jumpstart Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-03-01 5:22 PM thebishbus - 2021-03-01 3:47 PM Brian I would treat saying it was binding as a promise, but people saying someone broke their promise does not apply if they did not promise in the first place. Brian B. Johnson promised the NHS "50,000 more nurses". It's in the 2019 Tory manifesto as a promise under his leadership, but typically Johnson was lying and later admitted only 31,000 would actually be new recruits. So that was a broken promise. He's a pathological liar whose constantly made up stories and spread disinformation to get what he wants. He's self serving and self interested and those daft enough to believe he has their interests at heart need to wake up. Cornish residents have been naive and suckered into believing him....after all thats why they voted Brexit but now find, like many others who are waking up to Project Reality, they are not going to get the same level of funding as they'd enjoyed from the EU. In fact they're getting just 5% of what the EU funded to them. It’s already been posted on here that there have been 30,000 NEW applications to the NHS college for nurses and the Philippines have promised Nurses for vaccine, so the figures are increasing even if it’s probably not due to Boris. EU funding was always our funding and it’s early days to say they’ve not had the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-01 5:48 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 4:01 PM pepe63 - 2021-03-01 2:30 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 1:59 PM Cameron saying it was binding was the error. He should have then the result would be discussed in Parliament. Yes i did vote leave and like the Government and all in Brussels didn't think it would actually win. Thanks for the response J/S, and I appreciate your candour.. So, for the sake of polite debate, lets assume that the ref' had been "advisory", what would you have thought, and how would you have felt, if once the result had been "discussed" in Parliament, "they" decided to just ignore the result and remain with the situation as it was? Would you have been angry that they had ignored the result(your vote!)? or somewhat relieved that whilst you had been able to make your point, there wouldn't have been any actual knock-on "repercussions" ? I always thought to have it binding was a mistake, there were multiple options eg a second referendum after a period of discussion and reflection. I also think once the initial result was in then Brussels would have had the s**ts and made more concesions to Cameron. It has already been admitted that had the result of leaving been a possibility Brussels would have rethought it all. They probably would have been enough to vote stay in a second vote. Brussels could have done a lot more to prevent this. But then, had it been stated that the referendum was advisory (which, in reality, it was - until Cameron gave his undertaking to treat it as binding) the government would also have been able to commission some proper opinion polling and consultation to discover why people actually wanted to leave. My strong impression from the campaign is that many voted leave on the basis of misunderstanding and misinformation. This was never countered during the campaign (in part no doubt because Cameron etc did not think they would lose the "argument") though it easily could, and should, have been. I accept that wild claims were made by both sides, but there really should have been at least some degree of moderation, and pf post hoc investigation. Having then gathered the evidence as to the underlying dissatisfactions people felt, that could have been taken to the EU for them to consider. There seemed to be two campaigns - each conducted on a different basis. One, for leave, that centred principally on emotional arguments (sovereignty etc.) and the other, for remain, that centred on more intellectual arguments (the economy, etc.). So one to the heart, the other to the head. I notice this was also Sylvie Bermann's take as the then French ambassador to the UK, and that she also found it impossible to engage the Brexiters in discussion regarding their reasoning. Her summary is that it was a victory for "passion over reality". Not quite what one usually associates with the characteristics of us, reputedly phlegmatic, British! :-D She also acknowledged that had the EU realised a leave was likely they would have given more to Cameron, so a good deal of blame lies with Brussels for gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 As an addition Brian i think it is a mess at present, poorly negotiated and what possessed them to not include Finance with the whole deal just to get it done by end of year is nuts. However its early days to make a finite judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 1, 2021 Author Share Posted March 1, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-01 5:52 PM Bulletguy - 2021-03-01 5:22 PM thebishbus - 2021-03-01 3:47 PM Brian I would treat saying it was binding as a promise, but people saying someone broke their promise does not apply if they did not promise in the first place. Brian B. Johnson promised the NHS "50,000 more nurses". It's in the 2019 Tory manifesto as a promise under his leadership, but typically Johnson was lying and later admitted only 31,000 would actually be new recruits. So that was a broken promise. He's a pathological liar whose constantly made up stories and spread disinformation to get what he wants. He's self serving and self interested and those daft enough to believe he has their interests at heart need to wake up. Cornish residents have been naive and suckered into believing him....after all thats why they voted Brexit but now find, like many others who are waking up to Project Reality, they are not going to get the same level of funding as they'd enjoyed from the EU. In fact they're getting just 5% of what the EU funded to them. EU funding was always our funding and it’s early days to say they’ve not had the same level. Obfuscation. *-) UK financially benefitted from being a member state of the EU. As a result of leaving UK has lost that funding and is failing to make up the loss, as Cornwall have discovered. You can argue that point all you like but it won't make your case for Brexit any better....just worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-01 6:32 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-01 5:48 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 4:01 PM pepe63 - 2021-03-01 2:30 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 1:59 PM Cameron saying it was binding was the error. He should have then the result would be discussed in Parliament. Yes i did vote leave and like the Government and all in Brussels didn't think it would actually win. Thanks for the response J/S, and I appreciate your candour.. So, for the sake of polite debate, lets assume that the ref' had been "advisory", what would you have thought, and how would you have felt, if once the result had been "discussed" in Parliament, "they" decided to just ignore the result and remain with the situation as it was? Would you have been angry that they had ignored the result(your vote!)? or somewhat relieved that whilst you had been able to make your point, there wouldn't have been any actual knock-on "repercussions" ? I always thought to have it binding was a mistake, there were multiple options eg a second referendum after a period of discussion and reflection. I also think once the initial result was in then Brussels would have had the s**ts and made more concesions to Cameron. It has already been admitted that had the result of leaving been a possibility Brussels would have rethought it all. They probably would have been enough to vote stay in a second vote. Brussels could have done a lot more to prevent this. But then, had it been stated that the referendum was advisory (which, in reality, it was - until Cameron gave his undertaking to treat it as binding) the government would also have been able to commission some proper opinion polling and consultation to discover why people actually wanted to leave. My strong impression from the campaign is that many voted leave on the basis of misunderstanding and misinformation. This was never countered during the campaign (in part no doubt because Cameron etc did not think they would lose the "argument") though it easily could, and should, have been. I accept that wild claims were made by both sides, but there really should have been at least some degree of moderation, and pf post hoc investigation. Having then gathered the evidence as to the underlying dissatisfactions people felt, that could have been taken to the EU for them to consider. There seemed to be two campaigns - each conducted on a different basis. One, for leave, that centred principally on emotional arguments (sovereignty etc.) and the other, for remain, that centred on more intellectual arguments (the economy, etc.). So one to the heart, the other to the head. I notice this was also Sylvie Bermann's take as the then French ambassador to the UK, and that she also found it impossible to engage the Brexiters in discussion regarding their reasoning. Her summary is that it was a victory for "passion over reality". Not quite what one usually associates with the characteristics of us, reputedly phlegmatic, British! :-D She also acknowledged that had the EU realised a leave was likely they would have given more to Cameron, so a good deal of blame lies with Brussels for gambling. She didn't. It was as a classic Express headline where the content was a interpretation of what she might have meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-01 7:40 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 6:32 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-01 5:48 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 4:01 PM pepe63 - 2021-03-01 2:30 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 1:59 PM Cameron saying it was binding was the error. He should have then the result would be discussed in Parliament. Yes i did vote leave and like the Government and all in Brussels didn't think it would actually win. Thanks for the response J/S, and I appreciate your candour.. So, for the sake of polite debate, lets assume that the ref' had been "advisory", what would you have thought, and how would you have felt, if once the result had been "discussed" in Parliament, "they" decided to just ignore the result and remain with the situation as it was? Would you have been angry that they had ignored the result(your vote!)? or somewhat relieved that whilst you had been able to make your point, there wouldn't have been any actual knock-on "repercussions" ? I always thought to have it binding was a mistake, there were multiple options eg a second referendum after a period of discussion and reflection. I also think once the initial result was in then Brussels would have had the s**ts and made more concesions to Cameron. It has already been admitted that had the result of leaving been a possibility Brussels would have rethought it all. They probably would have been enough to vote stay in a second vote. Brussels could have done a lot more to prevent this. But then, had it been stated that the referendum was advisory (which, in reality, it was - until Cameron gave his undertaking to treat it as binding) the government would also have been able to commission some proper opinion polling and consultation to discover why people actually wanted to leave. My strong impression from the campaign is that many voted leave on the basis of misunderstanding and misinformation. This was never countered during the campaign (in part no doubt because Cameron etc did not think they would lose the "argument") though it easily could, and should, have been. I accept that wild claims were made by both sides, but there really should have been at least some degree of moderation, and pf post hoc investigation. Having then gathered the evidence as to the underlying dissatisfactions people felt, that could have been taken to the EU for them to consider. There seemed to be two campaigns - each conducted on a different basis. One, for leave, that centred principally on emotional arguments (sovereignty etc.) and the other, for remain, that centred on more intellectual arguments (the economy, etc.). So one to the heart, the other to the head. I notice this was also Sylvie Bermann's take as the then French ambassador to the UK, and that she also found it impossible to engage the Brexiters in discussion regarding their reasoning. Her summary is that it was a victory for "passion over reality". Not quite what one usually associates with the characteristics of us, reputedly phlegmatic, British! :-D She also acknowledged that had the EU realised a leave was likely they would have given more to Cameron, so a good deal of blame lies with Brussels for gambling. She didn't. It was as a classic Express headline where the content was a interpretation of what she might have meant. Yes she did... David Cameron was always telling other heads of government that he would win and he rejected any help from EU countries,” she told Rusi. She said that if Cameron had warned the EU that he was going to lose, Europe would have come up with a new offer on migration. British ministers told her that they might win with as much as 60% of the vote. As I don’t read the Express I’ll bow to your literary experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-01 8:12 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-01 7:40 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 6:32 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-01 5:48 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 4:01 PM pepe63 - 2021-03-01 2:30 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 1:59 PM Cameron saying it was binding was the error. He should have then the result would be discussed in Parliament. Yes i did vote leave and like the Government and all in Brussels didn't think it would actually win. Thanks for the response J/S, and I appreciate your candour.. So, for the sake of polite debate, lets assume that the ref' had been "advisory", what would you have thought, and how would you have felt, if once the result had been "discussed" in Parliament, "they" decided to just ignore the result and remain with the situation as it was? Would you have been angry that they had ignored the result(your vote!)? or somewhat relieved that whilst you had been able to make your point, there wouldn't have been any actual knock-on "repercussions" ? I always thought to have it binding was a mistake, there were multiple options eg a second referendum after a period of discussion and reflection. I also think once the initial result was in then Brussels would have had the s**ts and made more concesions to Cameron. It has already been admitted that had the result of leaving been a possibility Brussels would have rethought it all. They probably would have been enough to vote stay in a second vote. Brussels could have done a lot more to prevent this. But then, had it been stated that the referendum was advisory (which, in reality, it was - until Cameron gave his undertaking to treat it as binding) the government would also have been able to commission some proper opinion polling and consultation to discover why people actually wanted to leave. My strong impression from the campaign is that many voted leave on the basis of misunderstanding and misinformation. This was never countered during the campaign (in part no doubt because Cameron etc did not think they would lose the "argument") though it easily could, and should, have been. I accept that wild claims were made by both sides, but there really should have been at least some degree of moderation, and pf post hoc investigation. Having then gathered the evidence as to the underlying dissatisfactions people felt, that could have been taken to the EU for them to consider. There seemed to be two campaigns - each conducted on a different basis. One, for leave, that centred principally on emotional arguments (sovereignty etc.) and the other, for remain, that centred on more intellectual arguments (the economy, etc.). So one to the heart, the other to the head. I notice this was also Sylvie Bermann's take as the then French ambassador to the UK, and that she also found it impossible to engage the Brexiters in discussion regarding their reasoning. Her summary is that it was a victory for "passion over reality". Not quite what one usually associates with the characteristics of us, reputedly phlegmatic, British! :-D She also acknowledged that had the EU realised a leave was likely they would have given more to Cameron, so a good deal of blame lies with Brussels for gambling. She didn't. It was as a classic Express headline where the content was a interpretation of what she might have meant. Yes she did... David Cameron was always telling other heads of government that he would win and he rejected any help from EU countries,” she told Rusi. She said that if Cameron had warned the EU that he was going to lose, Europe would have come up with a new offer on migration. British ministers told her that they might win with as much as 60% of the vote. As I don’t read the Express I’ll bow to your literary experience. Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-01 8:34 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 8:12 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-01 7:40 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 6:32 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-01 5:48 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 4:01 PM pepe63 - 2021-03-01 2:30 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 1:59 PM Cameron saying it was binding was the error. He should have then the result would be discussed in Parliament. Yes i did vote leave and like the Government and all in Brussels didn't think it would actually win. Thanks for the response J/S, and I appreciate your candour.. So, for the sake of polite debate, lets assume that the ref' had been "advisory", what would you have thought, and how would you have felt, if once the result had been "discussed" in Parliament, "they" decided to just ignore the result and remain with the situation as it was? Would you have been angry that they had ignored the result(your vote!)? or somewhat relieved that whilst you had been able to make your point, there wouldn't have been any actual knock-on "repercussions" ? I always thought to have it binding was a mistake, there were multiple options eg a second referendum after a period of discussion and reflection. I also think once the initial result was in then Brussels would have had the s**ts and made more concesions to Cameron. It has already been admitted that had the result of leaving been a possibility Brussels would have rethought it all. They probably would have been enough to vote stay in a second vote. Brussels could have done a lot more to prevent this. But then, had it been stated that the referendum was advisory (which, in reality, it was - until Cameron gave his undertaking to treat it as binding) the government would also have been able to commission some proper opinion polling and consultation to discover why people actually wanted to leave. My strong impression from the campaign is that many voted leave on the basis of misunderstanding and misinformation. This was never countered during the campaign (in part no doubt because Cameron etc did not think they would lose the "argument") though it easily could, and should, have been. I accept that wild claims were made by both sides, but there really should have been at least some degree of moderation, and pf post hoc investigation. Having then gathered the evidence as to the underlying dissatisfactions people felt, that could have been taken to the EU for them to consider. There seemed to be two campaigns - each conducted on a different basis. One, for leave, that centred principally on emotional arguments (sovereignty etc.) and the other, for remain, that centred on more intellectual arguments (the economy, etc.). So one to the heart, the other to the head. I notice this was also Sylvie Bermann's take as the then French ambassador to the UK, and that she also found it impossible to engage the Brexiters in discussion regarding their reasoning. Her summary is that it was a victory for "passion over reality". Not quite what one usually associates with the characteristics of us, reputedly phlegmatic, British! :-D She also acknowledged that had the EU realised a leave was likely they would have given more to Cameron, so a good deal of blame lies with Brussels for gambling. She didn't. It was as a classic Express headline where the content was a interpretation of what she might have meant. Yes she did... David Cameron was always telling other heads of government that he would win and he rejected any help from EU countries,” she told Rusi. She said that if Cameron had warned the EU that he was going to lose, Europe would have come up with a new offer on migration. British ministers told her that they might win with as much as 60% of the vote. As I don’t read the Express I’ll bow to your literary experience. Source? You find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 I think some people are missing the point. The referendum was called to keep the Tory party together and stop any more defections to Farage. If Cameron had not accepted the result of the referendum the Tory party would have been out of power, But by leaving the EU (and ruining the country) they have kept the Tory party together, and made their arch enemy Farage redundant. Like the bribes to voters in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, its party before country every time. They can even bribe and side with the DUP when it suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-01 9:14 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-01 8:34 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 8:12 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-01 7:40 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-01 6:32 PM She also acknowledged that had the EU realised a leave was likely they would have given more to Cameron, so a good deal of blame lies with Brussels for gambling. She didn't. It was as a classic Express headline where the content was a interpretation of what she might have meant. Yes she did... David Cameron was always telling other heads of government that he would win and he rejected any help from EU countries,” she told Rusi. She said that if Cameron had warned the EU that he was going to lose, Europe would have come up with a new offer on migration. British ministers told her that they might win with as much as 60% of the vote. As I don’t read the Express I’ll bow to your literary experience. Source? You find it. Here you go - https://tinyurl.com/yc5q2wjk ;-) However, one factor that seems to be getting neglected is this. The referendum wasn't really about membership of the EU - it was about a faction within the Conservative party, and how much influence they could exert. Also, the Conservatives had been losing membership while UKIP grew. The outcome of the next election for the Conservatives was looking risky, and the so called ERG were destroying what was left of the fragile unity on "Europe" within the party. Cameron's (and others) response was to hold a referendum as a fig-leaf for party unity. They had lost touch with public opinion (and possibly with the pinions of their membership) to the extent that by the time the referendum campaign was under way the Conservative remainers dared not shoot down the sillier claims by the leave side for fear of starting a war within the party. So they just let it run unchecked. Cameron's undertaking to treat the result as binding was the final roll of that die - in pursuit of party unity and his premiership. I think that is why he resigned as soon as the result was out. He'd had enough and completely lost his credibility. Another factor is the actual result. Out of an electorate of 46,500,000 37% voted leave, 35% voted remain, and 28% didn't vote. It is the non-voting 28% that has always intrigued me. Inevitably the Brexiters wrote them off as either those who didn't care either way, or those who were happy to leave the outcome for others to decide (which sounds like much the same thing, but actually isn't), and so claim them for themselves. I just find it difficult to believe that 13 million people really had no view. It doesn't say much for the state of our democracy, does it, that over a quarter of the electorate couldn't be bothered to get off their backsides to vote in the most potentially life-changing vote of their lifetimes? And yet, despite that, our elected representatives all bow before the altar of the "wisdom of the great British public"! Some wisdom! I'd love to see someone explore why so many didn't vote. Was it really just apathy and a misplaced view that it wouldn't affect them either way, or was it that they'd become so confused by the opposing arguments that they simply couldn't decide who's lies to believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Thank you Brian. "She admits she did not believe the Brexit referendum would be lost by David Cameron’s government, pointing out that both sides of the debate had told her the same. In retrospect, she viewed the defeat as the first crisis of electoral democracy, and the harbinger of the populism that has been followed through in the US and Europe. “David Cameron was always telling other heads of government that he would win and he rejected any help from EU countries,” she told Rusi. She said that if Cameron had warned the EU that he was going to lose, Europe would have come up with a new offer on migration. British ministers told her that they might win with as much as 60% of the vote." I struggle to see how when Cameron's discussions with European leaders was February 2016 before the referendum was announced he had any feel for what public opinion was. But there was certainly no opportunity for a further concession to be offered between February and June, so I expect that this is a convenient re-remembering of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 There was always further opportunities ,if the EU had bothered to make some more concessions it might just have tipped a few to change their thoughts.The EU gambled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-02 9:24 AM There was always further opportunities ,if the EU had bothered to make some more concessions it might just have tipped a few to change their thoughts.The EU gambled. Cameron gambled. The EU left a sovereign nation to determine its own future and would not have wanted to be seen to be interfering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-02 9:31 AM jumpstart - 2021-03-02 9:24 AM There was always further opportunities ,if the EU had bothered to make some more concessions it might just have tipped a few to change their thoughts.The EU gambled. Cameron gambled. The EU left a sovereign nation to determine its own future and would not have wanted to be seen to be interfering. Oh absolutely and the EU got left with a black hole in its budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-02 9:37 AM EU got left with a black hole in its budget. what do you call the hole in the UK budget 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 John52 - 2021-03-02 10:19 AM jumpstart - 2021-03-02 9:37 AM EU got left with a black hole in its budget. what do you call the hole in the UK budget 8-) What hole, we've paid back the covid debt of £ 300 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 2, 2021 Author Share Posted March 2, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-02 10:24 AM John52 - 2021-03-02 10:19 AM jumpstart - 2021-03-02 9:37 AM EU got left with a black hole in its budget. what do you call the hole in the UK budget 8-) What hole, we've paid back the covid debt of £ 300 billion. Hope you've told Sunak that bit of good news as he's still figuring out who to hit the hardest to pay it. According to the OBR the figure is closer to £400 billion though expected to be higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 There...as we speak..... Reuters UK: A rare sight? UK blue chips, sterling rise in tandem. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-sterling-stocks/a-rare-sight-uk-blue-chips-sterling-rise-in-tandem-idUSKBN2AU13U?feedType=mktg&feedName=ukDomestic&WT.mc_id=Partner-Google Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 2, 2021 Author Share Posted March 2, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-02 3:31 PM There...as we speak..... Reuters UK: A rare sight? UK blue chips, sterling rise in tandem. Nothing in your link indicates "we've paid back the covid debt". It's not even been finalised yet and the £400 billion is said to be an underestimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-03-02 3:42 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-02 3:31 PM There...as we speak..... Reuters UK: A rare sight? UK blue chips, sterling rise in tandem. Nothing in your link indicates "we've paid back the covid debt". It's not even been finalised yet and the £400 billion is said to be an underestimate. Blimey don’t you read other posts on here.....we’ve already been through this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 2, 2021 Author Share Posted March 2, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-02 4:23 PM Bulletguy - 2021-03-02 3:42 PM jumpstart - 2021-03-02 3:31 PM There...as we speak..... Reuters UK: A rare sight? UK blue chips, sterling rise in tandem. Nothing in your link indicates "we've paid back the covid debt". It's not even been finalised yet and the £400 billion is said to be an underestimate. Blimey don’t you read other posts on here.....we’ve already been through this. Yes I do and none show what you claimed at all.......even the final figure isn't yet known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 with money created by the Bank of England [boE], which was used to buy government bonds, which bonds were issued by the Treasury simultaneously with their repurchase – in effect to fund the deficits that were required to ensure that government could continue to provide its services despite the collapse in tax revenues… How many bonds have been issued? Roughly £300bn… How many bonds have been repurchased by the Bank of England on behalf of the Treasury? Roughly £300bn… What is the consequence of that repurchase? That the Bank of England has injected roughly… £300bn worth of new money into the economy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-02 5:12 PM with money created by the Bank of England [boE], which was used to buy government bonds, which bonds were issued by the Treasury simultaneously with their repurchase – in effect to fund the deficits that were required to ensure that government could continue to provide its services despite the collapse in tax revenues… How many bonds have been issued? Roughly £300bn… How many bonds have been repurchased by the Bank of England on behalf of the Treasury? Roughly £300bn… What is the consequence of that repurchase? That the Bank of England has injected roughly… £300bn worth of new money into the economy Kind of reminds me of the Weimar republic in 1921? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 John52 - 2021-03-02 10:19 AM jumpstart - 2021-03-02 9:37 AM EU got left with a black hole in its budget. what do you call the hole in the UK budget 8-) How are you going to fill your black hole when you vote to bite off the hand that feeds you? ;-) ........ BTW dont bother repeating those lies that English buisnesses will relocate....unless you have some evidence? >:-) ........ We're not all as gulible as you Gorbals Gobbesses Mugs (lol) (lol) (lol) ...... Just sayin :D ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 2, 2021 Author Share Posted March 2, 2021 jumpstart - 2021-03-02 5:12 PM with money created by the Bank of England [boE], which was used to buy government bonds, which bonds were issued by the Treasury simultaneously with their repurchase – in effect to fund the deficits that were required to ensure that government could continue to provide its services despite the collapse in tax revenues… How many bonds have been issued? Roughly £300bn… How many bonds have been repurchased by the Bank of England on behalf of the Treasury? Roughly £300bn… What is the consequence of that repurchase? That the Bank of England has injected roughly… £300bn worth of new money into the economy £300 billion isn't enough.......it's £394 billion and that figure is an underestimate, the final figure will be much higher according to the OBR. I'm glad you think debt can be written off simply by printing more money......we can all look forward to tax cuts in the Budget. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.