Today Britain votes on remaining part of the EU

[flexy]

As if mass immigration from war torn terrorist ridden middle eastern states at the bidding of a foreign master (Merkel) had no effect? How about the Muslim rape gangs in London that were covered up by authorities and the media for years? Like Boomerang said, it's all about you having to fill out some new paperwork to get a work visa, fuck everything else right?

I do not support mass immigration, and neither do I think that Merkel's idea to "invite" basically unlimited numbers of immigrants was a good one.

The question is how the problem of immigration compared to the other problems a Brexit will create. And here I am claiming that ultimately the problems from the Brexit will FAR outweigh the problem of immigrants.

It is not about "needing to fill out some paperwork for a visa", for god's sake, but everything involved...for the UK that will likely mean recession, unemployment, rising costs, companies pulling out, PLUS the mentioned problems with visas, the entire fricking UK disintegrating when Scotland and Wales leave, a huge divide in the populace and many more, so don't pretend to be stupid and portray Brexit as something that will merely lead to requiring some more paperwork when traveling...

AND...here again...no one of those demagogues/politicians actually has/had an actual PLAN what they will do to stop immigration. Two days ago I even read somewhere that the Brexit will make it easier for refugees who are in Calais/France right now to get into the UK, what irony, ain't it?

It's very easy to rile up "proles" with stupid xenophobia rhetoric, it's a different story to actually have a working plan. (Despite the mentioned other problems, say if most banks pull out of London, the current "financial capital of Europe" (OH, THE IRONY)....some immigrants at the borders will be the smaller problem...)

** And: It is ironic that most Brexiters we know are "rural folks", away from the large cities. Those rural folks don't even get in contact with immigrants on an every-day basis, like people from London etc. Some 75 year old farts out in the country voting for a Brexit..probably having never even SEEN a Muslim in their life. Those little, hate-driven people who voted because of their hate/distaste for urban liberals and hate of liberal politics.

 

[TheGardener]

Those little, hate-driven people who voted because of their hate/distaste for urban liberals and hate of liberal politics.

Do you realize that in this forum, you come across as a person who is consumed by hate? Maybe they voted the way that they did, is that no one in the UK or the EU listened to them. The same thing has happened in the US. Maybe some soul searching is in order.

 

[agent00f]

I've read some speculation that the next PM might simply refuse to do it. Invoking Article 50 was Cameron's promise, so as long as the next PM states upfront that they will not invoke Article 50 if elected, all you're left with is a broken promise by an outgoing PM.

That's pretty much my thoughts pondering what Johnson said. He'll try to renegotiate with the EU terms of staying, but will find England needs the EU more than vice versa. Merkel looked the only one ready to blink, with everyone else ready to provide a shove.

I mentioned above that the only cash cow left in england is finance. People who suppose that the EU is going to let its financial industry lie outside are completely delusional.
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/u...BAL_ENG&utm_medium=SM_TW&utm_campaign=ARTICLE

Scotland & N.Ireland are going, probably taking English business that want to relocate within the EU with them. England's lost its useful to Americans as the friendly EU member, leaving it as a lonely isolated island in the north atlantic surrounded by a much larger competitor.

Given the magnitude of these revalations only now becoming clear to the dummies, they've already started backtracking on their vote, per Johnson's "no need to invoke Art 50" comment. I think it's likely they'll welch on the exit vote, as this sort do when faced with consequences of their own decisions. As usual, they'll try to blame everyone else for the failed brexit, and it'll at least work within their own constituency because dummies will believe anything.

I trust internal and sell side analysts from Citi, Credit Suisse, Barclays, HSBC, Goldman, BAML, MS, Wells, and every other firm out there a hell of a lot more.

It's funny that you think I depend on Breitbart for everything. Ever hear of Mosaic Theory? Perhaps you should try it. However, it involves leaving the liberal echo chamber.

BTW - what's your alt?

You regularly spam arbitrary garbage from Breitbart, then have the gall to nitpick Moody's. And speaking of those other finance sources, what do they have to say about Brexit? Hahahahaha.

 

[LegendKiller]

That's pretty much my thoughts pondering what Johnson said. He'll try to renegotiate with the EU terms of staying, but will find England needs the EU more than vice versa. Merkel looked the only one ready to blink, with everyone else ready to provide a shove.

I mentioned above that the only cash cow left in england is finance. People who suppose that the EU is going to let its financial industry lie outside are completely delusional.
http://news.efinancialcareers.com/u...BAL_ENG&utm_medium=SM_TW&utm_campaign=ARTICLE

Scotland & N.Ireland are going, probably taking English business that want to relocate within the EU with them. England's lost its useful to Americans as the friendly EU member, leaving it as a lonely isolated island in the north atlantic surrounded by a much larger competitor.

Given the magnitude of these revalations only now becoming clear to the dummies, they've already started backtracking on their vote, per Johnson's "no need to invoke Art 50" comment. I think it's likely they'll welch on the exit vote, as this sort do when faced with consequences of their own decisions. As usual, they'll try to blame everyone else for the failed brexit, and it'll at least work within their own constituency because dummies will believe anything.



You regularly spam arbitrary garbage from Breitbart, then have the gall to nitpick Moody's. And speaking of those other finance sources, what do they have to say about Brexit? Hahahahaha.

I try to provide a balance from your sites.

 

[Blackjack200]

Ahh, back to the semantics thing again.

So what do you call due diligence, documentation review, cashflow modeling, ratings (aka credit) committee, presales reports, surveillance, upgrades and downgrades, if not underwriting in anything but name and strict legalese within the constraints of more legal structure than most can comprehend.

What do you call that process? All of it? Is it not for all intents and purposes, excluding legal and securities definitions, underwriting?

No, underwriting is bringing a new issue to market.That's all it is. LOL!

Is it not the same exact process the lead left goes through to sell the bonds? Is there not a RAC in all bonds that prior nrsro consent is required for material changes to keep the rating of the bond? (Aka underwriting of new conditions)?

It's fucking underwriting in action but not legal definition you goddamned twat.

Ahaha, look at him get mad. No, nobody calls it that. Show me where someone else talks about the rating agencies underwriting new issues. You can't. I know because I just googled it an hour ago, wondering if I was the crazy one. But no, of course it's you who is talking out of your ass.

Of course you don't care because you just want a cockfight no matter what. You know it is pretty much the same thing and rather than agreeing on using the lay term, which people here can understand and recognize, you decide to be a little twat and talk strict legalese, which gives you an ability to make a mountain out of a spec of sand. Nobody gives a fuck, it is the action that matters more.

AHHHAHA, no. It is not the same thing at all. That's why you can't find me where someone discusses the agencies "underwriting" anything. Underwriters guarantee the sale of the bonds (or equities), that is their precise function. It's not legalese, for fucks sake where do you even get this shit?

 

[agent00f]

I try to provide a balance from your sites.

Sure, Breitbart & such as the fair and balance to Citi, Credit Suisse, Barclays, HSBC, Goldman, BAML, MS, Wells, and every other firm out there on Brexit.

 

[LegendKiller]

No, underwriting is bringing a new issue to market.That's all it is. LOL!



Ahaha, look at him get mad. No, nobody calls it that. Show me where someone else talks about the rating agencies underwriting new issues. You can't. I know because I just googled it an hour ago, wondering if I was the crazy one. But no, of course it's you who is talking out of your ass.



AHHHAHA, no. It is not the same thing at all. That's why you can't find me where someone discusses the agencies "underwriting" anything. Underwriters guarantee the sale of the bonds (or equities), that is their precise function. It's not legalese, for fucks sake where do you even get this shit?

Again, there is a difference between underwriters snd their function and underwriting risk and the process involved. That you conflated them is your problem, not mine.

 

[Blackjack200]

Again, there is a difference between underwriters snd their function and underwriting risk and the process involved. That you conflated them is your problem, not mine.

Link to article where the ratings agencies are said to be "underwriting"?

I'll even take a post on a finance board like analyst forums or something. Not holding my breath though.

 

[LegendKiller]

Link to article where the ratings agencies are said to be "underwriting"?

I'll even take a post on a finance board like analyst forums or something. Not holding my breath though.

Think I give a fuck about the semantics?

Think anybody here does? I am talking about the actual process.

I am done either this convo because you just want to be a semantical twat.


Ohh, and to satisfy your cunty attitude, here is an article with a direct quote from a Fitch MD (one who has been there 20 years and is the head of Fitch's cmbs group, likely far more knowledgeable than you,) And from one of your favorite sites no less.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3275853.html

Now shut up and kneel before zod.

 

[buckshot24]

I am done either this convo because you just want to be a semantical twat.

Do you have a link to back that up?

 

[AtenRa]

Let me say my opinion here, and that is the British government wanted leave to be voted.

I believe UK wanted to exit EU for the last 2-3 year or so, there are forces with in the EU that push things for all the EU members that UK (and others) cannot tolerate any longer.

 

[LegendKiller]

Do you have a link to back that up?

Just did. I'll enjoy his spluttering sputtering goalpost moving twatty reply too.

 

[Blackjack200]

Think I give a fuck about the semantics?

Think anybody here does? I am talking about the actual process.

I am done either this convo because you just want to be a semantical twat.


Ohh, and to satisfy your cunty attitude, here is an article with a direct quote from a Fitch MD (one who has been there 20 years and is the head of Fitch's cmbs group, likely far more knowledgeable than you,) And from one of your favorite sites no less.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3275853.html

Now shut up and kneel before zod.

Good enough, I've never heard an agency refer to their work as underwriting, but he clearly did. As I said, I googled first but only checked the first dozen or so sites. I wasn't going to go back three years.

Just did. I'll enjoy his spluttering sputtering goalpost moving twatty reply too.

I'm sure you do, bitch.

 

[LegendKiller]

Good enough, I've never heard an agency refer to their work as underwriting, but he clearly did. As I said, I googled first but only checked the first dozen or so sites. I wasn't going to go back three years.



I'm sure you do, bitch.

I'll take that twatty reply as an apology for saying I don't know what I am talking about. You wanted to pull this bullshit on somebody who knows far more than you.

Of course you wouldnt, that's why you're some shitheel (thanks for the word), rather than somebody who knows. Your available information is limited to a number of years matching your iq, 2.

Now piss off, runt.

 

[Blackjack200]

I'll take that twatty reply as an apology for saying I don't know what I am talking about. You wanted to pull this bullshit on somebody who knows far more than you.

Of course you wouldnt, that's why you're some shitheel (thanks for the word), rather than somebody who knows. Your available information is limited to a number of years matching your iq, 2.

Now piss off, runt.

Going back and reading you're responses in this thread, I'm still pretty sure you didn't know what underwriting actually is, that's why you got all pissy and started with all the cunty twatty talk.

You found a three year old Huffpo article to save your ass, it's a good day for you. Go have a pina colada and beat off to Donald Trump videos.

(thanks for the word)

Oh, you're welcome. It fits you like a glove.

 

[LegendKiller]

Going back and reading you're responses in this thread, I'm still pretty sure you didn't know what underwriting actually is, that's why you got all pissy and started with all the cunty twatty talk.

You found a three year old Huffpo article to save your ass, it's a good day for you. Go have a pina colada and beat off to Donald Trump videos.



Oh, you're welcome. It fits you like a glove.

Ohh no, a 3 year article. There is the goalpost movement I was expecting.

Just admit it. You wanted to be a jackass about definitions (an Underwriter vs underwriting) try and prove your superiority rather than focusing on the function. In the context of discussing the actual function of the nrsros, rather than the i bank, it is pretty obvious what i meant. You obviously do not know what the function of a credit analyst is or how they go about their job and how that is the same function of any analyst at any bank or buy side shop, which is why those same analysts, at buy side shops, do the same job as a ratings analyst and underwrites the *credit risk* of the deal on their own, looking for better bonds or structures on a relval basis. However, the pencil doesn't need to be as sharp at the agencies, hence the superficial rating (your word) and why good buysiders don't use them.

Just like you wanted to prove your superiority about their work product and then admitted it is superficial.

You wanted to be a jackass to be a jackass. At the end of the day, I am right and you are wrong. Sorry sparky.

Just eat your crow, be a man, and apologize like the cur you are.

 

[Svnla]

Last ditch efforts to reverse the exit - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/britain-revote-stop-brexit-081452041.html

Will they work? Stay tuned.

.

 

[flexy]

Last ditch efforts to reverse the exit - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/britain-revote-stop-brexit-081452041.html

Will they work? Stay tuned.

.

The petition by the way was created way back in May, and not after someone found the result "not so favorable" and then made the petition.

It is, imho, entirely legit to demand that for such types of votes there should be percentage and/or turnout thresholds met. A *substantial* majority of people, such as 60% - 40%.

Ironically, the petition was created by a Brexit supporter.

There is nothing "shady" or undemocratic about a 2nd referendum since also the Brexit people CAN reach a 60% majority.

This is not "repeating a vote until we like the results", since the democratic principle persists.

The other ideas, "concessions" <-- EVEN MORE concessions? After they gave EU the finger? The UK and especially the EU haters will just see this as weakness, they would still like to exit the EU for various reasons, not all of them rational.

Parliament ignoring the referendum? Not so smart..not at all.

2nd referendum seems the most sensible choice to me. Or, of course, SIMPLY EXIT and then swallow the consequences.

I also heard about other options, eg. General Elections in the UK ASAP. Some parties in the UK are promising if they get elected they won't do a Brexit, despite the referendum outcome. If those parties get elected, the entire thing can be forgotten and it was still done democratically. IF those parties get elected, that is.

 

[Leyawiin]

The UK voters will never blame themselves for this.

You should know people better than this, just saying.

www.metacafe.com/watch/an-F8pW27tJJhbmu2/gladiator_2000_estimating_the_situation/

Those of voting age who did won't blame themselves either. The young had the lowest voter turn out and when polled where the most in favor of remain. London also had one of the lower voters turnouts and was in favor of remain. The apathetic and lazy have no one to blame but themselves and basically just have to live with the result. Like the old saying goes if you don't vote you can't bitch about the result (which of course they will anyway).

 

[theeedude]

One referendum is enough, and UK should be kicked out of the EU post haste.

 

[flexy]

A decision of such magnitude, a decision that will decide their country's fate for the next decades, if not centuries? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong with a second referendum. Nothing wrong even with 100 referendums.

Nothing wrong with saying that for such a decision, there should be a minimum threshold, like 60%, and a min. turnout to be valid.

It's funny how those who proclaim a second referendum to be "anti democratic" or "this is a dictatorship" etc. ASSUME that the second referendum will turn out "IN". The outcome, of course, is OPEN.

You cannot scream "democracy" and then be afraid of a second referendum. If the second one turns out 60% OUT...so be it. If it turns out 60% IN, so be it.

You could run 10 referendums, nine of them not meeting a threshold, the 10th then maybe does...nothing "undemocratic" about this, imho.

The irony: That fascist Nigel dude, if "IN" had won 52%, you know, we all know, they had fought for a second one. He even said that before "they'd continue to fight".

 

[Sinsear]

"Keep voting till we get the results I want"

 

[Painman]

Those of voting age who did won't blame themselves either. The young had the lowest voter turn out and when polled where the most in favor of remain. London also had one of the lower voters turnouts and was in favor of remain. The apathetic and lazy have no one to blame but themselves and basically just have to live with the result. Like the old saying goes if you don't vote you can't bitch about the result (which of course they will anyway).

I've seen so many millennials outright call for the disenfranchising/euthanizing of people older than them... but they couldn't get off of their own asses to beat them in real numbers (which they have on their side.)

 

[mikeymikec]

After Farage did his best impression of eau de weasel with regard to debunking one facet of the £350m claim after the referendum (that it would go to the NHS after brexit), Iain Duncan Smith has just done the same thing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26061604.pdf

 

[agent00f]

One referendum is enough, and UK should be kicked out of the EU post haste.

This highlights the negotiating position the UK, or rather England soon, finds itself in. Most of the EU is pretty pissed, and their citizens won't stand for offering terms for staying, even if Merkel miraculous corals other leaders to agree.

More backtracking comedy from Johnson: https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/747178341514489856

It's pretty obvious nobody, particularly Leave leaders, expected Brexit to win. The brits'll find some way to weasel out of it, but hopefully they pay for this dumb tantrum.