Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Francis Albert]

13 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

And backed by the equally pro-remain last Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond.

… who has no political bias at all ...

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Btw, any links to the FT "comprehensively rubbishing" this story?? just had a search and I can't find them. And I am an FT reader due to past experience

Google "Byline Times and Financial Times" and you will find it (Byline Times was the source of the original story). Assuming you are less technologically challenged than me you could also post a link.

A link to a "full fact" (independent fact checking site) article appears on the google search response just below the FT article, also identifying major holes in the "shortening Britain" story. 

[N Lincs Jambo]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Google "Byline Times and Financial Times" and you will find it (Byline Times was the source of the original story). Assuming you are less technologically challenged than me you could also post a link.

A link to a "full fact" (independent fact checking site) article appears on the google search response just below the FT article, also identifying major holes in the "shortening Britain" story. 

 

Did exactly as you suggested FA and all I came across was links to subscribe to the FT. Now, I'm not prepared to chuck a fiver plus to Rupert to advance the argument we are currently engaged in so as you are the one who said that the FT was "comprehensively rubbishing" the story, again i would ask you to post a link. 

 

Again, re the "full fact" I don't know how many pages you want me to go down in the Google search response just below the FT article but again I can't see it anywhere so if you would be so kind I would greatly appreciate a link.

 

In the meantime, here is the link to Rachel Johnson's full interview last week on BBC Radio 4's World at One programme. It's about 4.5 minutes in total. The bit about shorting the economy comes in just after the 3 minute mark:

 

 

[Francis Albert]

N Lincs Jambo

 

Strange I googled again and the two articles I referred to came up  near the top of the first page of the search results. 

 

FA

[N Lincs Jambo]

5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

N Lincs Jambo

 

Strange I googled again and the two articles I referred to came up  near the top of the first page of the search results. 

 

FA

 

No worries mate. I’ll look again tomorrow. Genuinely did try though and couldn’t get anything without subscribing 

[Unknown user]

32 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Google "Byline Times and Financial Times" and you will find it (Byline Times was the source of the original story). Assuming you are less technologically challenged than me you could also post a link.

A link to a "full fact" (independent fact checking site) article appears on the google search response just below the FT article, also identifying major holes in the "shortening Britain" story. 

Fullfact.org?

 

I'm on the Brexit section of that site now and not finding anything. 

 

[Unknown user]

51 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Google "Byline Times and Financial Times" and you will find it (Byline Times was the source of the original story). Assuming you are less technologically challenged than me you could also post a link.

A link to a "full fact" (independent fact checking site) article appears on the google search response just below the FT article, also identifying major holes in the "shortening Britain" story. 

 

Ok, I've found full fact questioning the shorting story on 12th September (older than I thought so had to dig), fair play. 

 

However, since then the cabinet office has decided to launch an ethics probe (which they won't comment on) and it's come to light that 65% of BJ's leadership campaign money came from hedge funds, when a figure closer to 25% is the tory norm. Boris got 375k, Hunt got 45k. 

 

Fullfact were saying the story seems based on incomplete data rather than being untrue by the way.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Smithee

[Beni]

18 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

No worries mate. I’ll look again tomorrow. Genuinely did try though and couldn’t get anything without subscribing 

 

You can read it on Google, but if you click the link it takes you to a paywall.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjrmdWM0PnkAhUGdxoKHYIIDtUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftalphaville.ft.com%2F2019%2F09%2F12%2F1568281802000%2FNo-deal-Brexit-is-not-a-hedge-fund-conspiracy%2F&psig=AOvVaw3kpNVXJ27hx7uguUBjcWSF&ust=1569969987704969

 

No deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy

Not this again.

   

September 12, 2019 12:13 pm by Jamie Powell , John Burn-Murdoch andThomas Hale

Yesterday the Byline Times outlined some £4.6bn of aggregate short equity positions from hedge funds that, the site claimed, “directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign”, and thus a no deal Brexit.

The inference is that hedge funds have used their financial might to influence the outcome of Brexit via political donations and are now standing to benefit through short positions in UK companies.

The problem is, it doesn’t make any sense. Here are a few of the problems with the article:

• Hedge funds contain multitudes. Take Marshall Wace, which boasts £40bn of assets under management. It’s run by pro-Brexit Paul Marshall(cited in the article), and pro-Remain Ian Wace (not cited in the article).

• UK stocks often have little exposure to the UK economy. Take Cineworld, which according to the data Byline Times cited, has seen the biggest increase in short interest in the past month. But 75 per cent of its revenue was from the US in the first half of 2019, according to the company’s latest interim results.

• Equity outcomes are explicitly uncertain — what is a short position on a “no deal Brexit”? A short position on any company? A short position could also be a play on remain. For instance, a company might benefit from a stronger dollar, or less EU regulation.

• Hedge fund strategies are not simply running grand macro strategies on the fate of a nation. To mention Marshall Wace again, it runs a quantitative strategy called TOPS, which aggregates and makes decisions based on external investment research.

• The most-shorted companies have short theses which have nothing to do with Brexit, like Thomas Cook (over-leveraged) or Kier Group (over-leveraged).

• A fund might be short because of arbitrage opportunities, or to hedge a long position (which might contradict the notion it is betting on no deal).

• The biggest single donor to either campaign was Lord Sainsbury, who donated £4.2m to the Remain campaign (source: Transparency International). Of the £16.4m contributed by the top ten donors to either campaign, 58 per cent went to Leave and 42 per cent to Remain.

• As Louis Goddard from Global Witness pointed out on Twitter, there also fundamental problems with how the data has been presented.

More to the point, it’s not clear what exactly the authors are alleging. Is the accusation that all donations are motivated by profits, rather than ideology? Or could it now be the case that, with a no deal looking probable, they might be positioning their portfolios accordingly? That’s assuming, of course, they have a mandate from their investors to position their portfolios accordingly.

 

The fundamental issue is that the entire article is totally speculative. Which puts it firmly in the realm of conspiracy theories. Turns out, it’s not just the far-right who like to imagine that there’s a malevolent, rich financier controlling political outcomes.

[shaun.lawson]

7 hours ago, jake said:

Shaun's claims of environmental friendliness from the untouchable EU and yes I'm not the clever guy he is.

 

Perhaps he should argue with these guys.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://corporateeurope.org/en/international-trade/2019/02/ttip-reloaded-big-business-calls-shots-new-eu-us-trade-talks&ved=2ahUKEwiv0o3jgPnkAhUwUxUIHc9PBIEQFjAMegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3IGeNUjfPBjl7dW_g7t5Cf

 

Oh Jake, you just did it again.

 

Your link above is from February. My link is from April, and - from the horse's mouth - completely debunks everything in your link. But you wouldn't know that, because you don't bother reading anything which might be inconvenient. 

 

Meanwhile, tell us again how the EU is going to collapse. That's what you insisted. Tell us again how the whole house of cards is going to fall apart because of immigration. In Italy, the far right have been forced out. In Austria, the same. In Spain, the People's Party is doing historically badly. In Portugal, a socialist government transforms the country.

 

The only exceptions to this? Poland, Hungary... and the UK. Where the far right rises and rises because we're leaving. And you're on the same side. Incredible.

Edited October 1, 2019 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

7 hours ago, ri Alban said:

The EU isn't stopping anyone. 

 

Correct. 

[shaun.lawson]

7 hours ago, jake said:

😄

 

Jake: Hello, is that Sky Sports? I'd like to cancel my subscription.

 

Sky: Certainly Sir. We're sorry that you're leaving us.

 

Jake: But I also want to keep watching all the channels for free.

 

Sky: Excuse me, Sir?

 

Jake: Come on! Give me my channels! This is my democratic right!

 

Sky: Sir, I don't understand.

 

Jake: YOU WON'T LET ME LEAVE THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

[shaun.lawson]

On 29/09/2019 at 20:07, SwindonJambo said:

If Labour binned Corbyn and replaced with Cooper or Starmer and smoked out the poisonous Momentum organisation from the party, they'd stand a fighting chance of winning. Imho.

 

22 hours ago, SwindonJambo said:

I agree. He would wipe the floor with the whole lot of them. But unfortunately I think that ship's sailed. He's moved on with his life. Even if he was up for it and came back, he has to deal with Momentum just as Neil Kinnock had to deal with Militant back in the 80s. It could take a while.

 

21 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

I agree though, someone like David Miliband would imo obtain a huge landslide victory for Labour, but only if he was able to get rid of Momentum and the entire Labour front bench, thus making Labour electable.

 

There are millions of reasons why I regard Britain as beyond a joke and beyond saving. These posts provide just a tiny snapshot.

 

David Miliband supported an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He was also at the centre of 'special rendition': in which people - including complete innocents - were whisked away with zero due process whatsoever and tortured. The amount of blood he has on his hands is untold... and when his brother won the leadership, he ****ed off to New York for a salary of almost half a million pounds a year. What a fantastic 'progressive': a war criminal many times over.

 

In one of her last acts as Work and Pensions Secretary, Yvette Cooper massively toughened the Work Capability Assessment. You can read about it here:

 

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/members-only-news/1207-even-harsher-new-esa-medical-approved

 

As a result of the changes that were made, thousands of disabled and seriously ill people died. Austerity has - and this is a very conservative figure - killed at least 120,000 people. Cooper was at the very forefront of why: all the abject, grotesque misery that Atos have caused started with her. She, too, has huge amounts of blood on her hands - and calls herself a 'feminist' when her decisions had a disproportionately disastrous impact on women.

 

And then, we have Momentum. Y'know: evil Momentum. Scary Momentum. They're gonna turn us into Venezuela! No, Cuba! Stop them while you still can! 

 

     

 

All Momentum are is a grassroots organisation which seeks to give local people the power to choose their candidates and participate in democracy. This, after decades of MPs being foisted on local constituencies up and down the UK, with no regard whatsoever for local people, only themselves and their careers; the very thing which rightly caused such outrage towards Scottish Labour. 

 

Elsewhere in the world, any fully functioning democracy treats grassroots participation as paramount. It's not managed by a few individuals at the top with zero regard for anyone else; it's about the people. But this is Britain we're talking about. And in Britain, people who - get this - consider themselves sensible (translation: they swallow what they read in the papers and watch on the state propaganda service and don't question the teeny, tiniest bit of it) pine for war criminals, torture enablers and disabled killers while denouncing grassroots democracy.

 

It is pathetic. It is laughable. It could not be more insulting, more dismissive of or more tone deaf towards all those Iraqis, all those innocent Muslims rounded up and left to rot for years on end, all those disabled people who died (and are still dying)... or indeed, the poor, who Labour desperately want to help, and are suffering more now than at any point since the 1930s.

 

Labour is Labour again. Maybe not Scottish Labour, which is a total joke. But the UK party and movement? Absolutely. Yet when Labour becomes Labour again, look what happens. And that is just another reason why Britain is quite comprehensively goosed.

Edited October 1, 2019 by shaun.lawson

[Brighton Jambo]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

 

There are millions of reasons why I regard Britain as beyond a joke and beyond saving. These posts provide just a tiny snapshot.

 

David Miliband supported an illegal war which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He was also at the centre of 'special rendition': in which people - including complete innocents - were whisked away with zero due process whatsoever and tortured. The amount of blood he has on his hands is untold... and when his brother won the leadership, he ****ed off to New York for a salary of almost half a million pounds a year. What a fantastic 'progressive': a war criminal many times over.

 

In one of her last acts as Work and Pensions Secretary, Yvette Cooper massively toughened the Work Capability Assessment. You can read about it here:

 

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/members-only-news/1207-even-harsher-new-esa-medical-approved

 

As a result of the changes that were made, thousands of disabled and seriously ill people died. Austerity has - and this is a very conservative figure - killed at least 120,000 people. Cooper was at the very forefront of why: all the abject, grotesque misery that Atos have caused started with her. She, too, has huge amounts of blood on her hands - and calls herself a 'feminist' when her decisions had a disproportionately disastrous impact on women.

 

And then, we have Momentum. Y'know: evil Momentum. Scary Momentum. They're gonna turn us into Venezuela! No, Cuba! Stop them while you still can! 

 

     

 

All Momentum are is a grassroots organisation which seeks to give local people the power to choose their candidates and participate in democracy. This, after decades of MPs being foisted on local constituencies up and down the UK, with no regard whatsoever for local people, only themselves and their careers; the very thing which rightly caused such outrage towards Scottish Labour. 

 

Elsewhere in the world, any fully functioning democracy treats grassroots participation as paramount. It's not managed by a few individuals at the top with zero regard for anyone else; it's about the people. But this is Britain we're talking about. And in Britain, people who - get this - consider themselves sensible (translation: they swallow what they read in the papers and watch on the state propaganda service and don't question the teeny, tiniest bit of it) pine for war criminals, torture enablers and disabled killers while denouncing grassroots democracy.

 

It is pathetic. It is laughable. It could not be more insulting, more dismissive of or more tone deaf towards all those Iraqis, all those innocent Muslims rounded up and left to rot for years on end, all those disabled people who died (and are still dying)... or indeed, the poor, who Labour desperately want to help, and are suffering more now than at any point since the 1930s.

 

Labour is Labour again. Maybe not Scottish Labour, which is a total joke. But the UK party and movement? Absolutely. Yet when Labour becomes Labour again, look what happens. And that is just another reason why Britain is quite comprehensively goosed.

Some fair points but if this is labour being labour again then I am glad they are facing the prospect of losing 100 seats in the general election (from the Guardian of all places).

 

Momentum are toxic for the labour brand and the relentless internal procedural changes to make sure the ‘right’ candidates are selected is shameful.

 

i challenge you to defend Margaret Hodge facing deselection.   Absolutely scandalous.

 

labour in its current guise are withering on the vine thank goodness.   

Edited October 1, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[Brighton Jambo]

11 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Any gains or goodwill they bought under ruth will be utterly wiped out after all is said and done. Made me utterly sick to see any blue tory colours in scotland. 

 

Tories are what Tories are and they will never change.  - for the rich and powerfull and do hell with the poorest.  

 

I seen today Sajid was today boasting how the Tories will up the national living wage to 10 pound 50p over the next 5 years where in truth you would be lucky if a family could even survive on that RIGHT NOW working full time. It is simply not enough to just force employed to raise wages. 

 

The tories just do not understand what it like to have to do without hence they have zero sympathy for their fellow human beings who have to on a daily basis. 

Whilst I agree with your frustrations as it stands the Conservatives will attract a huge proportion of the working class vote at the next election.   They are positioning themselves  as the anti establishment pro everyday people party and the message is working.  This increase in living wage was a very unconservative policy but will play well.  As will the commitment to spend on roads, buses, health.  

 

I know you won’t like this and will disagree on principle but if labour don’t wake up the Tories will fatally outmanoeuvre them.  

 

Despite the common view of a bunch of rich Tory’s it was disenfranchised working class people who in the main voted for Brexit as they didn’t want the status quo to remain.  And who is their new champion... Boris and the Conservatives.  

[Brighton Jambo]

Given the news this morning I am starting to understand why Boris was adamant he needed no deal as a threat. 

 

It seems like they have have put forward new proposals which don’t meet the needs to Eu which is fair enough, more negotiation to be done.  But without no deal threat EU can just keep saying over and over they don’t like new proposals without any need to move.  The backstop is there to prevent a hard border in Ireland which is exactly what a no deal will create.  So without that threat I don’t see how we ever get to a deal that then gets through Parliament.

 

For the first time I am now really really pessimistic that this only ends with no deal.  I can’t see any other way out.  

[Boris]

5 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

Despite the common view of a bunch of rich Tory’s it was disenfranchised working class people who in the main voted for Brexit as they didn’t want the status quo to remain.  And who is their new champion... Boris and the Conservatives.  

 

But how long will that last?  

 

Ironically, they (the disenfranchised working class) seem to be wanting something quite radical (don't want the status quo) so Corbyn and Labour would seem naturally placed to deliver for them.

 

Yet due to negative press, Corbyn is seen as a pariah, and "the looney left" a blight on the nation.  A mixture of lies, mistruths and good old fashioned jingoism have helped that.

 

Boris and the Tories will deliver the status quo, as it benefits them.  Anyone voting for BJ gets what the deserve, imo.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

For the first time I am now really really pessimistic that this only ends with no deal.  I can’t see any other way out.  

 

That is indeed the practical problem with entirely contradictory, arbitrary red lines. It's been headed this way from the start.

[Brighton Jambo]

8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

That is indeed the practical problem with entirely contradictory, arbitrary red lines. It's been headed this way from the start.

I don’t agree it was always headed this way.  Had even 30 Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/Tory brexiteers voted the other way this deal was done 6 months ago.  Just 30 out of the hundreds who opposed the deal.  It’s beyond frustrating.  

[Brighton Jambo]

30 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

But how long will that last?  

 

Ironically, they (the disenfranchised working class) seem to be wanting something quite radical (don't want the status quo) so Corbyn and Labour would seem naturally placed to deliver for them.

 

Yet due to negative press, Corbyn is seen as a pariah, and "the looney left" a blight on the nation.  A mixture of lies, mistruths and good old fashioned jingoism have helped that.

 

Boris and the Tories will deliver the status quo, as it benefits them.  Anyone voting for BJ gets what the deserve, imo.

It’s hard to credibly make the case for the Tories maintaining this status quo when they are the ones actually pushing for brexit to happen and labours position is at best vague and at worst a remain party.  When it comes to domestic policy you are right in your assertions but no one is talking domestic policy and the election will be over brexit.  Through that lens it’s labour who are for he status quo and the Tories who are for the big changes.  

 

P.s.  the press are not responsible for labours current predicament.  

Edited October 1, 2019 by Brighton Jambo

[Justin Z]

17 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

I don’t agree it was always headed this way.  Had even 30 Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/Tory brexiteers voted the other way this deal was done 6 months ago.  Just 30 out of the hundreds who opposed the deal.  It’s beyond frustrating.  

 

Well, but that's my point. They voted no precisely because they would only accept a deal with contradictory red lines that are politically and logistically impossible and make absolutely no sense in practice or in law. And let's be clear. The first three parties you listed there are irrelevant to these red lines, which are entirely the creation of the Tory brexiteer wing. The tail wagging the dog, and nothing else.

[Brighton Jambo]

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

Well, but that's my point. They voted no precisely because they would only accept a deal with contradictory red lines that are politically and logistically impossible and make absolutely no sense in practice or in law. And let's be clear. The first three parties you listed there are irrelevant to these red lines, which are entirely the creation of the Tory brexiteer wing. The tail wagging the dog, and nothing else.

I agree that they are irrelevant to the red lines but they could have chosen to support a deal with meant no deal was an impossibility, the referendum was honoured and we could have all moved on.

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Brighton Jambo said:

It’s hard to credibly make the case for the Tories maintaining this status quo when they are the ones actually pushing for brexit to happen and labours position is at best vague and at worst a remain party.  When it comes to domestic policy you are right in your assertions but no one is talking domestic policy and the election will be over brexit.  Through that lens it’s labour who are for he status quo and the Tories who are for the big changes.  

 

Ah, OK, I get you on that.  Fair doos.

 

I suppose my point is that once that is out of the way, the status quo very much remains, and these poor sods who lap up the Johnson rhetoric are going to suffer.

 

Agree that Labour have had a nightmare over the whole Brexit thing.  JC no saviour there!

[Brighton Jambo]

4 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Ah, OK, I get you on that.  Fair doos.

 

I suppose my point is that once that is out of the way, the status quo very much remains, and these poor sods who lap up the Johnson rhetoric are going to suffer.

 

Agree that Labour have had a nightmare over the whole Brexit thing.  JC no saviour there!

Yeah agreed!

[Justin Z]

5 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

I agree that they are irrelevant to the red lines but they could have chosen to support a deal with meant no deal was an impossibility, the referendum was honoured and we could have all moved on.

 

They could have caved to arch brexiteer lunacy, yes, and done this. I don't blame them for holding out hope the sane majority could prevail over an insane minority and at the very least get a decent deal done in line with most interests.

[Brighton Jambo]

19 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

They could have caved to arch brexiteer lunacy, yes, and done this. I don't blame them for holding out hope the sane majority could prevail over an insane minority and at the very least get a decent deal done in line with most interests.

That deal was not arch brexiteer lunacy, if it was the brexiteers would have voted for it.  

 

What is the sane majority?  Every single alternative option vote in the commons failed to get a majority.  Every single one.  Let’s not pretend those parties were holding out for something specific, they were playing politics.

[N Lincs Jambo]

9 hours ago, fancy a brew said:

 

You can read it on Google, but if you click the link it takes you to a paywall.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjrmdWM0PnkAhUGdxoKHYIIDtUQzPwBegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftalphaville.ft.com%2F2019%2F09%2F12%2F1568281802000%2FNo-deal-Brexit-is-not-a-hedge-fund-conspiracy%2F&psig=AOvVaw3kpNVXJ27hx7uguUBjcWSF&ust=1569969987704969

 

No deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy

Not this again.

   

September 12, 2019 12:13 pm by Jamie Powell , John Burn-Murdoch andThomas Hale

Yesterday the Byline Times outlined some £4.6bn of aggregate short equity positions from hedge funds that, the site claimed, “directly or indirectly bankrolled Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign”, and thus a no deal Brexit.

The inference is that hedge funds have used their financial might to influence the outcome of Brexit via political donations and are now standing to benefit through short positions in UK companies.

The problem is, it doesn’t make any sense. Here are a few of the problems with the article:

• Hedge funds contain multitudes. Take Marshall Wace, which boasts £40bn of assets under management. It’s run by pro-Brexit Paul Marshall(cited in the article), and pro-Remain Ian Wace (not cited in the article).

• UK stocks often have little exposure to the UK economy. Take Cineworld, which according to the data Byline Times cited, has seen the biggest increase in short interest in the past month. But 75 per cent of its revenue was from the US in the first half of 2019, according to the company’s latest interim results.

• Equity outcomes are explicitly uncertain — what is a short position on a “no deal Brexit”? A short position on any company? A short position could also be a play on remain. For instance, a company might benefit from a stronger dollar, or less EU regulation.

• Hedge fund strategies are not simply running grand macro strategies on the fate of a nation. To mention Marshall Wace again, it runs a quantitative strategy called TOPS, which aggregates and makes decisions based on external investment research.

• The most-shorted companies have short theses which have nothing to do with Brexit, like Thomas Cook (over-leveraged) or Kier Group (over-leveraged).

• A fund might be short because of arbitrage opportunities, or to hedge a long position (which might contradict the notion it is betting on no deal).

• The biggest single donor to either campaign was Lord Sainsbury, who donated £4.2m to the Remain campaign (source: Transparency International). Of the £16.4m contributed by the top ten donors to either campaign, 58 per cent went to Leave and 42 per cent to Remain.

• As Louis Goddard from Global Witness pointed out on Twitter, there also fundamental problems with how the data has been presented.

More to the point, it’s not clear what exactly the authors are alleging. Is the accusation that all donations are motivated by profits, rather than ideology? Or could it now be the case that, with a no deal looking probable, they might be positioning their portfolios accordingly? That’s assuming, of course, they have a mandate from their investors to position their portfolios accordingly.

 

The fundamental issue is that the entire article is totally speculative. Which puts it firmly in the realm of conspiracy theories. Turns out, it’s not just the far-right who like to imagine that there’s a malevolent, rich financier controlling political outcomes.

 

WOW! Cheers for that Fancy a Brew. I read what you posted then clicked the “Byline Times outlined” link. That didn’t take me to a paywall but to an article claiming the the amount of short positions held by hedge funds related to a “no deal Brexit “ was well over £8 Billion, not the £4.6 Billion previously reported. 

 

This actually backs up what I was originally saying when I entered the discussion, that most people would not actually have known what they were voting for at the referendum (I include Remain voters as well as Leave with the caveat that Remain voters were voting for the status quo). I certainly don’t believe that Leave voters would have voted leave in order to make billions for the hedge funds who are betting against Britain.

[jake]

8 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Jake: Hello, is that Sky Sports? I'd like to cancel my subscription.

 

Sky: Certainly Sir. We're sorry that you're leaving us.

 

Jake: But I also want to keep watching all the channels for free.

 

Sky: Excuse me, Sir?

 

Jake: Come on! Give me my channels! This is my democratic right!

 

Sky: Sir, I don't understand.

 

Jake: YOU WON'T LET ME LEAVE THIS IS AN OUTRAGE

That's a very very silly comparison.

Very.

 

[annushorribilis III]

1 hour ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

WOW! Cheers for that Fancy a Brew. I read what you posted then clicked the “Byline Times outlined” link. That didn’t take me to a paywall but to an article claiming the the amount of short positions held by hedge funds related to a “no deal Brexit “ was well over £8 Billion, not the £4.6 Billion previously reported. 

 

This actually backs up what I was originally saying when I entered the discussion, that most people would not actually have known what they were voting for at the referendum (I include Remain voters as well as Leave with the caveat that Remain voters were voting for the status quo). I certainly don’t believe that Leave voters would have voted leave in order to make billions for the hedge funds who are betting against Britain.

I don't think anyone is saying that or believes that but there is data out there that shows , from publicly available info (according to Twitter) , the £4.6Bn figure is associated with a significant number of parties who DID officially back the Leave campaign.  It's a very long list.

 

Gina Miller named Crispin Odey - check him out and what he does (if she's convinced, so am I) . There was a clip on Twitter recently where he expressly mentions prorogation ,long before the actual event. 

 

Finally the pic on referendum night , post result, where Farage is pictured smiling at a graphic showing the fall of Sterling. 

 

If people like Grieve are pointing all this out then maybe we should pay attention. 

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, Brighton Jambo said:

That deal was not arch brexiteer lunacy, if it was the brexiteers would have voted for it.  

 

What is the sane majority?  Every single alternative option vote in the commons failed to get a majority.  Every single one.  Let’s not pretend those parties were holding out for something specific, they were playing politics.

 

No, but it and the other options were the results thereof--an extremely poor compromise, so much so I'm not even sure compromise is the right word. They may have been playing politics, but it was not irrational.

[Mysterion]

55 minutes ago, jake said:

That's a very very silly comparison.

Very.

 

 

You'll love this one then...

 

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1178612875050524677?s=20

[Justin Z]

3 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

You'll love this one then...

 

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1178612875050524677?s=20

 

Love this, and following from the comments, better yet the barman throws a milkshake in his face and says "you didn't specify a pint of what or how you wanted it delivered"

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

WOW! Cheers for that Fancy a Brew. I read what you posted then clicked the “Byline Times outlined” link. That didn’t take me to a paywall but to an article claiming the the amount of short positions held by hedge funds related to a “no deal Brexit “ was well over £8 Billion, not the £4.6 Billion previously reported. 

 

This actually backs up what I was originally saying when I entered the discussion, that most people would not actually have known what they were voting for at the referendum (I include Remain voters as well as Leave with the caveat that Remain voters were voting for the status quo). I certainly don’t believe that Leave voters would have voted leave in order to make billions for the hedge funds who are betting against Britain.

Glad you got to the articles. I am not sure what your "WOW" is about. The updated Byline Times article simply doubles the number it first thought of with  no more substantiation for what the FT comprehensively dismisses as a conspiracy theory. But you accept the conspiracy theory as fact and use it  as an argument that if the conspiracy were fact and the Leave voters had known it was a fact they would not have voted Leave.

 

But in a way it is an illustration of the problem with the "debate". Each side believes what it wants to believe. I suspect a lot of Remainers think that criminal breach of campaign funding rules by the Leave campaign is a "fact" despite subsequent appeal court decisions and the outcome of a criminal investigation to the contrary. 

[jake]

10 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Oh Jake, you just did it again.

 

Your link above is from February. My link is from April, and - from the horse's mouth - completely debunks everything in your link. But you wouldn't know that, because you don't bother reading anything which might be inconvenient. 

 

Meanwhile, tell us again how the EU is going to collapse. That's what you insisted. Tell us again how the whole house of cards is going to fall apart because of immigration. In Italy, the far right have been forced out. In Austria, the same. In Spain, the People's Party is doing historically badly. In Portugal, a socialist government transforms the country.

 

The only exceptions to this? Poland, Hungary... and the UK. Where the far right rises and rises because we're leaving. And you're on the same side. Incredible.

The UK is nowhere near the levels of established far right representation in most EU nations so again you try to paint a false picture .

 

Most neutral observations conclude that the EU will sign trade deal with the US that will  be aggressively lobbied by big business. TTIP  or its twin is coming .

Your naivety is your business if you believe any different.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjfmuXr5frkAhXtyIUKHcMRDLoQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-europe-36130006&psig=AOvVaw06FJMx-yta7nkDMeh39ROS&ust=1570010184078658

 

As for my posts about the EU and its decline.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwizj8339PrkAhXmBGMBHZzHDP4QzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbusiness%2F2019%2Fmar%2F24%2Fthe-europe-union-has-bigger-problems-to-deal-with-than-brexit&psig=AOvVaw3sEXub2oE5wlBYOm6gXPZO&ust=1570014235600414

 

[Boris]

14 minutes ago, jake said:

 

Most neutral observations conclude that the EU will sign trade deal with the US that will  be aggressively lobbied by big business. TTIP  or its twin is coming .

Your naivety is your business if you believe any different.

 

Do you think that there is any trade deal that big business wouldn't lobby for? (No deal Brexit perhaps...)

 

But just to reiterate the point regards TTIP and the EU.  The UK could have vetoed this trade deal had it wanted to.

 

How confident are you of the UK engaging in trade deals that aren't as insidious as TTIP?

[Boris]

20 minutes ago, jake said:

The UK is nowhere near the levels of established far right representation in most EU nations so again you try to paint a false picture .

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjfmuXr5frkAhXtyIUKHcMRDLoQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-europe-36130006&psig=AOvVaw06FJMx-yta7nkDMeh39ROS&ust=1570010184078658

 

Arguably the Tory Party has a good deal of that far-right within its ranks.  They sit with them in the European Parliament!

 

20 minutes ago, jake said:

 

As for my posts about the EU and its decline.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwizj8339PrkAhXmBGMBHZzHDP4QzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbusiness%2F2019%2Fmar%2F24%2Fthe-europe-union-has-bigger-problems-to-deal-with-than-brexit&psig=AOvVaw3sEXub2oE5wlBYOm6gXPZO&ust=1570014235600414

 

 

Eurozone doesn't = the EU Jake.  How many times?

[Francis Albert]

32 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Do you think that there is any trade deal that big business wouldn't lobby for? (No deal Brexit perhaps...) 

 

But just to reiterate the point regards TTIP and the EU.  The UK could have vetoed this trade deal had it wanted to.

 

How confident are you of the UK engaging in trade deals that aren't as insidious as TTIP?

Big business was and is overwhelmingly against any form of Brexit. And particularly a no-deal Brexit.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

23 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Arguably the Tory Party has a good deal of that far-right within its ranks.  They sit with them in the European Parliament!

 

 

Eurozone doesn't = the EU Jake.  How many times?

The article is about the problems of the EU (the clue is in the title!) not specifically about the Euro, though that is argued to be one of the EU's problems.

[Brighton Jambo]

A Unity government is needed to end this crisis.  

 

JC been told repeatedly if he insists on leading said unity government it won’t happen.  Simply not the numbers there.

 

so come on JC, put your money where you mouth is and step aside for the good of the many.....

[...a bit disco]

Nice wee quote from Boris Johnson on the radio earlier. Word for word.

 

"Ah ah yes if I can I can this is very much if I may we had 17 er 17 the biggest democratic vote in in ipso facto 17.4 million in in all human or indeed animal history.” 

 

 

Move over Abraham Lincoln.

[Mikey1874]

16 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

A Unity government is needed to end this crisis.  

 

JC been told repeatedly if he insists on leading said unity government it won’t happen.  Simply not the numbers there.

 

so come on JC, put your money where you mouth is and step aside for the good of the many.....

 

Or Jo Swinson step aside for the sake of national unity 

[N Lincs Jambo]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Glad you got to the articles. I am not sure what your "WOW" is about. The updated Byline Times article simply doubles the number it first thought of with  no more substantiation for what the FT comprehensively dismisses as a conspiracy theory. But you accept the conspiracy theory as fact and use it  as an argument that if the conspiracy were fact and the Leave voters had known it was a fact they would not have voted Leave.

 

But in a way it is an illustration of the problem with the "debate". Each side believes what it wants to believe. I suspect a lot of Remainers think that criminal breach of campaign funding rules by the Leave campaign is a "fact" despite subsequent appeal court decisions and the outcome of a criminal investigation to the contrary. 

 

Cheers FA. I read the Byline Times article (again, thanks to @Fancy a Brew earlier in the thread). However, I have still to see anything written in the FT as per the bit in bold above. Again, I would kindly ask you to provide a link to the said article in the FT. Until I see that article in the FT, as far as I am concerned, what has been written in the Byline Times is fact and not a conspiracy theory.

 

Let's face it, the Byline Times names not just extremely wealthy individuals but extremely wealthy organisations and it would not be difficult for such organisations to fund legal action against the Byline Times if what that news organisation had written were to be untrue. In fact I suspect it is the first thing they would do.

 

Moving on to your second paragraph. I completely agree with your first two sentences, especially the second one. More than 3 years after the referendum, I have yet to meet anyone who held a strong position either way who has changed opinion. I'm not saying they don't exist but I certainly haven't met one.

 

Finally, I don't know enough (another way for saying I know beggar all about it!) about the rest of your second paragraph to hold an informed position so I'm not going to argue either way on it.

[Francis Albert]

39 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

Cheers FA. I read the Byline Times article (again, thanks to @Fancy a Brew earlier in the thread). However, I have still to see anything written in the FT as per the bit in bold above. Again, I would kindly ask you to provide a link to the said article in the FT. Until I see that article in the FT, as far as I am concerned, what has been written in the Byline Times is fact and not a conspiracy theory.

 

Let's face it, the Byline Times names not just extremely wealthy individuals but extremely wealthy organisations and it would not be difficult for such organisations to fund legal action against the Byline Times if what that news organisation had written were to be untrue. In fact I suspect it is the first thing they would do.

 

Moving on to your second paragraph. I completely agree with your first two sentences, especially the second one. More than 3 years after the referendum, I have yet to meet anyone who held a strong position either way who has changed opinion. I'm not saying they don't exist but I certainly haven't met one.

 

Finally, I don't know enough (another way for saying I know beggar all about it!) about the rest of your second paragraph to hold an informed position so I'm not going to argue either way on it.

We seem to be operating in parallel universes, or at least with different versions of JKB and Google! The Fancy a Brew post you quoted 4 hours ago and from which  I assumed you used the link to "Byline Tiimes outlined" is the FT article - "No deal Brexit is not a hedge conspiracy" sub-headed "not this again" suggesting the FT has debunked the idea before.  Byline Times doesn't name names of the alleged conspirators (or actually any evidence) just names of donors in the public domain so the Byline Times is safe from any threat of legal action. It is as the FT says "totally speculative".

Edited October 1, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Brighton Jambo]

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Or Jo Swinson step aside for the sake of national unity 

I haven’t seen, anywhere, anyone championing Swinson to lead it.  The names I have seen are Yvette Cooper, Dominic Grieve, Margaret Beckett or Ken Clarke.

 

all of them are viable.  And don’t just blame Swinson for this.  Yes she has said she wouldn’t back corbyn but so have the ‘Change’ group MP’s and so have the Tory Mp’s who have been kicked out. 

 

Its simple if JC insists on leading a unity government it won’t happen.  I believe they have even let him select who should.  This is his chance to put country before personal ambition - will he? 

[N Lincs Jambo]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

We seem to be operating in parallel universes, or at least with different versions of JKB and Google! The Fancy a Brew post you quoted 4 hours ago and from which  I assumed you used the link to "Byline Tiimes outlined" is the FT article - "No deal Brexit is not a hedge conspiracy" sub-headed "not this again" suggesting the FT has debunked the idea before.  Byline Times doesn't name names of the alleged conspirators (or actually any evidence) just names of donors in the public domain so the Byline Times is safe from any threat of legal action. It is as the FT says "totally speculative".

 

We might well be FA. I have sent you a PM with a copy & paste of the article I get when I click on Byline Times. From what you are saying, it can't be the same article.

[Francis Albert]

As far as I can see the supposed "Government of National Unity" will include few if any who  campaigned for Leave.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

 

We might well be FA. I have sent you a PM with a copy & paste of the article I get when I click on Byline Times. From what you are saying, it can't be the same article.

I have already read the Byline  Times article in both its original and updated versions. The FT article is the one I am on about and am puzzled that you claim not have been able to read it - it is in the Fancy a Brew's post you quoted!

[maroonlegions]

6 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

It’s hard to credibly make the case for the Tories maintaining this status quo when they are the ones actually pushing for brexit to happen and labours position is at best vague and at worst a remain party.  When it comes to domestic policy you are right in your assertions but no one is talking domestic policy and the election will be over brexit.  Through that lens it’s labour who are for he status quo and the Tories who are for the big changes.  

 

P.s.  the press are not responsible for labours current predicament.  

Feck off.  

 

From day one Corbyn was attacked and smeared.

 

A tory even claimed that it was the Tories who created the NHS, fecking full of no shame and utter delusion. Bit like their draconian policies over the last ten years. The party for all in it together eh....

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by maroonlegions

[ri Alban]

28 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Feck off.  

 

From day one Corbyn was attacked and smeared.

 

A tory even claimed that it was the Tories who created the NHS, fecking full of no shame and utter delusion. Bit like their draconian policies over the last ten years. The party for all in it together eh....

 

 

 

This 

 

 

Tories the party of the working people and anti establishment.

 

Putting the wages up to £10.50 and spending money on hospitals, police etc... And this makes them heroes? What about the last decade?

 

Fecking Scum!!!

[Notts1874]

Tories knocking shite out of each other at their Conference.

[Brighton Jambo]

8 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

This 

 

 

Tories the party of the working people and anti establishment.

 

Putting the wages up to £10.50 and spending money on hospitals, police etc... And this makes them heroes? What about the last decade?

 

Fecking Scum!!!

Who said heroes?!  Deny it all you want but every poll going shows labour sleep walking into an election distaster because Boris has used Brexit to position himself as the champion of what people want against the remainer establishment.    Google it, every single poll.

 

and all the laughing emojis in the world won’t change the fact labour are about to be thumped in a general election by the most toxic Tory party in 20 years backed by a historically high level of working class voters.