Barclays Share Discussion Threads

[alphorn] 13/6/2016 14:45

astol - good plan.

[chris coxon] 13/6/2016 14:36

porty - 'Va te faire foutre'

[astol] 13/6/2016 14:22

I was long beforehand took profit and then switched allegiance to a short

[astol] 13/6/2016 14:19

QUANTAS- seems the jellyfish as you termed me made a very good call on Friday trading short,strange making money when a share price falls, but that's strategic spread betting for you. We will see an implosion heading into the referendum then will cash in before the votes are cast, well that's the forecast and my plan.

[christh] 13/6/2016 13:27

informant100,
have you declared that to the taxman?
Have you got stashes of money then? So you do not care about your pension or the future of your children or grandchildren?

...and you are not using the NHS services, surgeries, clinics or have private dentist?

[informant100] 13/6/2016 13:13

Christ

I already have 3 properties in the UK and won't mind buying another. But I do like traveling and my wife has property abroad, so I'm happy to invest there aswell.

[christh] 13/6/2016 13:09

Verdict
-----------------------
The leave camp might just about have been able to get away with saying that the UK sends £248m a week to Brussels (which at least takes account of the rebate). It can argue all it likes that £350m is a “gross figure”. But it cannot, in all conscience, get away with the use of the word “send”.

Wollaston, the IFS, the UK Statistics Authority, Nicola Sturgeon, Amber Rudd and Angela Eagle are right: Vote Leave’s claim that Britain sends £350m a week to Brussels is a lie.

[christh] 13/6/2016 13:08

“Energy bills would soar by £500m a year if the UK left the EU, Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, will claim.”

The Guardian, 24 March 2016

It’s been claimed that a Leave vote in June’s EU referendum would add £500 million to UK energy bills. Questioned on this by the BBC this morning, the energy secretary conceded this was an uncertain figure.

That’s right—the economists who produced it said that the cost to the energy sector of leaving the EU’s internal energy market could be “up to” £500 million. These costs would ultimately be passed on to energy suppliers and their consumers. But Brexit doesn’t need to mean leaving the EU’s energy market—Norway is part of it despite not being an EU member.

And it’s wrong to portray the £500 million as their estimate of the impact on energy bills from Brexit. Access to the energy market isn’t the only way the referendum outcome could impact bills in either direction, and the report doesn’t try to put a figure on what might happen to bills.

The economists thought the bigger impact of Brexit would be to damage the confidence of energy investors, which could further raise costs. It didn’t put a price on this.

On the other hand, members of the Leave campaign have argued that leaving the EU could allow the UK to drop some of its green targets, and that this could lower bills.

£500 million is the forecast cost from leaving the internal energy market

The EU’s “internal energy market” is used to, among other things, trade energy across borders.

In November Vivid Economics, which was commissioned by the electricity and gas system operator National Grid to assess the impact of Brexit on the energy sector, said:

“The impact of the UK being excluded from the IEM could be up to £0.5 bn per annum in the 2020s. Most of these impacts could be effectively mitigated if the UK is allowed to remain in the IEM, although there would be a loss of influence over policy design which has not been quantified in this analysis.”

Most of that potential £500 million cost was to the electricity system, rather than gas. It said not being part of the internal market could reduce trading across borders and reduce investment in ‘interconnectors’, which allow the UK to access energy generated in other parts of Europe.

It was a tentative estimate, put together based on existing research. The economists said they hadn’t seen the underlying data behind all the estimates used.

A complicated business: the EU’s impact on bills is wider than the IEM

Vivid Economics doesn’t think Brexit’s biggest effect on the energy sector would be that estimated £500 million cost.

In a report released yesterday it said that higher investment costs are “the most significant Brexit risk to the energy sector.”

It said it thought energy investors might react to uncertainty around the UK’s position if the UK votes to leave by demanding higher returns on their investments. In other words, they’d want to be sure the energy could be sold at higher prices in order to offset their greater risks.

The report also said that changes to the exchange rate following an exit could push up prices—for example if the pound falls in value that would make importing equipment from overseas more expensive.

The Leave camp has said that bills could go down after a Brexit. One reason given is that freeing the UK from EU green energy targets would allow the UK to invest in cheaper fuel sources, reducing bills.

Leaving the EU wouldn’t automatically remove all of those targets. The UK has its own domestic targets on carbon emissions, for instance, which would still be in place unless MPs decided to abolish them.

The House of Commons Library has said that leaving the EU could affect the UK’s international climate commitments, which it currently negotiates as part of the EU.

[manics] 13/6/2016 12:44

It does make me laugh to watch Baby Boomers squirming around ahead of this referendum.

"Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN"!

The Boomer, by definition, is too ignorant to realise their generation already long ago sold UK based Millenial/Generation Z future's down the river, I'm afraid.

"...but I'm alright Jack"! ;)

[reimomo] 13/6/2016 12:26

£9bn/year is less than 2% of our GDP.

But the Brexiters never mention that. Sounds much better to say £9 billion a year.

[terminated] 13/6/2016 12:16

christh: They claim it's per week not per day. Anyhow it is about 180 million per week as that would equate to about the 9 billion which is never returned to the UK from the 19 billion we pay in.

And given that EU legislation is passed by the unelected EU council what difference do you think the UK taking control of the EU presidency will make? I don't believe we can pass any legislation anymore than any other country..

[informant100] 13/6/2016 12:05

Christ

I will still exist if robots were part of a large workforce. I will grow my own food. I'm investing in fields abroad. Simples

[christh] 13/6/2016 12:02

Some in here are completely ignorant of the facts.
-------------------------------------------------------
The £350 million a day cost to EU is a lie, is not accurate.

UK will take the presidency of the EU in 2017.

[terminated] 13/6/2016 11:57

Immigration is one of the big issues in the referendum, but if we want to continue with the free trade agreement we would have to sign up to something similar to Norway. In which case we need to still allow free movement within the EU but we can no longer have any influence within the EU. Or are we assuming the EU will grant us special privileges rather than make an example of us to deter other countries following suit.

We are not currently required to allow non EU nationals citizenship yet we did allow 292,000 into the UK for some reason ( In 2015:

Net migration from EU was: 251,000 people

Net migration from the rest of the world was: 292,000 people

So assuming we could cap the number of EU migrants we are for some reason unable or unwilling to cap foreign migration. So we could end up with not being able to cap EU migration because it will be a condition of allowing free trade with the EU just like Norway, and we would continue to not cap non EU migration because of the reasons we don't cap it now..

Does anyone disagree with this logic because stopping migration was one of the main reasons I want to vote Brexit (that and it's completely un-democratic of course).

[christh] 13/6/2016 11:40

....and you will not exist you will be replaced by a robot.

[alphorn] 13/6/2016 11:40

All debt in total will come to zero. All trade balances in total will come to zero.
A lends to B £100.
There is a debt of £100 and a receivable of £100. It will always come out to zero.

[informant100] 13/6/2016 11:39

Also don't worry about the immigrants. The future is robots. FOXCONN sack 6000 staff and build robots. McDonald's are buying robot arms at a cost of $28000 each and sacking people because they don't want to pay the future wage increases.

Robots will get more advance in the next 10 years

[christh] 13/6/2016 11:38

Traders' views - Stock trading
IFS warns Brexit could add an extra two years to austerity

By Nicolas Shamtanis, 07 Jun 2016

Britain could face an additional two years of austerity should voters elect to quit the European Union (EU) next month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently said in a report.

The IFS, Britain’s leading think tank on issues concerning tax and spending, recently concluded that Brexit could push the country into a deep recession, forcing the ruling Conservative party to enact even more austerity measures. According to their calculations, a vote to leave the EU could drag UK GDP lower by up to 3.5% by 2020, resulting in a £20 billion to £40 billion blow to public finances.

The warning is considered a major blow to the Vote Leave campaign, which is playing catch-up to the Remain camp.

[informant100] 13/6/2016 11:35

Alphorn


Here look at the debt

[informant100] 13/6/2016 11:33

I'm voting Leave but I don't mind a recession because my job is recession proof. Also 10 years lost won't affect me because I'm still young.

[jotoha2] 13/6/2016 11:31

Actually the debt is greater since Osborne took over , and that is a fact , we all know labour messed up , but Osborne has not achieved !

[alphorn] 13/6/2016 11:27

"whole world debt is getting bigger".

How is that???

Must come to zero for the 'whole world'. ;)