Johnny Bognor

There are plenty of cases of devaluations making no difference -and exiting the ERM happened in very different historical and economic conditions (e.g. the growth of global supply chains which means that whatever gains are made through a devaluation in terms of the competitiveness of a firm or country's exports, they may be lost through pricier imports).

 

All while the facts and reality tell us the deficit is currently widening...

So any thoughts on the IMF'S opinion (amongst many) that the £ was up to 20% over valued?

Would a correction have happened at some point anyway?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It also means our exports are more competitive, so it balances out for the overall uk economy. When that well-known staunch anti-european Michael Heseltine was in thatchers cabinet, he was forever banging on about the pound being too strong and that it would be far better for the UK economy if it weakened against other major currencies. I'd guess that he might have some slight grasp of basic economic theory given that he served as president of the board of trade and deputy prime minister. In fact, and I'm sticking my neck out here, I'd also wager that he probably knows more about economic theory than any of us.

The devaluation after exiting the ERM was the springboard for a decade of economic growth.. a historical fact and an economic reality.

The point I made earlier is that the remainers only see the negatives. There are clear positives. It's a question of which will out weigh the other, the answer to which no one knows. But this doesn't mean that remaining was not subject to any changes and would have been the status quo

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The referendum's impact on the food prices the British people must pay has moved beyond the 'remains to be seen' category and into the world of cold hard fact - as anyone who is even remotely aware of the Tesco v Unilever story in the press this week really should know. That but is but one early sign of the shape of things to come I think.

 

Even our more notoriously 'fact averse' contributors on here will be hard put to deny that as the Pound falls price of all UK imports must rise - presuming that have some minimal grasp on basic economic theory.

According to the beloved IMF, continously quoted by remainers, the pound was up to 20% over valued.

At some point this would have had to have changd to stop long term damage to our economy.

It has changed and brexit was the catalyst, but it's naive to think that the pre-referendum level would have been sustained.

Yes prices will go up. There seems to be a concensus amongst retail experts that this will be in the region of 3% over the next 12 months. It does make British goods better value by comparison.

That aside, the question should be, will an increase in earnings be able to cover this? Last year earnings went up by more than 2.3%.

I don't recall giving it 'the big one'. I merely posted a quote from an article I read recently, you got all upset about it started calling people donuts and suggested I do more research, which I did and came across three similar articles. You found different ones. Whether these particular job losses were as a direct result of brexit or not is a bit of a moot point as there will be plenty of others before we're out of Europe.

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

It was noting to do with brexit. The decision was taken, as evidenced by the chief exec, before the referendum. ..

There may well be losses due to brexit but there will be gains too.

How it pans out, nobody knows. In the medium to long term I happen to think it will be OK. The uncertainty in the short term, is problematic, but it's not helped by people peddling untruths

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

What point are you trying to make with your obsession with unemployment in selected countries in th EU, this thread is about the UK where as a member of the EU we have high levels of employment, hence we require the current levels of immigration to fuel what was until the referendum a strong economy. National borders are not the issue as evidenced by the disparity in regional employment levels. No amount of suck it up rhetoric will alter the fact we have inflicted a massive amount of self harm.

I guess it comes down to not wanting to be part of a club that has shown complete disregard for tens of millions of young people.. all for the sake of power

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

This is probably the most pathetic 'point scoring' post I've seen on here.

Your hilarious 'donut dunking' comment has been wheeled out so many times that it's actually a bit embarrassing to read now. You need a new joke mate.

Oh yes, and that's 3000 people losing their jobs. 3000 people who may struggle to pay their mortgage. 3000 'dunked donuts', you facetious twát.

Errrr who brought up the 3000 job losses to make a political point, which turned out to be false????? You know, 'used' people who were losing their jobs and could not pay their mortgages??? Delighting in the fact that people were losing their jobs thanks to brexit, so that Brexiters could be blamed for something???

As i explained, the cuts were made to take account of the way we now do our banking. So unless you only use cash, cheques and the bank tellers, you are part of the problem. In fact, the increased use of technology everywhere is destroying jobs, so unless you're a techno phobe, you might want to take a hard long look in the mirror.

As we're talking about jobs and the EU, what are your thoughts on the tens of millions of young people unemployed, thanks to the political obsession with the Euro and the eventual march towards the european super state?? The prospects for youngsters across the southern states is pretty bleak... this point seems to have passed the remainers by.

Anyway, as I have stated many times, I want the UK to prosper, in or out, unlike many remainers who simply want the UK to fail, just to be proved right. Sounds pretty facetious to me. Oh and in failing, that means people losing their jobs and struggling to pay their mortgages. Are you one of those types???

What is it with you people what are you trying to prove? "Killer blows", "Donuts", All a necessary part of a debate? Or just plain insulting bullying? Your side won. The mandate of the electorate regrettably, but most importantly democratically must be upheld. Why the crowing? Between you, WT and Dickhunter you seek to come on here and belittle those who disagree with you. Can only hope if the economy does go tits up as a result of Brexit then there might be a pegging back of some of the rhetoric on here, but I'm not holding my breath.

Errrrrr two pints was trying to give it the big one how 3000 jobs were lost as a result of brexit. It was wrong and needed challenging. I got ridiculed for doing so and took personal insults. So excuse me for wanting to rub a few noses in it.

As for bullying, I was standing up for myself against the three donuteers. The bullies lost on this occasion. Which is a moral victory I take some pleasure in. The "little man" won against golliath.

The plain arrogance and intellectual snobbery displayed from remainers is in poor taste and i will continue to challenge them.

Many a remainer seems to blame everything bad or negative on brexit, like there's never been any bad news before.

I would go even further and say many remainers are hoping for and want the UK to fail, just to say I told you so.... I want the UK to succeed, in or out. That's the difference.

Not sure what you're talking about - think you're referring to someone else. I didnt weigh in on the specifics of the Lloyds case, just made a general observation about your dismissal of contrary evidence as being tainted by money and special favours - a bizarro little ditty youve rolled out time and time again.

Errrrrr you declared game set and match before I delivered the killer blow and dunked the donuts. You were wrong.

...

Best post from you in a while, to be fair

Does each dot represent each one of the three donuts?

Les, given you and others all sing from the same six-fingered hymn-sheet, my 'structured rebuttal'[emoji38]should be pretty clear from my other posts. Sorry for not addressing you personally, though pal - one might say it's an occupational hazard of having to negotiate with many members.

That's right Wes. The poor fella has only just recovered from being dunked yesterday over the 3000 job cuts at lloyds (where the decision to cut them was made BEFORE the referendum), so give him a break FFS

I'm all for a "Hard Brexit" which is inevitable, given the text in bold. Who thinks we would have been better off having the EU negotiating our trade deals is mental....

I disagree.

If your objective is to not have any trade deals with any of the world's top 10 economies (outside of the EU), then the EU negotiating team is quite brilliant

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Your first sentence is actually correct. The EU negotiators were the speedsters. It was the Canadians who dragged their feet, largely because of regional issues (think Scotland and N Ireland with our negotiations, whenever we get round to, you know, actually having a plan).

 

CETA tells us a great deal about how thing will go. As will the Swiss climbdown.

I agree. The EU are fantastic negotiators. Just look at their track record. Speaks for itself

The key to their success is how they get all 28 members to agree to everything and how no individual states ever block anything.

Quite remarkable don't you think???

Exactly. And to think the ingenues on here looked to Canada deal's with the EU as a model for Brexit. Some panacea, right pal

Yes those Canadians are so difficult to get on with, they can't agree on anything. So glad we have the EU negotiating on our behalf ?

Bottom line whatever else applied it was not a binding referendum, despite breakfast means something, with only 37 % support if it were ignored democracy would not be abused.

Bottom line is only 42% of the electorate voted to join the common market in the first place. By your reckoning, we shouldn't even be in it.

0% voted to join the EU, when we were promised referendums, flyig in the face if democracy.

So as by your reckoning, we shouldn't have been in it in the first place, why are you complaining now?

 

Act II of Baldrick's cunning plan -as is common practice for him- will be to claim those journos once took the Eurostar to Brussels and enjoyed a complimentary croissant upon arrival. By association that must mean they are fully paid up lackeys for the European superelite and so their work cannot be trusted. The jokes on you for not seeing this web of deceit and corruption and not doing due diligence on your sources. Game, set and match.

 

#followthemoney

If it's not my old pedigree chum... I've missed you.

Anyway, not so fast...

The decision to axe 3000 jobs was taken before the referendum... as confirmed by the bank

Consider yourself dunked along with the rest of your fellow donuts!!!

You're right. I have done more research and it seems that these are the job loses announced in July. I don't bother trawling back through months of news to check details though so maybe that's where I went wrong.

 

I've done more research now to show that these were indeed the job loses announced July and I apologise that I assumed that these were to do with Brexit when clearly they're not:

 

"Lloyds announced in July it would cut a further 3,000 jobs and close 200 branches amid a more testing economic environment caused by Britain's vote to quit the European Union." - Reuters

 

"Lloyds said in July it would cut an extra 3,000 jobs in response to the Brexit vote." - Financial Times

 

"Lloyds Banking Group Plc will cut a further 3,000 jobs as it warned Britain’s vote to leave the European Union would hurt its ability to boost dividend payments." - Bloomberg

 

Oh... Hang on! Looks like I might have been right after all. Pick your sources and believe what you like. Personally, I'm inclined to take notice of the FT, Bloomberg and Reuters. Not such **** poor articles. You should consider changing your name to Mr Krispy Kreme. Might be more appropriate.

The devil is in the detail...

The FT actually says...

Lloyds Banking Group is to axe 3,000 jobs in a £1.4bn cost-cutting drive and has damped the outlook for dividends following the vote to leave the EU.

https://www.ft.com/content/a0c395f6-5491-11e6-9664-e0bdc13c3bef

Your Bloomberg quote does not attribute the cuts to Brexit. It, like the FT, states that Dividend payments would be affected.

So the outlook for dividends is dampened by Brexit. Job cuts are down to cost cutting initiatives, according to both the FT and Bloomberg.

Now, let's move on to the killer blow...

The decision to axe 3000 jobs was made BEFORE the referendum...

"However, the bank stressed that the decision to close the branches was taken before the referendum result, as the number of transactions carried out in branches has fallen by another 15pc compared with last year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/28/lloyds-to-slash-3000-jobs-and-close-branches/

"The bank attributed the cuts to changes in people's banking habits, and the effects of interest rates remaining low for the foreseeable future.

"The bank confirmed that the decision to make further cuts was taken before the EU referendum on 23 June"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36911896

Lloyds Bank ✔ @AskLloydsBank

@JoHaley6 The decision to close these branches was made before the Brexit vote and is not linked to the result.

The Lloyds bank half year results, state "Continued acceleration of strategy in line with customers’ evolving needs" in relation to the 3000 job cuts. It's on page 1 if you're interested...

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/globalassets/documents/investors/2016/2016_lbg_hy_results.pdf

This is turning into a game of dunkin donuts... Consider yourself dunked

How do you know that? Why believe one article over another?

Because one was an announcement covered by most mainstream outlets with quotes from the banks chief exec. ... the other is reporting something that was announced 3 months ago LOL

Look I know you want to believe everything bad is brexit related, which is why you and Tim were seduced by such a **** poor article.

Do you not think that another 3000 cuts would only be covered by money marketing??? Missed by the BBC, ft, times, guardian, independent, ecomomist, wall street journal, telegraph etc?

Not even the history graduate at the Guardian had anything to say about it.

Perhaps you should do your own research before lecturing others on their research? ??

As for the 10% rise from Unilever, most experts believe it was excessive. Prices will undoubtedly rise with the fall in the pound (retail analysts predict 3% over the next 12 months). Some businesses, however, will undoubtedly try to profit from it, blaming brexit... and remainers lap it up

As buctootim has already told you. All I have done on here is quote an article from a financial news source. I haven't asserted anything but why would I doubt it?

Errrr ...because it is wrong???

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I think you're out of your depth here on this topic.

 

Let's all assume you really don't know what you're on about and leave it at that.

I guess if tesco cough up 10%, you might be right.

The dispute is settled now. Would love to know what they settled on. Anything less than 10% and it shows the hike wasn't justified.

If they are pushing for a hike on currency grounds, I can't see the irish taking 19% when they should be going down

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Either you are a graceless small man, or you are unable to read and follow posts on a football forum. Neither puts you in a good light.

Either you are unable to understand bank announcements about job cuts or you are unable to see that money week are regurgitating old news and linking it tenuously to brexit.

Just to repeat, in language you might understand.... lloyds announced an additional 3000 job cuts to the 9000 already planned, back in July. The bank cited an accelerated decline in branch use as the reason.

The 3000 mentioned by donut, are the same 3000. Don't you think the media would have been all over another 3000 job cuts? Especially after announcing an additional 3000 job cuts in July? ??

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Or both!

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

So your are standing by your assertion that the 3000 job cuts at lloyds are a result of brexit????

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

So Unilever trying to push through 10-19% price hike in Ireland, which if I remember correctly is in the Eurozone...

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2016/10/unilever-seeking-seeking-10-19-price-hikes-from-irish-retailers/

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/unilever-price-dispute-affecting-supervalu-tesco-ireland-refuses-to-comment-759200.html

So how can a 10% rise in the UK be blamed on the fall in the value of the pound, when they are pushing through greater increases in the Eurozone where unilevers products are now cheaper and there is no mention of currency changes?

#talkaboutprofiteering

#nothingtodowithbrexit

# scapegoating

Answer to a different question but hey, 2 years ago the price hike was not of our own making through currency devaluation. Oh, and i drove a diesel.

 

I think what I will actually do is hope that the High Court force a commons vote on Brexit. Interesting times.

OK what did you do when we illegally invaded Iraq on false pretences?

That significantly increased the price at the pumps...

Either you are a graceless small man, or you are unable to read and follow posts on a football forum. Neither puts you in a good light.

So you're now saying that the additional 3000 announced in July is different to the 3000 reported yesterday (note: reported, not announced)??

Congratulations on altering the question to suit your argument. You said people were gullible because they believe brexit is the source of price hikes, rather than capitalist opportunism.

So does paying 3p more a litre make me gullible, and if so, what should I do about it?

What did you do when pump prices hit £1.40 two years ago??? Therein lies your answer