you can disagree politely but firmly

You can but in the past he kept posting things that were not true whether it was THM admonishing him over the exposure to EZ risks or the £350million per week claim or turkey etc. Once anyone posts things that the evidence does not support often enough people will consider it to be a personality flaw hence the hashtags.

Imagine trump posted here – do you think he would get abuse and do you think he would deserve it over fake news etc?
I say yes to both – not that I am comparing jamby to trump [ JOKES GOES HERE] its just to illustrate a point

I am sure it will be politer if he has facts this time round or he accepts when his claim transpires to be demonstrably untrue. if not then some folk will react as they did last time
It did not take long to make it about him did it 😕

I can understand the desire not to have a hard border, but unequivocally, it is the UK that’s placing a hard border there.

Anything other than that is using a (relatively) fragile peace as a bargaining chip to get trade.

And yes, please read the WTO stuff. It’s getting a bit tiring hearing “we’ll just go WTO” every time an inconvenient fact is mooted.

Does any other country trade on WTO rules alone?
If you look at the WTO database which lists all regional trade agreements, there is nothing for Mauritania. That’s led some to suggest Mauritania is the only member to trade solely on WTO rules.
However, according to the WTO, Mauritania has joined the Economic Community of West African States, and it has preferential trade arrangements with some 20 WTO members.
There are some countries which aren’t WTO members, including Algeria, Serbia and North Korea, but the WTO says all of its members have some sort of bilateral or regional trade agreement in place.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41859691

For balance read the FT article and the Torygraph interview with the head of WTO

Not that we want WTO of course, despite the EUs best intentions to push us that way

Can we please keep this pragmatic and topical, I don’t think anyone would object to a seperate ‘return of jamb’ thread.

Brexit – a situation where no one knows the answers and most folk don’t know the questions.

Not that we want WTO of course

I am not sure who the we is that you are speaking on behalf of but it does not matter what we want the EU decides not us.

And yes, please read the WTO stuff. It’s getting a bit tiring hearing “we’ll just go WTO” every time an inconvenient fact is mooted

Ditto the position of both HM Gov and HM Opposition. At no stage have either proposed a hard brexit or indicated that this is what they are negotiating/would negotiate for. It’s a bit tiring hearing hard Brexshit every time an inconvenient fact is muted

Yep, throw in some Tory Kippers who want a full hard brexit and the powder keg is set, imagine a deal that is unpalatable to hard leave and the hard remain – well that isn’t hard but step into the one that isn’t palatable for a majority of the UK? What next?

I remember it’s when people finally realise what Shut Up You Lost means, they get to see what they have just lost

It’s a bit tiring hearing hard Brexshit every time an inconvenient fact is muted

ditto a long and off topic rant

At no stage have either proposed a hard brexit or indicated that this is what they are negotiating/would negotiate for.

No Deal (Hard Brexit) is better than a bad deal (c) TM (The other one)

Once anyone posts things that the evidence does not support often enough people will consider it to be a personality flaw hence the hashtags.

Fine, but no abuse.

Imagine trump posted here – do you think he would get abuse and do you think he would deserve it over fake news etc?

Abuse is not necessary. It doesn’t win you any arguments, it doesn’t achieve anything, it ruins the debate and it’s just sadism – people do it because they want to show off. Absolutely wrong.

Was it (ironically enough) Auf Wiedersehen, Pet that based the colour of the room on a democracy where everyone gets what nobody wants?

Thank you mike as I said

The prime minister isnt a representative of the government?

the hard remain

I’m sorry but there is no such thing as hard remain, remain is the status quo.

Really? The thread gets more bizarre by the page.

The prime minister isnt a representative of the government?

On paper maybe.. Contentious rhetorical statement!

Fine, but no abuse.

problem is using the word liar to Trump then you would find the objective truth abusive.
As for the rest of your post 😯 WOW
I am not sure how you can ask for no abuse then do that rant
Stunning.

thm, any chance of you answering my question on your statement re “Irish headlines”?

You still haven’t clarified what you meant. Why is that?

Calling someone a liar isn’t abuse. Mocking them is.

I am not sure how you can ask for no abuse then do that rant
Stunning.

I think you and I disagree with the definition of abuse.

Saying something that someone doesn’t like isn’t abuse.

Good:

“I have to disagree with you there”
“That makes no sense”
“I can’t accept that”

Bad:

“You idiot”
“What kind of simpleton says that?”
“That’s absolutely pathetic you poor excuse for a human being”

See the difference?

Saying something that someone doesn’t like isn’t abuse.

MMM you sure?

it ruins the debate and it’s just sadism – people do it because they want to show off.

which is apparently not abuse because whoever heard that wont be offended and you are of course not criticising their character their either just saying something they dont like

Oh the irony and not doing this any further let the debate return to the issue not this side bar

Anyone see newsnight, since good analysis

The DUP guy blaming all the problems on Barnier and the EU forcing a hard border.

The Brexies (resurrected jambs illustrated it nicely too) trying to keep the blame for all this on the EU, rather than take responsibility for their part.

Saying something that someone doesn’t like isn’t abuse.
MMM you sure?

Yes!

so you can say something to someone they like and its abuse? Give me an example? rhetorical lets not do it please.

Secondly your post was clearly abusive to folk who abuse as you clearly dont like them hence this all started

I cant be arsed with this tbh you dont agree fine I will use those terms to you at some point and you can decide how nice they were you show off sadist you.[ not an insult apparently]

I’ve got no idea what you are talking about. All I’m saying is don’t be nasty. Didn’t think it was complicated.

Most things can be pushed in more than one direction. How about pushing for Customs Union & EEA instead. Irish soft border no longer an issue and soft border NI / mainland. All Norway style. No £350 mil a week but lose 75 MEPs and get 100 doctors instead.

The Loons are told ‘well if you don’t want a soft exit, demand a second referendum (or told to respect democracy)’.

This is they reality of brexit, I won’t use the term ‘rats fighting in a sack’, I’ll just call it deeply devisive, highly destructive and not in the interests of the vast majority of UK citizens.

But the rolling stone seems to keep on rolling. On paper.

IGM – THM’s explanation is overly simplistic probably because his experience is of the asset side of the Balance Sheet. I traded on both sides, however there was a period when I shared a desk with our long term funding desk in head office which gives good insight in how banks operate on the funding side. Their approach was very much to take everything that hit their targets, whether that be an opportunistic bond issue, a MTN with an embedded derivative or whatever if we could generate funding at that price we would be able to find assets that would give us a return, so it is true to say banks make a market on both sides of the balance sheet.

Most European and American Banks are structurally borrowers, so are always looking for funding, HSBC in the 80s and 90s was structurally a deposit taker so they always had a need for assets, which is one reason they were acquiring banks in Europe and the US as these provided the requisite assets (or not in the case of Beneficial)

Edukator – against my better judgment I will respond to your post.

First, I posted the most recent utilization figures under the FLS facility – these are a matter of fact. It wasn’t hard to find them as the link was on the page you linked to.

Second, I posted about how much was available and the purpose of the scheme – these are again matters of fact. It wasn’t hard to find them they are likewise found from a link on the page you linked. (Kelvin, as you may actually be interested, the FLS resulted from a number of issues facing the banking industry, which were exacerbated by the monetary response (lowering of interest rates) to Brexit – so not a pure Brexit reaction).

Third, I made a pedantic point about it not being a loan. What caused me to make this point? Well, in addition to reading some of the links on the page you linked to, I also looked at the financial statements of the Bank of England, which lo and behold did not show the FLS on the face of its balance sheet. This is another fact. You have to delve into the notes in the financial statements to find mention of it.

Fourth, I admittedly posted my conjecture as to why it might not be reflected in those financial statements as a loan, whether I am right or not, I don’t know, the Bank of England is a strange beast from an accounting perspective.

Fifth, if you read precisely the notice that you linked to, it no where says that the BofE is lending – it says it is providing a funding mechanism together with the Treasury – to anyone who has worked in financial markets the two are not synonymous, although to the man in the street they may seem so.

No doubt you will want to make this the sixth post you report because it uses a four letter word beginning with F you have difficulty with.

This is quite long but IMO just about worth the read (in particular as it highlights one of my long standing concerns – that the EU would find a way to legally ensnare the UK in any future euro bailout no matter what various agreements said – was shared by Cameron)

https://www.politico.eu/article/ivan-rogers-david-cameron-speech-transcript-brexit-referendum/

That’s a very interesting read, from the man who was the nexus of UK/EU relations and negotiations and who is probably as impartial as you could hope for in someone who provides a great deal of insight into the UK/EU relationship and what motivated Cameron and the other EU leaders. It’s especially interesting reading the context of recent history leading to the referendum, e.g. Mervyn King pushing for the UK not to take up its option of restricting immigration from the new EU member countries because it would boost the UK economy (which it did pre-financial crisis, only for it to become a major issue in the eyes of many voters when things got worse post-crash).

The way he sets out the historical chain of events, it reads like a Greek tragedy: Cameron’s negotiations were arguably a success, but were not really recognised as such in the UK, and the Brexit vote was in key respects a consequence of the very policy which the UK championed of enlargement to include the eastern European countries, in order to dilute the power of Germany and France and put a brake on the movement towards a more federalist EU, but which resulted directly in both the high levels of immigration and also tripled UK contributions to the EU. Absolutely fascinating insight.

I think everyone who has criticised Jambalaya heavily previously for failing to provide evidence for his assertions, owes it to him to read the article (it’s well worth it IMO).

IGM – THM’s explanation is overly simplistic

Ouch, that’s so unkind 😉 Dressing it up in fancy language and still being correct there mefty. You should know the danger of making it technically correct and/or using the F words by now 😉

Easy now boys or I’ll go into a long factually correct description of how the power industry works.

And if you thought a thousand odd pages of Brexit was tough, wait for my epic.

However moving on from power and back to money, I work for a well known American investor (not directly, of first name terms with one of his direct reports – and at one time with one of his now ex-direct reports) and occasionally get involved in assessing purchases.
Very, very different from what you describe in terms of collecting the deals (for want of a generic description).

Niall FitzGerald’s piece in the FT today is a rare piece of grown up common sense*. Sadly that evaporates by the time you get to the comments !

* but he is a successful businessman not a politician!

I have no idea what collecting deals means 😉 !

Messy language. I was referring to the difference between what Mefty was describing and my own experience in a different area.

Précis of Niall Fitzgerald from the Irish Times

3. A new EU/UK trade deal means no Border controls are needed.

Writing in today’s Financial Times, Irishman and former Unilever chairman Niall FitzGerald suggested the way forward was a new trade deal between the EU and UK. A proposals along these lines was published on Monday by the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, of which FitzGerald is a patron. Under this proposal, Britain would leave the EU trading bloc, but a new customs deal would be made between the EU and UK. This would effectively be a new customs union between the two sides. Britain would also agree to maintain many of the EU rules and regulations – the bits of the Single Market which facilitate free trade. FitzGerald proposes that the EU would agree that Britain would be allowed to control freedom of movement of people. However Britain would agree to put the same tariffs on goods coming in from third countries as applies in the EU and to apply the same standards.

The problem:

This is an attempt to recreate the existing trading arrangements as closely as possible, while ending the UK’s obligation to comply with EU rules on the freedom of movement of citizens. It would only eliminate trade borders -– including in Ireland – completely if it covered pretty much all areas of commerce. The chamber document refers to a deal between the EU and Turkey as a template, though it excludes some products and so checks are still required.

And restricts FoM of labour so unacceptable to a large proportion of the UK population. Including some Brexies amazingly.

teamhurtmore – Member – Block User – Quote
…

Of course the Irish headlines have no link to domestic difficulties at the moment….,

Can you clarify what you meant by this thm?

lol, still trying to get that one sorted. I’m still confused how the PM isn’t a represenative of the government. You know camels and stuff, quick look at the sky, CHEESE

lol

Indeed.

Like I said, the banking discussion is a bit boring and it doesn’t really have any bearing on the upcoming decision on whether we move on to trade talks (which to be honest, I hope happens somehow) whereas Irish government policy on the border has a major impact and I’m wondering if the Irish Taoiseach and Foreign Minister would use Brexit to hide domestic difficulties. It would be nice to move the discussion on to more grown-up stuff.

So am I – odd that your confused since you raised the idea mike