restrict exports of Covid-19 vaccines from the bloc." But even that isn't evidence enough for Gremlin that A16 was never triggered. You can't argue with a closed mind so I would not bother trying Paul.
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 7:48 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


Hale - in a speech to lawyers in Kuala Lumpar some months before the actual COURT case in the U.K. - that decided, in view of the way that the Government of the day, set this Referendum up, that the result WAS legally binding.

“Lady Brenda Hale made the comments in a speech to lawyers in Kuala Lumper, during which she reflected on the upcoming case”.

I say again - Cameron’s government made it very clear that the result would be binding as it was felt unfair that such a decision, if made by Parliament, would be an example of “indirect” or “representative democracy”.

Whereas “Referendums are an example of Direct Democracy. A Referendum is when a question is decided by putting it to a public vote.”

Source - U.K. Parliament

Those that whinge on about it not being legal are like Trump Supporters saying “we was robbed”.

You weren’t,

You lost

Get over it and move on.
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


John52 - 2022-01-13 10:04 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 8:43 AM
Government Borrowing has never been cheaper.


Well at least you are changing your tune to

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:14 PM
when the government needed to borrow money - it was never cheaper.


So maybe there is hope for you yet


You really don’t get it do you

This from the Financial Times July 10th 2020 -Tommy Stubbington

“U.K. government borrowing costs sank to record lows on Friday, underlining investors willingness to fund new economic stimulus measures outlined this week by chancellor Rishi Sunak”

So, at exactly the time you accuse the government of borrowing money to pay for PPE from their “mates down the pub” (my description) - government borrowing actually went into negative territory.

It is no longer in negative territory - but the rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time.

The silly thing is about your “position” on this is that

a) you say that negative Bond/Gilt yields are a sign of a strong economy, but go all coy and unnecessary when I point out that things must have been good for the U.K. then!

b) gilt yields at the time of the panic buying of PPE were in negative territory - so money borrowed to pay for it, the capital repayment at maturity would be less than what was borrowed.
userJohn52
Posted: 14 January 2022 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11055
5000500010002525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM
rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time.

You even contradict yourself in your next sentence
Send for Dr Shipman
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 8:42 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


John52 - 2022-01-14 8:31 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM
rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time.

You even contradict yourself in your next sentence
Send for Dr Shipman


But even at the slightly higher state - they are still at historic lows.

And I state again - despite your every desperate need to regain some credibility -

Negative Gilt yield in 2020 means that the borrowing made to pay for PPE will require the U.K. government to pay back a smaller sum than the amount borrowed.
userJohn52
Posted: 14 January 2022 8:58 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11055
5000500010002525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:42 AM

John52 - 2022-01-14 8:31 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM
rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time.

You even contradict yourself in your next sentence
Send for Dr Shipman


But even at the slightly higher state - they are still at historic lows.

And I state again - despite your every desperate need to regain some credibility -

Negative Gilt yield in 2020 means that the borrowing made to pay for PPE will require the U.K. government to pay back a smaller sum than the amount borrowed.


Thats wrong too actually, because yields were only negative for a very short time, and then only slightly.
Most of the money won't have been borrowed at negative yield.
But even if it were true, its still got to be paid back.
Most people have no conception of the size of the debt Johnson has taken out in their name.
Current inflation and pending tax rises don't even scratch the surface.
Or what he has spaffed it away on because he keeps scuppering any investigation.
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


John52 - 2022-01-14 8:58 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:42 AM

John52 - 2022-01-14 8:31 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM
rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time.

You even contradict yourself in your next sentence
Send for Dr Shipman


But even at the slightly higher state - they are still at historic lows.

And I state again - despite your every desperate need to regain some credibility -

Negative Gilt yield in 2020 means that the borrowing made to pay for PPE will require the U.K. government to pay back a smaller sum than the amount borrowed.


Thats wrong too actually, because yields were only negative for a very short time, and then only slightly.
Most of the money won't have been borrowed at negative yield.
But even if it were true, its still got to be paid back.
Most people have no conception of the size of the debt Johnson has taken out in their name.
Current inflation and pending tax rises don't even scratch the surface.
Or what he has spaffed it away on because he keeps scuppering any investigation.


Of course it will be paid back - unless the U.K. defaults. Russia did back in 1998, but I really don’t think even Boris is capable mucking things up as bad as that.

But you seen to see things in binary terms only. I tried to explain in an earlier post about how even a negative gilt/government bond can provide a positive return for the investor. This is primarily due to the Investor having faith in the underlying currency and that country’s economy.

This is a very simplistic example but it should get over the point.

A 5 yr bond is issued at -1% - which means that you buy into it at £100 then at maturity in five years time you get back £99

On the face of it, a loss.

But if the £ and the underlying U.K. economy performs well such that the buying power of a £ improves by 5% then the investor whilst getting back only £99 - that £99 now has had its buying power enhanced by 5%

So the Investors return equates to/is £103.95



Edited by Gremlin 2022-01-14 9:30 AM
userBarryd999
Posted: 14 January 2022 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11458
5000500010001001001001002525
Location: North Yorkshire Dales - Kontiki 640 Hank the Tank


CurtainRaiser - 2022-01-13 10:26 PM

Bulletguy - 2022-01-13 10:07 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM

Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding.
Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
They go onto state;-
“Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.”
They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”.
So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact.

This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k

Is the result binding?

The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding.

The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding.

So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void!


Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is.

The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!!

Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal.

https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn

As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources.


I think people on here need to understand that Grumbling doesn't need to read our links, his opinion is final. Yesterday I linked to the House of Commons Library view containing the statement "These calls were intensified in January 2021, when the EU briefly suggested it might trigger Article 16 to restrict exports of Covid-19 vaccines from the bloc." But even that isn't evidence enough for Gremlin that A16 was never triggered. You can't argue with a closed mind so I would not bother trying Paul.


Im still trying to figure out who Grumbling is. Could he be FUNSTERJohn or whatever he was called? He was another one that even in the face of hard facts and evidence would argue that he was still right. I Cant remember whether he pretended to be a remainer though as Grumbling is clearly doing. This is a tactic by the way of some hardcore Brexiteers, to claim they voted remain when they clearly didnt. They feel it gives them more gravitas somehow to show how they saw the light and backed Brexit in the end.

Edited by Barryd999 2022-01-14 9:49 AM
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 9:58 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


Barryd999 - 2022-01-14 9:47 AM

CurtainRaiser - 2022-01-13 10:26 PM

Bulletguy - 2022-01-13 10:07 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM

Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding.
Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
They go onto state;-
“Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.”
They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”.
So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact.

This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k

Is the result binding?

The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding.

The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding.

So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void!


Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is.

The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!!

Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal.

https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn

As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources.


I think people on here need to understand that Grumbling doesn't need to read our links, his opinion is final. Yesterday I linked to the House of Commons Library view containing the statement "These calls were intensified in January 2021, when the EU briefly suggested it might trigger Article 16 to restrict exports of Covid-19 vaccines from the bloc." But even that isn't evidence enough for Gremlin that A16 was never triggered. You can't argue with a closed mind so I would not bother trying Paul.


Im still trying to figure out who Grumbling is. Could he be FUNSTERJohn or whatever he was called? He was another one that even in the face of hard facts and evidence would argue that he was still right. I Cant remember whether he pretended to be a remainer though as Grumbling is clearly doing. This is a tactic by the way of some hardcore Brexiteers, to claim they voted remain when they clearly didnt. They feel it gives them more gravitas somehow to show how they saw the light and backed Brexit in the end.


Wow!

Make up a whole fictional story to attack someone who has differing views to you.

Dear me - but you are nasty
userJohn52
Posted: 14 January 2022 10:06 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11055
5000500010002525
Location: Pissindoon, Scotland


Gremlin - 2022-01-14 9:20 AM

John52 - 2022-01-14 8:58 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:42 AM

John52 - 2022-01-14 8:31 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM
rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time.

You even contradict yourself in your next sentence
Send for Dr Shipman


But even at the slightly higher state - they are still at historic lows.

And I state again - despite your every desperate need to regain some credibility -

Negative Gilt yield in 2020 means that the borrowing made to pay for PPE will require the U.K. government to pay back a smaller sum than the amount borrowed.


Thats wrong too actually, because yields were only negative for a very short time, and then only slightly.
Most of the money won't have been borrowed at negative yield.
But even if it were true, its still got to be paid back.
Most people have no conception of the size of the debt Johnson has taken out in their name.
Current inflation and pending tax rises don't even scratch the surface.
Or what he has spaffed it away on because he keeps scuppering any investigation.


Of course it will be paid back - unless the U.K. defaults. Russia did back in 1998, but I really don’t think even Boris is capable mucking things up as bad as that.

But you seen to see things in binary terms only. I tried to explain in an earlier post about how even a negative gilt/government bond can provide a positive return for the investor. This is primarily due to the Investor having faith in the underlying currency and that country’s economy.

This is a very simplistic example but it should get over the point.

A 5 yr bond is issued at -1% - which means that you buy into it at £100 then at maturity in five years time you get back £99

On the face of it, a loss.

But if the £ and the underlying U.K. economy performs well such that the buying power of a £ improves by 5% then the investor whilst getting back only £99 - that £99 now has had its buying power enhanced by 5%

So the Investors return equates to/is £103.95



Bonds have a positive rate and are auctioned.
Rates are quoted annually.
Bonds sell for above or below their face value, which determines the actual rate you will get on them.
Which may be positive like UK bonds, or negative like German bonds.

You don't appear to appreciate some people are effectively forced to buy them, however bad the rate.
(Index linked bonds may still sell with a guaranteed loss built in.) If you are a fund manager with £1billion, and £1billion of liabilities due soon - like pension payments, UK bonds are your only option. Anywhere else it would be at risk, however small, of falling seriously below £1 billion Buying bonds is the only way you can be sure of meeting your payments. The fact the £ is worth less is irrelevant, because your payments are due in £, irrespective of the value of the £

Edited by John52 2022-01-14 10:13 AM
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


John52 - 2022-01-14 10:06 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 9:20 AM

John52 - 2022-01-14 8:58 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:42 AM

John52 - 2022-01-14 8:31 AM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 8:11 AM
rates are still at “an all time low”. Not surprising with a BoE of 0.25% - after it being 0.1% for quite some time.

You even contradict yourself in your next sentence
Send for Dr Shipman


But even at the slightly higher state - they are still at historic lows.

And I state again - despite your every desperate need to regain some credibility -

Negative Gilt yield in 2020 means that the borrowing made to pay for PPE will require the U.K. government to pay back a smaller sum than the amount borrowed.


Thats wrong too actually, because yields were only negative for a very short time, and then only slightly.
Most of the money won't have been borrowed at negative yield.
But even if it were true, its still got to be paid back.
Most people have no conception of the size of the debt Johnson has taken out in their name.
Current inflation and pending tax rises don't even scratch the surface.
Or what he has spaffed it away on because he keeps scuppering any investigation.


Of course it will be paid back - unless the U.K. defaults. Russia did back in 1998, but I really don’t think even Boris is capable mucking things up as bad as that.

But you seen to see things in binary terms only. I tried to explain in an earlier post about how even a negative gilt/government bond can provide a positive return for the investor. This is primarily due to the Investor having faith in the underlying currency and that country’s economy.

This is a very simplistic example but it should get over the point.

A 5 yr bond is issued at -1% - which means that you buy into it at £100 then at maturity in five years time you get back £99

On the face of it, a loss.

But if the £ and the underlying U.K. economy performs well such that the buying power of a £ improves by 5% then the investor whilst getting back only £99 - that £99 now has had its buying power enhanced by 5%

So the Investors return equates to/is £103.95



Bonds have a positive rate and are auctioned.
Rates are quoted annually.
Bonds sell for above or below their face value, which determines the actual rate you will get on them.
Which may be positive like UK bonds, or negative like German bonds.

You don't appear to appreciate some people are effectively forced to buy them, however bad the rate.
(Index linked bonds may still sell with a guaranteed loss built in.) If you are a fund manager with £1billion, and £1billion of liabilities due soon - like pension payments, UK bonds are your only option. Anywhere else it would be at risk, however small, of falling seriously below £1 billion Buying bonds is the only way you can be sure of meeting your payments. The fact the £ is worth less is irrelevant, because your payments are due in £, irrespective of the value of the £


Yes - really good points you make.

But pension funds that rely on annuity purchase are few and far between now.

Government schemes are unfunded “money in, money out” schemes. The NHS, Civil Service scheme benefits are paid out of general taxation.

There are few funded Final Salary schemes left now whereby guaranteed benefits require Gilt purchase to secure the funds. And even this is risky because if the annuity population lives longer than the Scheme Actuaries calculation - then that scheme can - and some have - run out of money such that the Company that provides the scheme has to bail the scheme out.

Hence the move to Money Purchase where each individual accrues a pot which they own and from which they can take the benefits in pretty much anyway they like. But with Annuity Rates on the floor, who on earth would want to lock into them now?

So I think what you say is true - but it has little actual relevance to pension income provision today.

Edit to add:-

https://www.wrensterling.com/blog/negative-gilt-yields/

Edited by Gremlin 2022-01-14 10:49 AM
userBarryd999
Posted: 14 January 2022 11:47 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


The special one

Posts: 11458
5000500010001001001001002525
Location: North Yorkshire Dales - Kontiki 640 Hank the Tank


Gremlin - 2022-01-14 9:58 AM

Barryd999 - 2022-01-14 9:47 AM

CurtainRaiser - 2022-01-13 10:26 PM

Bulletguy - 2022-01-13 10:07 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM

Brian Kirby - 2022-01-13 6:57 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-12 4:21 PM..........................Yes - I’ve read that - and it seems that unlike you I read all of it because whilst it sets out the rationale for Referenda NOT to be binding, it then goes on to explain in what circumstances they become legally binding.
Specifically they cite that the Foreign Secretary on the 9th June 2015 stated “(the) decision about our membership should be taken by the British People, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even Government Ministers or Parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
They go onto state;-
“Similarly, the Governments leaflet to each household advocating a Remain Vote told voters that it (The Government) would implement the result.”
They go on to say that the Courts made it quite clear that MP’s delegated the decision to the voters and that MP’s have no legal right to “unmake it now”.
So the Referendum is and always was, legally binding. Even your own link explains this fact.

This is from the HoC library, Thursday, 12 May, 2016 - here: https://tinyurl.com/ycy99b7k

Is the result binding?

The national result, once declared, will be final but it is not legally binding.

The European Referendum Act 2015 does not include provisions to implement the result of the referendum; legally, the Government is not bound to follow the outcome. However, it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

The point is contested, depending on which side of the debate you stand, but my understanding has always been that there were several electoral transgressions on the part of the leave campaigns that would, had the referendum been made legally binding, resulted in the Electoral Commission intervening over the standing of the result. The reasons most quoted for their not doing so relate to those transgressions, and the fact that the referendum was not authorised by parliament on the basis that it's outcome would be legally binding.

So yes, various political undertakings were given, but those did not amount to any more than politically binding agreements between members of government and the public. So, the result stands on that basis, presumably because had the result been overturned there would have been widespread "public unrest"! With no uncertain result in prospect it might have been very wise to duck the issue of making the result legally binding and so leaving the Electoral Commission to declare the result void!


Another Obtuse uttering - sorry but it is.

The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!!

Lady Hale disagrees with your opinion.......and she's one of the Supreme Court judges who heard the governments Brexit appeal.

https://tinyurl.com/3re8hfkn

As you dispute what the HoC briefing document clearly states you need to cite your sources.


I think people on here need to understand that Grumbling doesn't need to read our links, his opinion is final. Yesterday I linked to the House of Commons Library view containing the statement "These calls were intensified in January 2021, when the EU briefly suggested it might trigger Article 16 to restrict exports of Covid-19 vaccines from the bloc." But even that isn't evidence enough for Gremlin that A16 was never triggered. You can't argue with a closed mind so I would not bother trying Paul.


Im still trying to figure out who Grumbling is. Could he be FUNSTERJohn or whatever he was called? He was another one that even in the face of hard facts and evidence would argue that he was still right. I Cant remember whether he pretended to be a remainer though as Grumbling is clearly doing. This is a tactic by the way of some hardcore Brexiteers, to claim they voted remain when they clearly didnt. They feel it gives them more gravitas somehow to show how they saw the light and backed Brexit in the end.


Wow!

Make up a whole fictional story to attack someone who has differing views to you.

Dear me - but you are nasty


Not being nasty. I even added a little smiley at the end. I just don't believe you were ever a remainer and I also don't believe you are new to the forum. I am certainly not alone on the last one.

Me thinks you doth protest too much cos you has been rumbled!
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 11:57 AM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


I still say it’s strange that you seek to denigrate others rather than engage with their point of view.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 14 January 2022 1:28 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


50005000500020002000500100100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM......................................
The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!!

They made it quite clear, in writing via leaflets delivered to every household, in the HoC debates and in every TV debate. It could not have been more clear. They delegated the decision to the population of the U.K.

This was understood by everyone on both sides. I voted Remain and I understood that whatever the result was it was binding!!

The only reason you and other hard core remainers get the simple facts of contract law wrong is because you didn’t get the result you wanted. .................................

That does not make it legally binding. It makes it politically suicidally stupid to try to walk away from those commitments, but that does not enshrine them in law. It was in the form of a promise to the electorate by Cameron and his government - no more, no less.

So yes, they made their commitment to observe the verdict as binding (on them) but they could not, at that stage make the outcome legally binding because they had not framed the referendum act in that way. That is why the transgressions by the leave campaign were not pursued. No electoral law had been broken.

Contract law? To have a contract there must be an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. In the absence of any or all of the three, no contract exists. So, I do not see how contract law could/can possibly be invoked. I just don't think it would stick in any court.
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


Brian Kirby - 2022-01-14 1:28 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-13 8:33 PM......................................
The result of the Referendum was legally binding BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY SAID IT WOULD BE!!

They made it quite clear, in writing via leaflets delivered to every household, in the HoC debates and in every TV debate. It could not have been more clear. They delegated the decision to the population of the U.K.

This was understood by everyone on both sides. I voted Remain and I understood that whatever the result was it was binding!!

The only reason you and other hard core remainers get the simple facts of contract law wrong is because you didn’t get the result you wanted. .................................

That does not make it legally binding. It makes it politically suicidally stupid to try to walk away from those commitments, but that does not enshrine them in law. It was in the form of a promise to the electorate by Cameron and his government - no more, no less.

So yes, they made their commitment to observe the verdict as binding (on them) but they could not, at that stage make the outcome legally binding because they had not framed the referendum act in that way. That is why the transgressions by the leave campaign were not pursued. No electoral law had been broken.

Contract law? To have a contract there must be an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. In the absence of any or all of the three, no contract exists. So, I do not see how contract law could/can possibly be invoked. I just don't think it would stick in any court.


But it did. And then to cement the whole Countries support for the Referendum Result - the following election decimated the Party that actually said they would ignore the will of the people.

The Gov made it legally binding - accept it, it’s happened, move on.
userBrian Kirby
Posted: 14 January 2022 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


50005000500020002000500100100
Location: East Sussex. Motorhome: Knaus Boxstar 600 Street


Gremlin - 2022-01-14 2:38 PM
.................................
1 The Gov made it legally binding -
2 accept it, it’s happened,
3 move on.

1 I respectfully disagree. Governments alone do not have that power. Parliament, not governments, make law. But it it of no consequence now. As you say, it is done.

2 I accept that the referendum result was to leave. I accept that government stood by their promise to treat the result as binding on them. I accept that we have left. I have no choice in any of the above, but I have yet to be convinced that leave was the best decision. I think Brexit will turn out to have been a historic mistake.

3 As above, I have no choice but to move on, do I? I have been pressganged into accepting that and must, therefore, move on. So I shall make the best of whatever Brexit delivers. But unless I see clear advantage to Mr Average in terms of his/her general quality of life (employment, income, housing, education, health and welfare provision, national infrastructure, level of taxation, environment, pollution, etc. etc.) I shall remain of the opinion that we took a wrong turn in 2016. If, in the absence of clear evidence that Brexit was beneficial to the UK (assuming by then we still have a UK!), I ever get the opportunity to vote to reapply for EU membership I shall exercise that democratic right without hesitation. I just hope that if that occasion arrives the campaigns are properly conducted and moderated to exclude such transparently selective, false, and exaggerated claims as were made by both sides in 2016.
userGremlin
Posted: 14 January 2022 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 
Keeps coming back for more

Posts: 169
1002525


Brian Kirby - 2022-01-14 3:34 PM

Gremlin - 2022-01-14 2:38 PM
.................................
1 The Gov made it legally binding -
2 accept it, it’s happened,
3 move on.

1 I respectfully disagree. Governments alone do not have that power. Parliament, not governments, make law. But it it of no consequence now. As you say, it is done.

2 I accept that the referendum result was to leave. I accept that government stood by their promise to treat the result as binding on them. I accept that we have left. I have no choice in any of the above, but I have yet to be convinced that leave was the best decision. I think Brexit will turn out to have been a historic mistake.

3 As above, I have no choice but to move on, do I? I have been pressganged into accepting that and must, therefore, move on. So I shall make the best of whatever Brexit delivers. But unless I see clear advantage to Mr Average in terms of his/her general quality of life (employment, income, housing, education, health and welfare provision, national infrastructure, level of taxation, environment, pollution, etc. etc.) I shall remain of the opinion that we took a wrong turn in 2016. If, in the absence of clear evidence that Brexit was beneficial to the UK (assuming by then we still have a UK!), I ever get the opportunity to vote to reapply for EU membership I shall exercise that democratic right without hesitation. I just hope that if that occasion arrives the campaigns are properly conducted and moderated to exclude such transparently selective, false, and exaggerated claims as were made by both sides in 2016.


Well that is what politicians do - they lie. whatever type of flavour, they lie.

Money saved to be spent entirely on the NHS? Err no

Vat scrapped - Err no (tho rumour has it a new “purchase tax” will be fairer - we can but hope

Even a vote to leave would cause economic collapse - Err, no it didn’t

Nissan Sunderland will up sticks and leave - Nope! - didn’t happen. Quite the opposite in Fact

Even I thought opting out of the EU vaccine programme was a huge mistake. How wrong I was…..



There was lies a deceit on both sides - and given that it was made clear to all of us, the participants in the Referendum that the result WOULD be legally binding, it is disappointing that some are still trying to re-write history

But they are in good company - Trump supporters still maintain THEY won.



Edited by Gremlin 2022-01-14 4:12 PM
userBulletguy
Posted: 14 January 2022 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: Oh deary deary me!
 


Walks with the gods

Posts: 17806
5000500050002000500100100100
Location: Cheshire



Neither the 1975 Act nor the 2015 Act, which authorised referendums about membership of the European Community or European Union, made provision for any consequences of either possible outcome. They provided only that the referendum should be held.

The 2016 referendum was described as advisory by some ministers and as decisive by others, but nothing hangs on that for present purposes. Whether or not they are clear and consistent, such public observations, wherever they are made, are not law: they are statements of political intention. Further, such statements are, at least normally, made by ministers on behalf of the UK government, not on behalf of Parliament.


Source; Supreme Court.
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Jump to forum :


(Delete all cookies set by this site)(Return to Homepage)

Any problems? Contact the administrator