Yougov detail shows that those who perceive they will be worst off and that Brexit is bad for the jobs and economy are young, high earning graduates, and they also think it will be bad for pensions, presumably their own.
The haves and the have-nots analysis seems to be spot on.
Well, if they don't like it, they'll just have to lump it, won't they. After all, young, high earning graduates certainly won't consider emigrating. And even if they did, it's not as though it's any great loss - they'll probably only go and become "experts" or something, and we know how useful they are!
On the central premise of the thread, if any of it were true, companies would never restructure. Brexit is as much about sovereignty as it is about restructuring the economy. When I was at Sony towards the end we underwent a £2bn restructuring and it wiped out the annual profit, two years later the restructuring is showing the gains that the board said it would and annual operating profit is up from a baseline of around £1.5bn per year to around £2.5bn per year.
People will say that the board had a plan for company and that allowed them to grow after the £2bn cost, but the leave side aren't in a position to say what we would do after Brexit. Leave are not the government and since the government are steadfastly refusing to publicise their post-Brexit plan (and they surely have one) no one can really say what will happen. Leave can lay out a course of action they think would be beneficial such as completing a trade deal with Canada and pursuing a trade deal with the US, but until Brexit happens no country will want to cross Downing Street by engaging with the idea of Brexit. It is an enforced form of purgatory which is going to be very tough to get out of before 23rd.
Citigroup alone is comprised of two or three that used to be independent (Salomon / Smith Barney / and Citi itself).
So let me get this right. One of the major concerns that came out of the Subprime Crisis was the moral hazard that attached to being "too big to fail" so what do we do, we let three such businesses merge, so they are now "way too big to fail", seems a sensible course of action.
Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh!
On the central premise of the thread, if any of it were true, companies would never restructure. Brexit is as much about sovereignty as it is about restructuring the economy. When I was at Sony towards the end we underwent a £2bn restructuring and it wiped out the annual profit, two years later the restructuring is showing the gains that the board said it would and annual operating profit is up from a baseline of around £1.5bn per year to around £2.5bn per year.
People will say that the board had a plan for company and that allowed them to grow after the £2bn cost, but the leave side aren't in a position to say what we would do after Brexit. Leave are not the government and since the government are steadfastly refusing to publicise their post-Brexit plan (and they surely have one) no one can really say what will happen. Leave can lay out a course of action they think would be beneficial such as completing a trade deal with Canada and pursuing a trade deal with the US, but until Brexit happens no country will want to cross Downing Street by engaging with the idea of Brexit. It is an enforced form of purgatory which is going to be very tough to get out of before 23rd.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
Hardly a surprise. The big investment banks love regulation because it erects massive barriers to entry.
Those are only set to get bigger.
Huh? Massive barriers to entry to whom? Plucky little investment banks?
Of course the amount of regulation that we are seeing from Europe is staggering, and expensive, and the larger the institution the easier it would be to comply. But that is nothing to do with being in or out of the EU.
Their views on regulations are the same as everyone else's but they believe that the ease of doing business throughout Europe with one set of rules simplifies things greatly.
The cost of compliance for smaller funds is much higher a proportion of their income than it is for the BBs. Smaller and medium sized funds as well as hedge funds tend towards leave, the bigger banks and US banks tend towards remain, loads don't seem to care though as they don't think it will make any difference.
Yes that was the thrust of my original comment. Still, people do conflate being a member of the EU with eg. MiFID compliance.
Remain back up to 74% after being down to circa 69% for the last 36 hours.
A good poll due for Remain?
Over £1 million matched in the last 24hrs.
Possibly it's not so much expectation of a good poll for Remain as the absence of a further Leave surge in yesterday's polls. Punters seem to be sceptical about Leave, perhaps unduly.
True dat
It's like the way people continued to bet against Trump getting the Republican nomination even when the polls were saying he was going to get it.
Really, I think that Remain's probability of winning should be in the range 55-60%.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that also put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
£8bn per year, or £40bn over the 5 year spending cycle, or £48bn since 2010 when this government took over. It's gone up to £10bn since then as well, Roger.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that also put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
£8bn per year, or £40bn over the 5 year spending cycle, or £48bn since 2010 when this government took over. It's gone up to £10bn since then as well, Roger.
And it comes to more than the whole austerity program in the last parliament about which people bitched so much.
Remain back up to 74% after being down to circa 69% for the last 36 hours.
A good poll due for Remain?
Over £1 million matched in the last 24hrs.
Possibly it's not so much expectation of a good poll for Remain as the absence of a further Leave surge in yesterday's polls. Punters seem to be sceptical about Leave, perhaps unduly.
True dat
It's like the way people continued to bet against Trump getting the Republican nomination even when the polls were saying he was going to get it.
Really, I think that Remain's probability of winning should be in the range 55-60%.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
''Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh! ''
Actually they all merged before 2008, but your point holds.
For me there are still far too few banks out there and the huge weaknesses of the current system remain.
Some old operators were partnerships who would have lost everything if the balloon went up. Bankers are human beings and the threat of losing everything you have worked for is a far better insurance against wild speculation than a mountain of regulation will ever be.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that also put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
£8bn per year, or £40bn over the 5 year spending cycle, or £48bn since 2010 when this government took over. It's gone up to £10bn since then as well, Roger.
And it comes to more than the whole austerity program in the last parliament about which people bitched so much.
Well I don't agree with that, the austerity programme makes annual saving worth around £14-16bn at the moment (most of it has been eroded by the higher personal allowance), the 5 year spending period saving made by the austerity programme is around £70-80bn at the moment, higher than expected EU net contribution of around £50bn over the next five years, it is still a huge sum of money which could be better spent elsewhere or on reducing the deficit.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I believe it is on General Elections because largely you get the same policies whoever gets elected with slightly different window dressing, so the key differentiation is competence and by extension economic credibility. I am less convinced on the EU Ref as there are major differences in substance between the camp, and pathological liars on both sides so no one believes the figures spouted by anyone.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
Hardly a surprise. The big investment banks love regulation because it erects massive barriers to entry.
Those are only set to get bigger.
Huh? Massive barriers to entry to whom? Plucky little investment banks?
Of course the amount of regulation that we are seeing from Europe is staggering, and expensive, and the larger the institution the easier it would be to comply. But that is nothing to do with being in or out of the EU.
Their views on regulations are the same as everyone else's but they believe that the ease of doing business throughout Europe with one set of rules simplifies things greatly.
The cost of compliance for smaller funds is much higher a proportion of their income than it is for the BBs. Smaller and medium sized funds as well as hedge funds tend towards leave, the bigger banks and US banks tend towards remain, loads don't seem to care though as they don't think it will make any difference.
Yes that was the thrust of my original comment. Still, people do conflate being a member of the EU with eg. MiFID compliance.
It's compliance with EMU based directives that have no bearing on UK based institutions. MIFID is just Basel 3 and we would implement it in our own way outside of the EU.
Got to say I expected boringly and consistently enormous Remain leads by now.
A 60/40 result, my long-term prediction, is not impossible but looks less likely than it did. A Leave vote would still be a surprise, but much less so than it might have been.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that also put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
£8bn per year, or £40bn over the 5 year spending cycle, or £48bn since 2010 when this government took over. It's gone up to £10bn since then as well, Roger.
And it comes to more than the whole austerity program in the last parliament about which people bitched so much.
Well I don't agree with that, the austerity programme makes annual saving worth around £14-16bn at the moment (most of it has been eroded by the higher personal allowance), the 5 year spending period saving made by the austerity programme is around £70-80bn at the moment, higher than expected EU net contribution of around £50bn over the next five years, it is still a huge sum of money which could be better spent elsewhere or on reducing the deficit.
The austerity program in the 2010-15 parliament saved 36bn, we paid 41bn to the EU over the same period.
David Cameron denounces 'complete untruths and nonsense' of Brexit campaign in hastily arranged speech after polls narrow dramatically
This is Dave "World War 3, Economic Armageddon and Refugee Camps in Kent" Cameron that is saying this!
No - He was countering Leave's claims yesterday in a competent matter of fact way. Nothing is gained by attempting to shout him down. This is one of the reasons I intend posting less
I'm not sure that's the case. Many of the mergers we are talking about are American, European and Japanese based firms, although the UK did its fair share (remember SG Warburg? Robert Fleming? Kleinwort Benson? Samual Montagu? SG Hambro?).
The roots of 2008 are many and complex. But allowing big banks to become too big was undoubtedly one of them. Its a topic for another day, I think.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that also put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
£8bn per year, or £40bn over the 5 year spending cycle, or £48bn since 2010 when this government took over. It's gone up to £10bn since then as well, Roger.
And it comes to more than the whole austerity program in the last parliament about which people bitched so much.
Well I don't agree with that, the austerity programme makes annual saving worth around £14-16bn at the moment (most of it has been eroded by the higher personal allowance), the 5 year spending period saving made by the austerity programme is around £70-80bn at the moment, higher than expected EU net contribution of around £50bn over the next five years, it is still a huge sum of money which could be better spent elsewhere or on reducing the deficit.
The austerity program in the 2010-15 parliament saved 36bn, we paid 41bn to the EU over the same period.
Yes, that was the last spending period, the austerity programme was backloaded to 2014/15 so the cumulative savings over this period will be much higher.
Got to say I expected boringly and consistently enormous Remain leads by now.
A 60/40 result, my long-term prediction, is not impossible but looks less likely than it did. A Leave vote would still be a surprise, but much less so than it might have been.
I suspect the public will get what they want - a narrow maybe squeakily narrow Remain win enough to send a warning shot across the bow of Brussels but to dodge the dislocation an actual departure will cause.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
Hardly a surprise. The big investment banks love regulation because it erects massive barriers to entry.
Those are only set to get bigger.
Huh? Massive barriers to entry to whom? Plucky little investment banks?
Of course the amount of regulation that we are seeing from Europe is staggering, and expensive, and the larger the institution the easier it would be to comply. But that is nothing to do with being in or out of the EU.
Their views on regulations are the same as everyone else's but they believe that the ease of doing business throughout Europe with one set of rules simplifies things greatly.
The cost of compliance for smaller funds is much higher a proportion of their income than it is for the BBs. Smaller and medium sized funds as well as hedge funds tend towards leave, the bigger banks and US banks tend towards remain, loads don't seem to care though as they don't think it will make any difference.
Yes that was the thrust of my original comment. Still, people do conflate being a member of the EU with eg. MiFID compliance.
It's compliance with EMU based directives that have no bearing on UK based institutions. MIFID is just Basel 3 and we would implement it in our own way outside of the EU.
Um no. That's CRD IV. Which is the implementation mechanism for Basel 3 which, as you say, we would be implementing anyway.
MiFID is a whole different kettle of fish. It tells us how we can trade, clear, settle and report European equities. And if you want to trade European equities then you need to be MiFID compliant.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
That doesn't apply as an argument if you're already feeling the effects of immigration, pressure on public services, rent/trapped at home with parents/already retired or comfortable.
The gap between those who are Haves vs Have Nots is very wide. I think a great many Remainers simply don't get this. It's not in their orbit or consider it irrelevant. That's why after 90 days of economic Armageddon from Osborne & Co - Leave are neck and neck.
Some old operators were partnerships who would have lost everything if the balloon went up. Bankers are human beings and the threat of losing everything you have worked for is a far better insurance against wild speculation than a mountain of regulation will ever be.
Absolutely. But the government stepping in and socialising all your losses while you get to enjoy any of the profits does seem to be somewhat on the road to hell. I firmly believe that business that feck up should carry the can, meaning more directors in jail if they have behaved in a criminal manner as certain banks in 2008-9 did, and the shareholders being the first to lose their money if they back the wrong horse, since they are the first to profit if they back the right one. But in order for that to happen they need to be small enough that the ripples from driving one to the wall doesn't sink others.
I'm not sure that's the case. Many of the mergers we are talking about are American, European and Japanese based firms, although the UK did its fair share (remember SG Warburg? Robert Fleming? Kleinwort Benson? Samual Montagu? SG Hambro?).
The roots of 2008 are many and complex. But allowing big banks to become too big was undoubtedly one of them. Its a topic for another day, I think.
Indeed and perhaps even a different blog, although not much isn't discussed on here.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
No - He was countering Leave's claims yesterday in a competent matter of fact way. Nothing is gained by attempting to shout him down. This is one of the reasons I intend posting less
No one is shouting Dave down.
He said the 1.7bn bill the EU gave us was 'appalling'. He then paid in full.
We listen to what he says about the EU now, but nobody believes it is the truth.
However, the choice is binary and there won't be another referendum for a long time if we choose to stay. It's Leave, or More Integration, and the response of the EU won't be to take account of powerful scepticism in the UK but to avoid asking the electorate for their opinion in the future.
No - He was countering Leave's claims yesterday in a competent matter of fact way. Nothing is gained by attempting to shout him down. This is one of the reasons I intend posting less
Yes, but he has no credibility to counter them being guilting of exactly the same things himself. The polls show that only 17% of the public trust him now, and that is entirely his own fault.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that also put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
£8bn per year, or £40bn over the 5 year spending cycle, or £48bn since 2010 when this government took over. It's gone up to £10bn since then as well, Roger.
And it comes to more than the whole austerity program in the last parliament about which people bitched so much.
Well I don't agree with that, the austerity programme makes annual saving worth around £14-16bn at the moment (most of it has been eroded by the higher personal allowance), the 5 year spending period saving made by the austerity programme is around £70-80bn at the moment, higher than expected EU net contribution of around £50bn over the next five years, it is still a huge sum of money which could be better spent elsewhere or on reducing the deficit.
The austerity program in the 2010-15 parliament saved 36bn, we paid 41bn to the EU over the same period.
Yes, that was the last spending period, the austerity programme was backloaded to 2014/15 so the cumulative savings over this period will be much higher.
I don't deny it, however I said "And it comes to more than the whole austerity program in the last parliament about which people bitched so much"
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
If it's not economics is it sovereignty? I've never felt I held much sway over what our government does. My one vote more often goes to the losing side anyway. Even when my side won and I marched through London with 1,000,000 others I was ignored and we invaded Iraq. I'm happy to have the excesses of my government tempered by the cool heads of other Europeans. There are very few power combinations I fear as much as IDS Boris Pritti or Gove.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
Hardly a surprise. The big investment banks love regulation because it erects massive barriers to entry.
Those are only set to get bigger.
Huh? Massive barriers to entry to whom? Plucky little investment banks?
Of course the amount of regulation that we are seeing from Europe is staggering, and expensive, and the larger the institution the easier it would be to comply. But that is nothing to do with being in or out of the EU.
Their views on regulations are the same as everyone else's but they believe that the ease of doing business throughout Europe with one set of rules simplifies things greatly.
The cost of compliance for smaller funds is much higher a proportion of their income than it is for the BBs. Smaller and medium sized funds as well as hedge funds tend towards leave, the bigger banks and US banks tend towards remain, loads don't seem to care though as they don't think it will make any difference.
Yes that was the thrust of my original comment. Still, people do conflate being a member of the EU with eg. MiFID compliance.
It's compliance with EMU based directives that have no bearing on UK based institutions. MIFID is just Basel 3 and we would implement it in our own way outside of the EU.
Um no. That's CRD IV. Which is the implementation mechanism for Basel 3 which, as you say, we would be implementing anyway.
MiFID is a whole different kettle of fish. It tells us how we can trade, clear, settle and report European equities. And if you want to trade European equities then you need to be MiFID compliant.
Got to say I expected boringly and consistently enormous Remain leads by now.
A 60/40 result, my long-term prediction, is not impossible but looks less likely than it did. A Leave vote would still be a surprise, but much less so than it might have been.
It's all very exciting. This referendum has me a great deal more engaged. It's all about values - that's cross party stuff. The thrill and camaraderie is quite something. I think it's changed much of the embedded tribal thinking.
And it's nowt to do with Corbyn et al - it's about how we define and see ourselves as a nation.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
However, the choice is binary and there won't be another referendum for a long time if we choose to stay. It's Leave, or More Integration, and the response of the EU won't be to take account of powerful scepticism in the UK but to avoid asking the electorate for their opinion in the future.
So long as there’s a decent percentage turnout. A low turnout either way will simply pour petrol on the fire. That’was the good feature of the IndyRef; a big turnout seems to have quietened things down.
No - He was countering Leave's claims yesterday in a competent matter of fact way. Nothing is gained by attempting to shout him down. This is one of the reasons I intend posting less
Yes, but he has no credibility to counter them being guilting of exactly the same things himself. The polls show that only 17% of the public trust him now, and that is entirely his own fault.
He sounded very credible to me but leave would not like it as it contradicts their claims
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
I think the economic arguments favour Leave in the medium-long term.
Voting Leave is an investment.
Yes, I think of of it like a company who are restructuring, a large upfront cost to get rid of some deadwood, reposition themselves into new markets and make investments towards that end. As I said earlier, Sony did exactly that just before I left the company and excluding the effects of the earthquake they would have projected a £2.5bn operating profit, up from long run average of around £1.5bn when I was there.
''Hold on. Why? Why does Remain feel the need to advertise so heavily to banks, brokers and other City institutions and their workers? ''
The reason is Remain MUST hold the City. If it were to emerge the City thought itself better outside the EU, it would destroy Remain's economic case utterly. It would atomise it.
Remain must try to keep the City onside at all costs.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
The investment banks being, mainly, european or american and the asset managers being british has nothing to do with that, I suppose
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
If it's not economics is it sovereignty? I've never felt I held much sway over what our government does. My one vote more often goes to the losing side anyway. Even when my side won and I marched through London with 1,000,000 others I was ignored and we invaded Iraq. I'm happy to have the excesses of my government tempered by the cool heads of other Europeans. There are very few power combinations I fear as much as IDS Boris Pritti or Gove.
That is because the EU is currently in sympathy with your views. It could easily change, AfD winning the Euros in German, NF in France, UKIP in the UK and all of a sudden you have a right wing EU looking at all sorts of policies you won't like, and then you will discover you can't do anything about them either.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
Since we've had proper polling in this country apart from 1997, every election and referendum has been won by the side who is considered the best on the economy.
I'm not sure that's the case. Many of the mergers we are talking about are American, European and Japanese based firms, although the UK did its fair share (remember SG Warburg? Robert Fleming? Kleinwort Benson? Samual Montagu? SG Hambro?).
The roots of 2008 are many and complex. But allowing big banks to become too big was undoubtedly one of them. Its a topic for another day, I think.
Talk of Big Bang makes me feel old. I used to headhunt rain-makers back then - what a heady time the 80s were.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
I think the economic arguments favour Leave in the medium-long term.
Voting Leave is an investment.
You think Brexit would be the beginning of the end of the EU. Your predictions are based on wishful thinking.
There is a not inconsiderable risk that that would be the case. We could easily be looking at an Emperor's New Clothes situation where the unthinkable suddenly becomes very obvious.
France, Holland and Austria could all elect far-/populist-rightwing governments in the next year or so, which would at the minimum profoundly transform the EU and quite possibly lead to its end.
No - He was countering Leave's claims yesterday in a competent matter of fact way. Nothing is gained by attempting to shout him down. This is one of the reasons I intend posting less
Yes, but he has no credibility to counter them being guilting of exactly the same things himself. The polls show that only 17% of the public trust him now, and that is entirely his own fault.
He sounded very credible to me but leave would not like it as it contradicts their claims
Sounding credible to someone who has already voted isn't really a big challenge, you already believe that the EU is where our future lies. He doesn't sound credible to the undecideds and wavering Leavers and probably not to the reluctant remainers either given how poor his ratings are.
No - He was countering Leave's claims yesterday in a competent matter of fact way. Nothing is gained by attempting to shout him down. This is one of the reasons I intend posting less
Yes, but he has no credibility to counter them being guilting of exactly the same things himself. The polls show that only 17% of the public trust him now, and that is entirely his own fault.
He sounded very credible to me but leave would not like it as it contradicts their claims
You are part of the 17%, as are most party members I am sure. I would be delighted if that other 83% who don't trust him are for leave, but it seems unduly optimistic on my part
Citigroup alone is comprised of two or three that used to be independent (Salomon / Smith Barney / and Citi itself).
So let me get this right. One of the major concerns that came out of the Subprime Crisis was the moral hazard that attached to being "too big to fail" so what do we do, we let three such businesses merge, so they are now "way too big to fail", seems a sensible course of action.
Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh!
City and SSB (and Schroders) merged in the late 1990s/2000s. The sub prime crisis was the result of the abolition of Glass-Stegall
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
Since we've had proper polling in this country apart from 1997, every election and referendum has been won by the side who is considered the best on the economy.
It's how voters choose.
In General Election you get the same policies from either side with slightly different window dressing (at least you did pre-Corbyn) so the economy, and their competence at managing it was the only meaningful differentiator.
''Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh! ''
Actually they all merged before 2008, but your point holds.
For me there are still far too few banks out there and the huge weaknesses of the current system remain.
Some old operators were partnerships who would have lost everything if the balloon went up. Bankers are human beings and the threat of losing everything you have worked for is a far better insurance against wild speculation than a mountain of regulation will ever be.
I believe that bankers should operate in partnerships with unlimited liability. Joint stock banks were a dangerous innovation
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
I think the economic arguments favour Leave in the medium-long term.
Voting Leave is an investment.
You think Brexit would be the beginning of the end of the EU. Your predictions are based on wishful thinking.
There is a not inconsiderable risk that that would be the case. We could easily be looking at an Emperor's New Clothes situation where the unthinkable suddenly becomes very obvious.
France, Holland and Austria could all elect far-/populist-rightwing governments in the next year or so, which would at the minimum profoundly transform the EU and quite possibly lead to its end.
It would profoundly transform the politics of the EU. I think the institutions are stronger than you realise. If nothing else, while populist movements may be anti-Brussels in tone, they are not anti their neighbours. If there is a collective political shift, those countries will be quite amenable to working together within the EU.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
I think the economic arguments favour Leave in the medium-long term.
Voting Leave is an investment.
You think Brexit would be the beginning of the end of the EU. Your predictions are based on wishful thinking.
There is a not inconsiderable risk that that would be the case. We could easily be looking at an Emperor's New Clothes situation where the unthinkable suddenly becomes very obvious.
France, Holland and Austria could all elect far-/populist-rightwing governments in the next year or so, which would at the minimum profoundly transform the EU and quite possibly lead to its end.
Poland is already getting a punishment beating from Junker et al. And Hungary.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
Hardly a surprise. The big investment banks love regulation because it erects massive barriers to entry.
Those are only set to get bigger.
Huh? Massive barriers to entry to whom? Plucky little investment banks?
Of course the amount of regulation that we are seeing from Europe is staggering, and expensive, and the larger the institution the easier it would be to comply. But that is nothing to do with being in or out of the EU.
Their views on regulations are the same as everyone else's but they believe that the ease of doing business throughout Europe with one set of rules simplifies things greatly.
The cost of compliance for smaller funds is much higher a proportion of their income than it is for the BBs. Smaller and medium sized funds as well as hedge funds tend towards leave, the bigger banks and US banks tend towards remain, loads don't seem to care though as they don't think it will make any difference.
Yes that was the thrust of my original comment. Still, people do conflate being a member of the EU with eg. MiFID compliance.
It's compliance with EMU based directives that have no bearing on UK based institutions. MIFID is just Basel 3 and we would implement it in our own way outside of the EU.
Um no. That's CRD IV. Which is the implementation mechanism for Basel 3 which, as you say, we would be implementing anyway.
MiFID is a whole different kettle of fish. It tells us how we can trade, clear, settle and report European equities. And if you want to trade European equities then you need to be MiFID compliant.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
Since we've had proper polling in this country apart from 1997, every election and referendum has been won by the side who is considered the best on the economy.
It's how voters choose.
In General Election you get the same policies from either side with slightly different window dressing (at least you did pre-Corbyn) so the economy, and their competence at managing it was the only meaningful differentiator.
I can tell you live in The Philippines and that you have no blinking idea of the politics of the U.K.
''Hold on. Why? Why does Remain feel the need to advertise so heavily to banks, brokers and other City institutions and their workers? ''
The reason is Remain MUST hold the City. If it were to emerge the City thought itself better outside the EU, it would destroy Remain's economic case utterly. It would atomise it.
Remain must try to keep the City onside at all costs.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
The investment banks being, mainly, european or american and the asset managers being british has nothing to do with that, I suppose
It is what it is, Charles, as I said, it was found that the asset managers identified themselves more with the US so not sure what conclusion you can draw from that, either.
Citigroup alone is comprised of two or three that used to be independent (Salomon / Smith Barney / and Citi itself).
So let me get this right. One of the major concerns that came out of the Subprime Crisis was the moral hazard that attached to being "too big to fail" so what do we do, we let three such businesses merge, so they are now "way too big to fail", seems a sensible course of action.
Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh!
City and SSB (and Schroders) merged in the late 1990s/2000s. The sub prime crisis was the result of the abolition of Glass-Stegall
I wasn't suggesting the mergers caused the subprime crisis, I was suggesting that they made it much harder to clean up because it made banks too big to fail, so we ended up socialising losses while shareholders continued to keep profits.
I thought there was considerable doubt that Glass-Stegall was the real problem, although clearly it was a necessary precursors, I thought Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act was the real problem, effectively naming and shaming banks that would not offer mortgages to (severe) credit risks.
@MrHarryCole: Farage reveals he's been off the booze for a week: "I'm taking this seriously". Says he may well sauna before debate again like last year.
''Talk of Big Bang makes me feel old. I used to headhunt rain-makers back then - what a heady time the 80s were.''
My fave decade ever.
Mine too - what a hoot. All the excess, political strife and seismic changes. I've never worked anywhere since that was such fun - despite flogging ourselves.
No - He was countering Leave's claims yesterday in a competent matter of fact way. Nothing is gained by attempting to shout him down. This is one of the reasons I intend posting less
Yes, but he has no credibility to counter them being guilting of exactly the same things himself. The polls show that only 17% of the public trust him now, and that is entirely his own fault.
He sounded very credible to me but leave would not like it as it contradicts their claims
You are part of the 17%, as are most party members I am sure. I would be delighted if that other 83% who don't trust him are for leave, but it seems unduly optimistic on my part
I took the Sky Eurometer and was one of the 18% classed as Utiltarian. Reading their description fitted my EU views perfectly. Maybe you should take their test and see how you come out
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
Hardly a surprise. The big investment banks love regulation because it erects massive barriers to entry.
Those are only set to get bigger.
Huh? Massive barriers to entry to whom? Plucky little investment banks?
Of course the amount of regulation that we are seeing from Europe is staggering, and expensive, and the larger the institution the easier it would be to comply. But that is nothing to do with being in or out of the EU.
Their views on regulations are the same as everyone else's but they believe that the ease of doing business throughout Europe with one set of rules simplifies things greatly.
The cost of compliance for smaller funds is much higher a proportion of their income than it is for the BBs. Smaller and medium sized funds as well as hedge funds tend towards leave, the bigger banks and US banks tend towards remain, loads don't seem to care though as they don't think it will make any difference.
Yes that was the thrust of my original comment. Still, people do conflate being a member of the EU with eg. MiFID compliance.
It's compliance with EMU based directives that have no bearing on UK based institutions. MIFID is just Basel 3 and we would implement it in our own way outside of the EU.
Um no. That's CRD IV. Which is the implementation mechanism for Basel 3 which, as you say, we would be implementing anyway.
MiFID is a whole different kettle of fish. It tells us how we can trade, clear, settle and report European equities. And if you want to trade European equities then you need to be MiFID compliant.
'If you don't adhere to the rules, you may end up in prison, possibly in America. Something tells me you won't do very well in prison. A pretty boy like you might end up getting ridden more times than a donkey on Blackpool beach'
@MrHarryCole: Farage reveals he's been off the booze for a week: "I'm taking this seriously". Says he may well sauna before debate again like last year.
Sounds like he's about to ride in the Topham, not debate his adoring public.
''I believe that bankers should operate in partnerships with unlimited liability. Joint stock banks were a dangerous innovation ''
Well, a certain proportion should, certainly. I absolutely agree. If bank CEOs stood to lose everything, they would be all over their operatives like a cheap suit.
And it's nowt to do with Corbyn et al - it's about how we define and see ourselves as a nation.
Xenophobic and isolationist
versus
Internationalist and cooperative
I know which side I am on
You really do talk some codswallop. How is being stuck inside a customs union unable to do deals with the rest of the world "internationalist" ? How is wanting to have a level playing field for immigrants from anywhere in the world "isolationist and xenophobic".
''Hold on. Why? Why does Remain feel the need to advertise so heavily to banks, brokers and other City institutions and their workers? ''
The reason is Remain MUST hold the City. If it were to emerge the City thought itself better outside the EU, it would destroy Remain's economic case utterly. It would atomise it.
Remain must try to keep the City onside at all costs.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
The investment banks being, mainly, european or american and the asset managers being british has nothing to do with that, I suppose
It is what it is, Charles, as I said, it was found that the asset managers identified themselves more with the US so not sure what conclusion you can draw from that, either.
The conclusion that you can draw is that the EU is still - after 2 decades of promises - not open to free trade in services. And that the French and Germans have no intention of letting that change. So asset managers look to the US - as a regulated but more open market.
Investment banks are either universal European banks (who are leant on to support Europe) or large US/global banks who like using the UK as a bridgehead to Europe. (RBS is in tatters. Barclay's investment bank is basically US orientated). Neither group has the UK's interests at heart
Citigroup alone is comprised of two or three that used to be independent (Salomon / Smith Barney / and Citi itself).
So let me get this right. One of the major concerns that came out of the Subprime Crisis was the moral hazard that attached to being "too big to fail" so what do we do, we let three such businesses merge, so they are now "way too big to fail", seems a sensible course of action.
Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh!
City and SSB (and Schroders) merged in the late 1990s/2000s. The sub prime crisis was the result of the abolition of Glass-Stegall
And the introduction of the Communities Reinvestment Act.
''Hold on. Why? Why does Remain feel the need to advertise so heavily to banks, brokers and other City institutions and their workers? ''
The reason is Remain MUST hold the City. If it were to emerge the City thought itself better outside the EU, it would destroy Remain's economic case utterly. It would atomise it.
Remain must try to keep the City onside at all costs.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
The investment banks being, mainly, european or american and the asset managers being british has nothing to do with that, I suppose
It is what it is, Charles, as I said, it was found that the asset managers identified themselves more with the US so not sure what conclusion you can draw from that, either.
The conclusion that you can draw is that the EU is still - after 2 decades of promises - not open to free trade in services. And that the French and Germans have no intention of letting that change. So asset managers look to the US - as a regulated but more open market.
Investment banks are either universal European banks (who are leant on to support Europe) or large US/global banks who like using the UK as a bridgehead to Europe. (RBS is in tatters. Barclay's investment bank is basically US orientated). Neither group has the UK's interests at heart
Both have their shareholders' interests at heart. As is right.
And yes I know who RBS' shareholders are but don't forget the aim is to swap current shareholders for future ones.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
Since we've had proper polling in this country apart from 1997, every election and referendum has been won by the side who is considered the best on the economy.
It's how voters choose.
In General Election you get the same policies from either side with slightly different window dressing (at least you did pre-Corbyn) so the economy, and their competence at managing it was the only meaningful differentiator.
I can tell you live in The Philippines and that you have no blinking idea of the politics of the U.K.
I can tell you are a Tory activist and wouldn't admit it if it were true. The only election campaign I was not in the UK for was last year, which I still voted in. Since which time Dave has done quite a lot of the stuff Ed said he was going to do, and George is following Darling's playbook quite closely.
tl;dr the closer it is in Sunderland, the better it is for Remain.
No nation which thought well of politicians would invent the overnight count.
The bottom line is that we'll learn an awful lot from the results — one way or another. I will be doing something on the night, though precisely what is still to be decided. If you just want to close out your bets profitably, you should probably go to sleep and wake up around 4am. I'll see you then…
Considering Nissan has threatened the plant there if Brexit and the fact you can weigh the labour vote, and the fact labour majorities went UP in 2015 despite all the talk from ukip if it is even close Leave have surely won? I know that not anywhere near all the Labour vote is pro E.U but job losses for that factory would hurt that city badly.
Also Swindon has a Toyota factory which has been threatened, this was supposd to be a secret ballot but hey ho.
''Hold on. Why? Why does Remain feel the need to advertise so heavily to banks, brokers and other City institutions and their workers? ''
The reason is Remain MUST hold the City. If it were to emerge the City thought itself better outside the EU, it would destroy Remain's economic case utterly. It would atomise it.
Remain must try to keep the City onside at all costs.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
The investment banks being, mainly, european or american and the asset managers being british has nothing to do with that, I suppose
It is what it is, Charles, as I said, it was found that the asset managers identified themselves more with the US so not sure what conclusion you can draw from that, either.
The conclusion that you can draw is that the EU is still - after 2 decades of promises - not open to free trade in services. And that the French and Germans have no intention of letting that change. So asset managers look to the US - as a regulated but more open market.
Investment banks are either universal European banks (who are leant on to support Europe) or large US/global banks who like using the UK as a bridgehead to Europe. (RBS is in tatters. Barclay's investment bank is basically US orientated). Neither group has the UK's interests at heart
You don't have to adhere to the Occupy camp to see that all of them have their own interests at heart.
I'd swap Koreans, Indians, Chinese, Japs, Malaysians, South Africans, ANZACS for Romanians and Bulgarians [except @Casino_Royale wife] any day of the week.
The whole Waycist argument is pathetic from Remain. Claiming they're internationalists is hilarious - they looking at 28 countries, we're looking at 193.
I'd swap Koreans, Indians, Chinese, Japs, Malaysians, South Africans, ANZACS for Romanians and Bulgarians [except @Casino_Royale wife] any day of the week.
Citigroup alone is comprised of two or three that used to be independent (Salomon / Smith Barney / and Citi itself).
So let me get this right. One of the major concerns that came out of the Subprime Crisis was the moral hazard that attached to being "too big to fail" so what do we do, we let three such businesses merge, so they are now "way too big to fail", seems a sensible course of action.
Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh!
City and SSB (and Schroders) merged in the late 1990s/2000s. The sub prime crisis was the result of the abolition of Glass-Stegall
And the introduction of the Communities Reinvestment Act.
Yes, although G-S shifted it from being a standard bank balance sheet issue to a toxic amorphous mass infecting the capital markets
I'd swap Koreans, Indians, Chinese, Japs, Malaysians, South Africans, ANZACS for Romanians and Bulgarians [except @Casino_Royale wife] any day of the week.
Not racist.
Oh, wait...
Also there are currently more immigrants from outside the EU than in, so you want to leave the EU so we can change that???
''Hold on. Why? Why does Remain feel the need to advertise so heavily to banks, brokers and other City institutions and their workers? ''
The reason is Remain MUST hold the City. If it were to emerge the City thought itself better outside the EU, it would destroy Remain's economic case utterly. It would atomise it.
Remain must try to keep the City onside at all costs.
Generally the investment banks tend towards IN while the asset managers towards OUT (seeing their centre of gravity as closer/moving towards the US).
The investment banks being, mainly, european or american and the asset managers being british has nothing to do with that, I suppose
It is what it is, Charles, as I said, it was found that the asset managers identified themselves more with the US so not sure what conclusion you can draw from that, either.
The conclusion that you can draw is that the EU is still - after 2 decades of promises - not open to free trade in services. And that the French and Germans have no intention of letting that change. So asset managers look to the US - as a regulated but more open market.
Investment banks are either universal European banks (who are leant on to support Europe) or large US/global banks who like using the UK as a bridgehead to Europe. (RBS is in tatters. Barclay's investment bank is basically US orientated). Neither group has the UK's interests at heart
Both have their shareholders' interests at heart. As is right.
And yes I know who RBS' shareholders are but don't forget the aim is to swap current shareholders for future ones.
My point is that they are not interested in what is good for the City or for the UK.
To put the £20bn to £40bn in context, Osborne's over-borrowing has now reached £180bn. By the end of 2016 it will be approaching £240bn.
Britain's annual GDP is also approximately £60bn lower than Osborne predicted it would be.
Very good point.
Doesn't that rather put the membership fee of £8 billion into context?
It would do, but its Remain that keeps on trying to make this an economic argument without understanding that for a substantial group of voters economics is not the be all and end all.
I don't think it's just about economics, by any means. I'll leave that argument to Marxist historians.
Since we've had proper polling in this country apart from 1997, every election and referendum has been won by the side who is considered the best on the economy.
It's how voters choose.
In General Election you get the same policies from either side with slightly different window dressing (at least you did pre-Corbyn) so the economy, and their competence at managing it was the only meaningful differentiator.
I can tell you live in The Philippines and that you have no blinking idea of the politics of the U.K.
Hi you said remain will win by 12-15% is that because of their lead on the economy?
Citigroup alone is comprised of two or three that used to be independent (Salomon / Smith Barney / and Citi itself).
So let me get this right. One of the major concerns that came out of the Subprime Crisis was the moral hazard that attached to being "too big to fail" so what do we do, we let three such businesses merge, so they are now "way too big to fail", seems a sensible course of action.
Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh!
City and SSB (and Schroders) merged in the late 1990s/2000s. The sub prime crisis was the result of the abolition of Glass-Stegall
And the introduction of the Communities Reinvestment Act.
Yes, although G-S shifted it from being a standard bank balance sheet issue to a toxic amorphous mass infecting the capital markets
Agreed. The government's attempt to implement the Vickers reforms over here don't seem to be going well but AIUI they are are essentially a repackaged and modernised version of the GSA.
Comments
People will say that the board had a plan for company and that allowed them to grow after the £2bn cost, but the leave side aren't in a position to say what we would do after Brexit. Leave are not the government and since the government are steadfastly refusing to publicise their post-Brexit plan (and they surely have one) no one can really say what will happen. Leave can lay out a course of action they think would be beneficial such as completing a trade deal with Canada and pursuing a trade deal with the US, but until Brexit happens no country will want to cross Downing Street by engaging with the idea of Brexit. It is an enforced form of purgatory which is going to be very tough to get out of before 23rd.
Just as well big banks are not getting into dodgy shit like "bespoke tranche opportunities" then... oh!
Really, I think that Remain's probability of winning should be in the range 55-60%.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/01/its-the-economy-stupid/
Actually they all merged before 2008, but your point holds.
For me there are still far too few banks out there and the huge weaknesses of the current system remain.
Some old operators were partnerships who would have lost everything if the balloon went up. Bankers are human beings and the threat of losing everything you have worked for is a far better insurance against wild speculation than a mountain of regulation will ever be.
A 60/40 result, my long-term prediction, is not impossible but looks less likely than it did. A Leave vote would still be a surprise, but much less so than it might have been.
No - He was countering Leave's claims yesterday in a competent matter of fact way. Nothing is gained by attempting to shout him down. This is one of the reasons I intend posting less
I'm not sure that's the case. Many of the mergers we are talking about are American, European and Japanese based firms, although the UK did its fair share (remember SG Warburg? Robert Fleming? Kleinwort Benson? Samual Montagu? SG Hambro?).
The roots of 2008 are many and complex. But allowing big banks to become too big was undoubtedly one of them. Its a topic for another day, I think.
MiFID is a whole different kettle of fish. It tells us how we can trade, clear, settle and report European equities. And if you want to trade European equities then you need to be MiFID compliant.
In case you are feeling too full of the joys of spring/summer.
The gap between those who are Haves vs Have Nots is very wide. I think a great many Remainers simply don't get this. It's not in their orbit or consider it irrelevant. That's why after 90 days of economic Armageddon from Osborne & Co - Leave are neck and neck.
And on that note, laters...
No one is shouting Dave down.
He said the 1.7bn bill the EU gave us was 'appalling'. He then paid in full.
We listen to what he says about the EU now, but nobody believes it is the truth.
However, the choice is binary and there won't be another referendum for a long time if we choose to stay. It's Leave, or More Integration, and the response of the EU won't be to take account of powerful scepticism in the UK but to avoid asking the electorate for their opinion in the future.
Voting Leave is an investment.
And it's nowt to do with Corbyn et al - it's about how we define and see ourselves as a nation.
It's how voters choose.
The Woe, Doom and Death approach of Remain didn't entice me to consider their arguments seriously.
France, Holland and Austria could all elect far-/populist-rightwing governments in the next year or so, which would at the minimum profoundly transform the EU and quite possibly lead to its end.
My fave decade ever.
versus
Internationalist and cooperative
I know which side I am on
I thought there was considerable doubt that Glass-Stegall was the real problem, although clearly it was a necessary precursors, I thought Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act was the real problem, effectively naming and shaming banks that would not offer mortgages to (severe) credit risks.
'If you don't adhere to the rules, you may end up in prison, possibly in America. Something tells me you won't do very well in prison. A pretty boy like you might end up getting ridden more times than a donkey on Blackpool beach'
Well, a certain proportion should, certainly. I absolutely agree. If bank CEOs stood to lose everything, they would be all over their operatives like a cheap suit.
Investment banks are either universal European banks (who are leant on to support Europe) or large US/global banks who like using the UK as a bridgehead to Europe. (RBS is in tatters. Barclay's investment bank is basically US orientated). Neither group has the UK's interests at heart
And yes I know who RBS' shareholders are but don't forget the aim is to swap current shareholders for future ones.
Also Swindon has a Toyota factory which has been threatened, this was supposd to be a secret ballot but hey ho.
The whole Waycist argument is pathetic from Remain. Claiming they're internationalists is hilarious - they looking at 28 countries, we're looking at 193.
On the excellence of the 80s: they would've been better if Titus had lived longer.
Oh, wait...
Also there are currently more immigrants from outside the EU than in, so you want to leave the EU so we can change that???
Interesting in light of recent history.