BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
A FTA is in the hands of the EU if they wish to give us one, I suspect economically they do, politically they dont!florerider said:
WTO is not defacto as a result of leaving, it is a defacto result of not having delivered the comprehensive free trade deal promised before the vote. Yet again changing the discourse based upon non delivery by the Brexiteers.spatt77 said:
They did vote for leaving the single market and customs union so de facto did vote for it! you cant, stop free movement, not pay in £55 million a day, have the ECJ have no jurisdiction and yet stay in the SM and CU!florerider said:
Access to the market with WTO is a post referendum concept so your response makes no sense. No one voted for it as no one propsed it.spatt77 said:
I think youre missing the point, even on WTO we`ll still have access to the "market" Maybe not on as favourable terms but being their biggest single trading partner trade will continue but with non of the 4 freedoms that`s attached! The negotiations have a while to go yet! lets wait and see eh!florerider said:
Yup, the Owen Patterson one is very clear, so where is that agreement and why any interest in WTO at all? Makes my point nicely thank you.spatt77 said:
well, next time you`re on YOUTUBE type in Andrew Neil James Mcgory! all your questions will be answered thereflorerider said:It will be an intersting history exam question. Owen Patterson said "only a madman would leave the (single) market". Liam Fox said of trade deal "easiest in human history". David Davis said such a trade deal recignised their desire to sell cars and prosecco to us will result in us being granted access to their markets for services.
Discuss.0 -
That works both ways. 😉spatt77 said:
A FTA is in the hands of GB if they wish to give them one, I suspect economically they do, politically they dont!florerider said:
WTO is not defacto as a result of leaving, it is a defacto result of not having delivered the comprehensive free trade deal promised before the vote. Yet again changing the discourse based upon non delivery by the Brexiteers.spatt77 said:
They did vote for leaving the single market and customs union so de facto did vote for it! you cant, stop free movement, not pay in £55 million a day, have the ECJ have no jurisdiction and yet stay in the SM and CU!florerider said:
Access to the market with WTO is a post referendum concept so your response makes no sense. No one voted for it as no one propsed it.spatt77 said:
I think youre missing the point, even on WTO we`ll still have access to the "market" Maybe not on as favourable terms but being their biggest single trading partner trade will continue but with non of the 4 freedoms that`s attached! The negotiations have a while to go yet! lets wait and see eh!florerider said:
Yup, the Owen Patterson one is very clear, so where is that agreement and why any interest in WTO at all? Makes my point nicely thank you.spatt77 said:
well, next time you`re on YOUTUBE type in Andrew Neil James Mcgory! all your questions will be answered thereflorerider said:It will be an intersting history exam question. Owen Patterson said "only a madman would leave the (single) market". Liam Fox said of trade deal "easiest in human history". David Davis said such a trade deal recignised their desire to sell cars and prosecco to us will result in us being granted access to their markets for services.
Discuss.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Indeed, however were not asking them to give out something they have`nt already done in other FTA`s and if they had a guarantee that no other countries would leave the EU they might give us it but there isn't and they probably wont!pblakeney said:
That works both ways. 😉spatt77 said:
A FTA is in the hands of GB if they wish to give them one, I suspect economically they do, politically they dont!florerider said:
WTO is not defacto as a result of leaving, it is a defacto result of not having delivered the comprehensive free trade deal promised before the vote. Yet again changing the discourse based upon non delivery by the Brexiteers.spatt77 said:
They did vote for leaving the single market and customs union so de facto did vote for it! you cant, stop free movement, not pay in £55 million a day, have the ECJ have no jurisdiction and yet stay in the SM and CU!florerider said:
Access to the market with WTO is a post referendum concept so your response makes no sense. No one voted for it as no one propsed it.spatt77 said:
I think youre missing the point, even on WTO we`ll still have access to the "market" Maybe not on as favourable terms but being their biggest single trading partner trade will continue but with non of the 4 freedoms that`s attached! The negotiations have a while to go yet! lets wait and see eh!florerider said:
Yup, the Owen Patterson one is very clear, so where is that agreement and why any interest in WTO at all? Makes my point nicely thank you.spatt77 said:
well, next time you`re on YOUTUBE type in Andrew Neil James Mcgory! all your questions will be answered thereflorerider said:It will be an intersting history exam question. Owen Patterson said "only a madman would leave the (single) market". Liam Fox said of trade deal "easiest in human history". David Davis said such a trade deal recignised their desire to sell cars and prosecco to us will result in us being granted access to their markets for services.
Discuss.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Tenacious newbie battling with the hardcore believers.kingstongraham said:It's difficult to believe how easy it is to hook some people back into this. Well done, splatt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEeptnaAyd8 0 -
And both are true, which is why we'll end up with no deal.spatt77 said:
Indeed, however were not asking them to give out something they have`nt already done in other FTA`s and if they had a guarantee that no other countries would leave the EU they might give us it but there isn't and they probably wont!pblakeney said:
That works both ways. 😉spatt77 said:
A FTA is in the hands of GB if they wish to give them one, I suspect economically they do, politically they dont!florerider said:
WTO is not defacto as a result of leaving, it is a defacto result of not having delivered the comprehensive free trade deal promised before the vote. Yet again changing the discourse based upon non delivery by the Brexiteers.spatt77 said:
They did vote for leaving the single market and customs union so de facto did vote for it! you cant, stop free movement, not pay in £55 million a day, have the ECJ have no jurisdiction and yet stay in the SM and CU!florerider said:
Access to the market with WTO is a post referendum concept so your response makes no sense. No one voted for it as no one propsed it.spatt77 said:
I think youre missing the point, even on WTO we`ll still have access to the "market" Maybe not on as favourable terms but being their biggest single trading partner trade will continue but with non of the 4 freedoms that`s attached! The negotiations have a while to go yet! lets wait and see eh!florerider said:
Yup, the Owen Patterson one is very clear, so where is that agreement and why any interest in WTO at all? Makes my point nicely thank you.spatt77 said:
well, next time you`re on YOUTUBE type in Andrew Neil James Mcgory! all your questions will be answered thereflorerider said:It will be an intersting history exam question. Owen Patterson said "only a madman would leave the (single) market". Liam Fox said of trade deal "easiest in human history". David Davis said such a trade deal recignised their desire to sell cars and prosecco to us will result in us being granted access to their markets for services.
Discuss.
As predicted 4 years ago. It is all show from 2016 to the end of this year.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
not all FTA's are equalspatt77 said:
No! Im just saying that both Remain and leave camps spelt out what this could mean! We still could get a FTA but thats up to the EU!florerider said:
So you are relying on what remain said now?spatt77 said:
yes, just yes! it was repeatedly said by the Remain campaign , Cameron, Clegg , Osbourne et al that a vote to leave would mean leaving the SM and CU!rick_chasey said:
No. Just no. It was repeated constantly by all members of vote leave that they would never leave the Single Market in the ref campaign.spatt77 said:
They did vote for leaving the single market and customs union so de facto did voteflorerider said:
Access to the market with WTO is a post referendum concept so your response makes no sense. No one voted for it as no one propsed it.spatt77 said:
I think youre missing the point, even on WTO we`ll still have access to the "market" Maybe not on as favourable terms but being their biggest single trading partner trade will continue but with non of the 4 freedoms that`s attached! The negotiations have a while to go yet! lets wait and see eh!florerider said:
Yup, the Owen Patterson one is very clear, so where is that agreement and why any interest in WTO at all? Makes my point nicely thank you.spatt77 said:
well, next time you`re on YOUTUBE type in Andrew Neil James Mcgory! all your questions will be answered thereflorerider said:It will be an intersting history exam question. Owen Patterson said "only a madman would leave the (single) market". Liam Fox said of trade deal "easiest in human history". David Davis said such a trade deal recignised their desire to sell cars and prosecco to us will result in us being granted access to their markets for services.
Discuss.
not entirely up to the EU - I am not convinced that Boris wants one, think he would be happy with a few side deals which I don't think he will get.0 -
Barnier disagrees with that statement, interesting given how much easier his job would be if it were the case. We only have the UK side claiming that.pblakeney said:
And both are true, which is why we'll end up with no deal.spatt77 said:
Indeed, however were not asking them to give out something they have`nt already done in other FTA`s and if they had a guarantee that no other countries would leave the EU they might give us it but there isn't and they probably wont!pblakeney said:
That works both ways. 😉spatt77 said:
A FTA is in the hands of GB if they wish to give them one, I suspect economically they do, politically they dont!florerider said:
WTO is not defacto as a result of leaving, it is a defacto result of not having delivered the comprehensive free trade deal promised before the vote. Yet again changing the discourse based upon non delivery by the Brexiteers.spatt77 said:
They did vote for leaving the single market and customs union so de facto did vote for it! you cant, stop free movement, not pay in £55 million a day, have the ECJ have no jurisdiction and yet stay in the SM and CU!florerider said:
Access to the market with WTO is a post referendum concept so your response makes no sense. No one voted for it as no one propsed it.spatt77 said:
I think youre missing the point, even on WTO we`ll still have access to the "market" Maybe not on as favourable terms but being their biggest single trading partner trade will continue but with non of the 4 freedoms that`s attached! The negotiations have a while to go yet! lets wait and see eh!florerider said:
Yup, the Owen Patterson one is very clear, so where is that agreement and why any interest in WTO at all? Makes my point nicely thank you.spatt77 said:
well, next time you`re on YOUTUBE type in Andrew Neil James Mcgory! all your questions will be answered thereflorerider said:It will be an intersting history exam question. Owen Patterson said "only a madman would leave the (single) market". Liam Fox said of trade deal "easiest in human history". David Davis said such a trade deal recignised their desire to sell cars and prosecco to us will result in us being granted access to their markets for services.
Discuss.
As predicted 4 years ago. It is all show from 2016 to the end of this year.0 -
Just read part of CETA, there is a comitment on both sides not to waive or derogate domestic or environmental laws in order to encourage trade or investment. The other thing it stipulates is cooperation in regulatory matters such that differences may be reduced.
I guess that is where Barnier is coming from, and where the priblem lies.0 -
So, If the things in the Political Declaration were SO important, why didnt Barnier insput them in the legally binding WA?rick_chasey said:0 -
He's negotiating with his own side.rick_chasey said:0 -
So we sign a political declaration to help set the tone of our future relationship, our signee then walks around saying he will renege and in the tone of a 14 year old girl asks why if it was SO important they did not make it legally binding.spatt77 said:
So, If the things in the Political Declaration were SO important, why didnt Barnier insput them in the legally binding WA?rick_chasey said:
How exactly does this help us secure a FTA that is as beneficial to the UK economy as possible?0 -
Other way round, it was a ruse for Borus and May to get the WA through and kick the can down the line.spatt77 said:
So, If the things in the Political Declaration were SO important, why didnt Barnier insput them in the legally binding WA?rick_chasey said:0 -
It doesnt, nor does it help the EU secure a deal with its biggest single trade partner!surrey_commuter said:
So we sign a political declaration to help set the tone of our future relationship, our signee then walks around saying he will renege and in the tone of a 14 year old girl asks why if it was SO important they did not make it legally binding.spatt77 said:
So, If the things in the Political Declaration were SO important, why didnt Barnier insput them in the legally binding WA?rick_chasey said:
How exactly does this help us secure a FTA that is as beneficial to the UK economy as possible?0 -
FTFYspatt77 said:
It doesnt, nor does it help the EU secure a deal with its 3rd biggest single trade partner!surrey_commuter said:
So we sign a political declaration to help set the tone of our future relationship, our signee then walks around saying he will renege and in the tone of a 14 year old girl asks why if it was SO important they did not make it legally binding.spatt77 said:
So, If the things in the Political Declaration were SO important, why didnt Barnier insput them in the legally binding WA?rick_chasey said:
How exactly does this help us secure a FTA that is as beneficial to the UK economy as possible?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
many thanks! however we`ll be number 1 soon!pblakeney said:
FTFYspatt77 said:
It doesnt, nor does it help the EU secure a deal with its 3rd biggest single trade partner!surrey_commuter said:
So we sign a political declaration to help set the tone of our future relationship, our signee then walks around saying he will renege and in the tone of a 14 year old girl asks why if it was SO important they did not make it legally binding.spatt77 said:
So, If the things in the Political Declaration were SO important, why didnt Barnier insput them in the legally binding WA?rick_chasey said:
How exactly does this help us secure a FTA that is as beneficial to the UK economy as possible?
0 -
Biggest regret I have is thinking remain would win, missed opporrunity to put a few hundred thou into shorting sterling to supplement my meagre pension.
Just hate missing the opportunites Brexit brings. At least I sold down my UK shares in time to benefit, odd I did the hedge but not the deal.
Can't decide whether to do it in Dec or whether no deal is priced in. Selling govmnt bonds to fund shorting sterling ought to be a no brainer, but its so obvious it surely is priced in by now.
Any thoughts from where you see it Stevo?0 -
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
0 -
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).0 -
florerider said:
Can't decide whether to do it in Dec or whether no deal is priced in. Selling govmnt bonds to fund shorting sterling ought to be a no brainer, but its so obvious it surely is priced in by now.
why would selling gilts to fund short positions in a period where fx is more volatile than it's been in a long time as a result of things that normal macro and policy analysis can't pick up be a good thing to do?
You would have done better to buy the equity dip as plainly modern central banking appears to, by design or otherwise, prop up equity valuations to the point where they are entirely dislocated from the underlying company performance.0 -
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).2 -
Entirely depends what circles you are in. FWIW, all I see is how pro-brexit the BBC is, giving people like farage disproportionate air-time, etc, and shrouding factual things as 'opinions' since the other (usually, Brexit but obviously not always) side disputes them in bad faith, so I suggest one's view on the BBC is that it's neither.john80 said:
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
I think the BBC covered it badly in general, rather than any particular bias.0 -
That's part of why I can't decide, but your right the underlying fx volatlity is an issue that makes it wrong.rick_chasey said:florerider said:
Can't decide whether to do it in Dec or whether no deal is priced in. Selling govmnt bonds to fund shorting sterling ought to be a no brainer, but its so obvious it surely is priced in by now.
why would selling gilts to fund short positions in a period where fx is more volatile than it's been in a long time as a result of things that normal macro and policy analysis can't pick up be a good thing to do?
You would have done better to buy the equity dip as plainly modern central banking appears to, by design or otherwise, prop up equity valuations to the point where they are entirely dislocated from the underlying company performance.
Bought the dip anyway, done that a few times.0 -
Repeatedly shamed as being pro remain is part of the Brexit rhetoric and excuse making, not a measure bias.john80 said:
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).0 -
Brexiteers think they are pro-remain, remainers think they are pro Brexit.rick_chasey said:
Entirely depends what circles you are in. FWIW, all I see is how pro-brexit the BBC is, giving people like farage disproportionate air-time, etc, and shrouding factual things as 'opinions' since the other (usually, Brexit but obviously not always) side disputes them in bad faith, so I suggest one's view on the BBC is that it's neither.john80 said:
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
I think the BBC covered it badly in general, rather than any particular bias.
That in itself is an indication that they are somewhere in between.
Winds up both camps and keeps the comments flowing...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
They did report it badly though.pblakeney said:
Brexiteers think they are pro-remain, remainers think they are pro Brexit.rick_chasey said:
Entirely depends what circles you are in. FWIW, all I see is how pro-brexit the BBC is, giving people like farage disproportionate air-time, etc, and shrouding factual things as 'opinions' since the other (usually, Brexit but obviously not always) side disputes them in bad faith, so I suggest one's view on the BBC is that it's neither.john80 said:
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
I think the BBC covered it badly in general, rather than any particular bias.
That in itself is an indication that they are somewhere in between.
Winds up both camps and keeps the comments flowing...
I increasingly think in the current environment it's important for news outlets to differentiate people who are arguing in good and bad faith. I've mentioned it about 5 times on here today, but I think it's actually really important.
0 -
Here's the thing though - In your opinion.rick_chasey said:
They did report it badly though.pblakeney said:
Brexiteers think they are pro-remain, remainers think they are pro Brexit.rick_chasey said:
Entirely depends what circles you are in. FWIW, all I see is how pro-brexit the BBC is, giving people like farage disproportionate air-time, etc, and shrouding factual things as 'opinions' since the other (usually, Brexit but obviously not always) side disputes them in bad faith, so I suggest one's view on the BBC is that it's neither.john80 said:
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
I think the BBC covered it badly in general, rather than any particular bias.
That in itself is an indication that they are somewhere in between.
Winds up both camps and keeps the comments flowing...
I increasingly think in the current environment it's important for news outlets to differentiate people who are arguing in good and bad faith. I've mentioned it about 5 times on here today, but I think it's actually really important.
I may agree and others may disagree but it's only opinion.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yeah maybe. I get really annoyed with the 'both sides thought it was biased so it's probably balanced' argument.pblakeney said:
Here's the thing though - In your opinion.rick_chasey said:
They did report it badly though.pblakeney said:
Brexiteers think they are pro-remain, remainers think they are pro Brexit.rick_chasey said:
Entirely depends what circles you are in. FWIW, all I see is how pro-brexit the BBC is, giving people like farage disproportionate air-time, etc, and shrouding factual things as 'opinions' since the other (usually, Brexit but obviously not always) side disputes them in bad faith, so I suggest one's view on the BBC is that it's neither.john80 said:
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
I think the BBC covered it badly in general, rather than any particular bias.
That in itself is an indication that they are somewhere in between.
Winds up both camps and keeps the comments flowing...
I increasingly think in the current environment it's important for news outlets to differentiate people who are arguing in good and bad faith. I've mentioned it about 5 times on here today, but I think it's actually really important.
I may agree and others may disagree but it's only opinion.
What that shows to me is that they spend a lot of time parroting either side rather than reporting it properly.0 -
Spot on Rick. Unchallenged opions offered as facts too.rick_chasey said:
They did report it badly though.pblakeney said:
Brexiteers think they are pro-remain, remainers think they are pro Brexit.rick_chasey said:
Entirely depends what circles you are in. FWIW, all I see is how pro-brexit the BBC is, giving people like farage disproportionate air-time, etc, and shrouding factual things as 'opinions' since the other (usually, Brexit but obviously not always) side disputes them in bad faith, so I suggest one's view on the BBC is that it's neither.john80 said:
The BBC has been repeatedly shamed as being pro remain. The idea that they are pro Brexit overall is laughable.florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
I think the BBC covered it badly in general, rather than any particular bias.
That in itself is an indication that they are somewhere in between.
Winds up both camps and keeps the comments flowing...
I increasingly think in the current environment it's important for news outlets to differentiate people who are arguing in good and bad faith. I've mentioned it about 5 times on here today, but I think it's actually really important.0 -
"extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC" oh FLO, you are wasted on here! The stage beckons, comedians earn a fortune you know!florerider said:
Big confusion between governance, finance and shareholder power. The drop in exchange rate due to Brexit made the shareholder position opposite to the corporate interest, hardly a success for the city. Brexit breaks alignement of investors with executive is the real headline. Just another example of extreme pro brexit bias by the BBC.coopster_the_1st said:
It's always good when remoaners get handed their backside in a bucketmamba80 said:Unilever soon to announce their new HQ will be in Rotterdam is a rather more worrying sign of where the UK is heading post Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53005454
Reports of the death of the City of London as the centre of European finance appear to have been greatly exaggerated. Unilever's decision to end its unusual two-country corporate structure after 90 years is, at its heart, a triumph of money (the City) over politics (Brexit).
0
