Fair enough. So they have done it ? Not sure I really understand it all but seems to make sense, they are ‘protecting’ their business in case.
Did you read the letter from 'some' of the supermarkets about empty shelves this week? did you stock pile food, or do you have a Tesco's nearby who didn't join in the government scare story? Did you see the interview when the AirBus chairperson was tricked by the reporter and had to admit the government had asked her to comment. did you know aerospace components are zero tariff anyway and would not be effected at all, and it was all a load of bollocks. Jeeze
"Is preparing". Not, "has prepared". Not, "is moving." Etc. Questions: Do you always believe someone you have never met when they say they are going to do something? If not, why would you doubt them? Barclays, like other large corporations, wants Remain because Remain makes their lives easier. These corporations are not concerned about the same things voters are concerned with, although there may be overlap. The priorities for corporations and private individuals are not identical. Barclays, like other large corporations, is in a position to try to influence people, by making dire predictions of doom and by warning of having to abandon the UK operations, etc, etc. If Barclays is in a position to influence the Brexit debate, and has a preferred option, will they: a. Use their position of influence to affect the debate? b. Not use their position of influence to affect the debate? Talk is cheap. Telling people that Barclays intends to move operations out of the UK costs them nothing. On the other hand, Barclays can hope to change the outcome of a Brexit decision by "warning" of such an action. It is a no-brainer for them with literally no downside. Question: If you consider that Barclays is working in the Public Interest by warning the UK of their proposed move, can you please supply other examples, of comparable magnitude, of Barclays acting in the Public Interest? Please note, I do not consider Barclays offering you a personal or business loan at competitive rates to be "comparable". I note that you seem easily seduced by "figures". Those figures make it all so real, don't they? Or do they?
We are talking about the factual article on Barclays @Exige. Nothing else. Calling opinion pieces "Project Fear" amounts to no more than saying "I don't think it will be that bad". Fine. I don't have a problem with that. You and @Loz are entitled to your opinions as much as the CEOs of multiple supermarkets are entitled to theirs .... but when if and when @Loz or anyone else refers to a purely factual piece as "Project Fear" then they really need to be called out.
Hate to disappoint you AC, but the EU already said a few weeks back that they would grant a extension. Also the UK gov could cancel Brexit unilaterally, and immediately restart Brexit again, thus gaining themselves another two years - not a great solution but within the rules. Whatever happens, there won't be a WTO/ no deal departure. The MPs voted against that a couple of weeks ago and again last night. Whilst it is a popular idea amongst old guys who own Ducatis, it seems less appealing to the Westminster crowd!
Please illustrate the "facts" you refer to. What makes them "facts"? I am not trying to be awkward, I am trying to grasp where you are coming from.
Last night's "No-Deal" amendment is non-binding. Legally, WTO is the default in the absence of an acceptable deal or a further law being made.
I think I follow your argument. Are you saying that you don't believe them when they say "Due to the continuing uncertainty over whether there might be a no-deal Brexit, the Barclays group has determined that it cannot wait any longer to implement the scheme." and they are in fact going to wait longer and and see what happens before doing it ... and that therefore this is "Project Fear"?
So you agree the Supermarket letter and the AirBus comment was 100% project fear, but not this one, interesting
Each of the following seven sentences strikes me as being factual in the following ways ... "Barclays is preparing to pull the trigger on no-deal Brexit plans to shift assets worth £166bn (€190bn) to its Irish division as it "cannot wait any longer" amid continuing political uncertainty, a High Court judgment has revealed - a High Court Judgement has revealed this. Fact. The plans were drawn up by the bank in case of a no-deal scenario which would see UK financial services firms losing "passporting" rights that allow them to provide services across Europe. - the plans were drawn-up for this reason. Fact. Details of the move were revealed in a judgment by Mr Justice Snowden that largely approved the "huge" transfer, which will apply to thousands of clients of the bank. - details were revealed by Mr Justice Snowden. Fact. It said: "Due to the continuing uncertainty over whether there might be a no-deal Brexit, the Barclays group has determined that it cannot wait any longer to implement the scheme." - The High Court judgement did say this. Fact. The judge added: "On any view, the scale of the transfer of business... is huge. - the judge did say this. Fact. "The scheme will apply to about 5,000 clients... and on the basis of the accounts for 2017 it is estimated that about €190bn of external assets will be transferred." - The scheme will apply to this scale of client numbers and assets. Fact. The transfer represents a significant portion of Barclays group's total assets of £1.1tn (€1.26tn)." - it does represent a significant portion. Fact. They are all facts. Which do you dispute as being made up as "Project Fear"?
I am saying that I neither fully believe nor fully disbelieve Barclays' statement. I have no certain way of evaluating the truth of it. If you forced me to bet on it, one way or the other, my gut tells me that are fibbing. I do not believe that Barclays is prepared to weather the storm and the fallout of their UK customers' backlash against their abandoning of the UK. What I can evaluate with certainty is the effect of their making such a statement. There is purpose to their statement and because I do not consider banks and other large corporations to be overly concerned with altruism, I deem the statement to be an act of self-interest. Once you accept that self-interest is the motivation for making the statement, this raises a degree of doubt in its bona fides. For me, the balance of probability is that the statement is a stunt and an attempt to manipulate. By all means differ with me on this, but don't tell me that any "facts" have come to light when Barclays made their statement.
Do you still consider these items to be facts if the basic premise underlying it - that Barclays will relocate an enormous chunk of its operation - to be suspect, aka false? There is no indication here that Barclays intends to pull the trigger, whichever way Brexit is implemented.
Last nights vote was a signal to the government that there are more than enough MPs prepared to vote against any attempt to leave the EU without a deal.
Last night's vote was a signal to the government that MPs were prepared to vote against No-Deal in a non-binding amendment. It is suggestive but in no way definitive. If you like, it was a poll. Not an MP "referendum". That's how I am treating it.
Have you dealt with Barclays? They are the most incompetent and useless bank I have ever had the displeasure of having business dealings with. "Storm and fallout of their UK customers' backlash"? Since when have they been remotely interested in their customers? It took me a year for them to admit that I lived in Switzerland not Swaziland and during that process, their customer service personnel even apologised for thinking that Swaziland was not a made-up country. They are that bad. That sounds like a joke, but assure you it happened. If they think they'll make more money outside the UK post Brexit, their feet won't touch the ground.
Oooo-er...... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47061650 Oh well...........back to the stern of the Titanic, then.
