robbin

She needs to be removed.

Is the No. 10 cat still about?

Her speech was and her attitude is an absolute disgrace. She has appalling judgement and apparently a complete lack of self-awareness. Worst of all is her abject incompetence and then she has the bare faced cheek to blame everyone but herself for the mess of negotiations and preparations that she created.

She has to be the worst, most incompetent PM in the last 100 years. Unless and until Jeremy Corbyn takes the prize, that is. (God help us all if that happens!)

This is very interesting but also very scary reading if you are French. The French may be in a whole heap of trouble if the Italian banks start failing! The figures are quite shocking.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-italian-banks/

UK banks have credit exposure to Italian banks of EUR 17.4 billion

German banks have exposure to Italian banks of EUR 58.7 billion

French banks have credit exposure to Italian banks of EUR 285.5 billion -ouch!

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-banks

>

> >

> /uk-banks-strong-enough-to-weather-no-deal-brexit-

>

> > says-moodys-idUKKCN1QG2BP

>

>

> Thanks Robbin - not a political point this time -

> A fair amount of money from inheritance being held

> by a close relative in what I think may be a

> single account.

Depending on the amount on deposit it might be worth splitting it across a few different banks/building socs so as to have the benefit of FSCS government insurance for each deposit - it used to be up to ?85,000 cover for each customer per bank (not per account) - not sure what it is now. I've divided my kids savings like that as I don't want it all disappearing in a puff of smoke if there's another crash (nothing to do with Brexit though - that was pre-referendum) -it just makes sense. Be careful though - the ?85k is the limit per bank so you could get several multiples of ?85k insurance protection by depositing in several different banks, but make sure they are not operating under the same banking licence as it is actually ?85k per licence, so banks in the same group count as one bank.

Of course if Italian banks crash they are seriously (and dangerously) inter-related, unlike ours, so if one goes, several might well follow within hours or a few days and there is always a knock on effect because foreign banks loan all over the place (i.e. British banks will have loan book exposure in Italy) so that can cause probs. But the banks have been alive to the fact that Italy has been teetering on the brink of a financial system collapse for 2 years now and so have been positioning themselves accordingly so as to limit exposure.

It's a funny old world in banking, so you can never rule anything out with complete certainty (as we have seen in the past) but Brexit alone is not a cause for concern in isolation IMO (for what that's worth). I realise though, that most people on here don't agree with me and/or think I talk nothing but b@ll*cks, so you might want to factor that in as well.

Henry_17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well as long as the ratings agencies think the

> banks will be ok i?ll sleep fine.

Sorry, but that's a bit of a ridiculous comment. Is that all you took from that news report? It was the B of E's stress testing that Moodys based their opinion on! Is stress testing not something you were aware of? It's not Moodys who just thought they would guess about the subject.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-banks/uk-banks-strong-enough-to-weather-no-deal-brexit-says-moodys-idUKKCN1QG2BP

In Italy, certainly a possibility. Not here in the UK - our banks are in far better shape (according to the stress testing) than elsewhere in the EU.

Out of interest, why do you ask about banks failing - I haven't seen that as a scare story, even in the usual sources of scaremongering?

Shame TM seems to have made a conscious decision not to prepare properly for no deal, preferring instead to run down the clock in a crass attempt to blackmail MPs into voting for her 'deal'. Blatantly inappropriate strategy given that it has been emphatically rejected twice and it's clear they don't want her 'deal' because it's cr*p.

Complete amateur hour.

Not interested in (and don't believe) anything she has to say!

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dr and robbin I had money on you two getting

> together oh well .

I think I've blown it on that front. You can put your hat away.

Hemingway Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Remainer here, but UK has not been in reccession

> since referendum. Recession is two quarters of

> negative growth not a reduced growth rate....as

> you were

Thank you Hemmingway. That is the conventional (and correct) definition as I have always understood it to be. I've not seen dr's version before and having studied macro economics at postgraduate level I presume I would at some point have come across it, had it been the measure. But then I couldn't rule out the possibility I hadn't been down the pub for that particular lecture.

It's embarrassing I know, but there's no need to be snippy. Just Google it. There's no need to continue to be wrong about something so basic as that (seeing as you are making points based on a false premise).

Obviously I'm aware of your sentiment already - no problem - I'm not bothered whether you give a f**k or not - I have no idea who you are, so why would I be?!

To put it more directly, your understanding of the definition of recession is wrong.

SO24 is basically a talking shop.

Based on your definition of recession, I would agree, but I don't recognise it from your description.

I think I am right (but then I usually do!). I am prepared to stand corrected (grudgingly!)

Much that I cannot stand Bercow, I don't think it is correct that he is driving around in an official car with anti Brexit stickers on it. It is his wife's car that has the stickers.

I don't think he 'searched' for an old rule (also just because it is old does not mean it is not good law/procedure). Moreover, it is a little known rule only because it has hardly ever needed to be invoked - it's just that in 400 years almost every government has abided by the basic principle underlying the rule. May is an exception to the rule and she should be ashamed of her conduct in relation to her so-called 'deal'.

DR wrote:

"I have though had a look at UK GDP and I can't find anything that backs up your claim that GDP has grown every quarter since the referendum. Growth has remained positive, i.e. above 0%, but it hasn't continually grown each quarter, there's been lots of ups and downs. Here's a graph to explain...[tradingeconomics.com]"

Isn't that the very essence of growth? If GDP has grown every quarter (i.e. is a positive % figure on top of the previous quarter) then my statement was correct - GDP has grown every quarter - as is borne out by your chart. I think you are confusing it with whether the rate of increase of GDP has increased every quarter, which is a different thing and not something I have ever said?

The current deteriorating German economic situation is summed up here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/14/german-economy-just-avoids-recession-but-weaker-exports-take-toll

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> well I asked for clarification on your point and

> didn't get it

>

> What point am I missing?

I've edited my post - you can work it out for yourself, but I won't be responding to you further.

Still missing the point then, eh? Or maybe deliberately misrepresenting the posts by cutting and pasting bits that don't relate to each other?!!

As you well know (given that you can read) the 'reply' to my point was not to the part you ascribed to it, but to this...

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People were talking about triggering A50 the day

> after the referendum. Some of the projections were

> specifically "after we leave the EU"

to which I replied...

"Not a single one of those projections was made on that basis, as you well know. I chose the examples carefully. So your observation is invalid."

I.e. NOT your misquote.

Please just stop! I'm not responding to such nonsense from you any more. You dumb down the 'debate' to such an extreme extent it's just irritating and a waste of time engaging with.

I might disagree with others on here, but mostly they make fair points - certainly not cutting and pasting to effect some sort of wind-up. That's no more than trolling - it's not clever.

Mags Court. My guess would probably be the latter.

Yes, but the point I was making is different - I was challenging the notion that it is an appropriate comparison to suggest the vote was somehow swung unfairly by one side's bs, while completely ignoring the same on the other side. It's not on any view a valid way of analysing something. I would have thought that basic principle is surely beyond any sort of argument?

Otherwise the 'debate' becomes Trumpesque in its artificiality.

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People were talking about triggering A50 the day

> after the referendum. Some of the projections were

> specifically "after we leave the EU"

>

> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-ente

> r-recession-with-500000-uk-jobs-lost-if-it-left-eu

> -new-treasury-analysis-shows

>

> We haven't left yet, have we?

>

> The broad thrust of negative forecasts from

> remainers have largely come true - companies will

> leave, you won't get better trade deals, irish

> border, losing freedom of movement rights etc etc

>

> We are 2 weeks away from leaving with no deal - I

> would hold fire on any "everything is still great"

> type statements just now

>

> And this is all regardless of the reputational

> damage done to the country

Not a single one of those projections was made on that basis, as you well know. I chose the examples carefully. So your observation is invalid.

Stick your head in the sand if you wish - it's your prerogative - after all, if you don't those fake forecasts won't fit with your absolute certainties. I can see how that would be something you would want to avoid.

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loss of 500,000 jobs straight after the vote over

> 2 years ago. Utterly false. (ETA - see below unemployment figures out today)

>

> Emergency budget the day after the referendum,

> with tax rises. Utterly false.

>

> Straight into recession. Utterly false, GDP has

> grown every quarter since - it is the German

> economy on the brink of recession.

>

> UK at back of the queue for US trade deal (OK that

> was Obama but he was plainly egged on to say this

> by Cameron stood next to him smiling and nodding

> like a nodding dog in a car window). False.

>

> The list could go on, but these are major (false)

> predictions apparently designed to create fear and

> increase the remain vote. They have all turned

> out to be false. So what effect do you think those

> had on the distorting the true vote?

Oh and today the unemployment figures are out - down to 3.9% in the UK (lowest since 1975) compared to the EU average of 6.5%.

Does this answer your question dr? Were you unaware of those ridiculous scare tactics? Did you think they were legitimate forecasts when you cast your vote in the referendum (in which case you would have been misled into voting to remain) or did you just think the NHS bus was the only bs being peddled? I only ask because you appear to concentrate exclusively on bs on one side as if that's the only nonsense that was spoken about Brexit.

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Didn't Cameron also say something about world war

> 3 .

Yes, but I discounted that because it was so 'out there' that it was more redolent of a line from a panto than a serious political statement.

Loss of 500,000 jobs straight after the vote over 2 years ago. Utterly false.

Emergency budget the day after the referendum, with tax rises. Utterly false.

Straight into recession. Utterly false, GDP has grown every quarter since - it is the German economy on the brink of recession.

UK at back of the queue for US trade deal (OK that was Obama but he was plainly egged on to say this by Cameron stood next to him smiling and nodding like a nodding dog in a car window). False.

The list could go on, but these are major (false) predictions apparently designed to create fear and increase the remain vote. They have all turned out to be false. So what effect do you think those had on the distorting the true vote?