No Deal Brexit and Savings
Options
Comments
-
The Irish funds, just like the other overseas Somerset funds, are marketed at clients who invest in them - it isn't his own money. :wall:
You just can’t admit you’re wrong can you?
His company makes money by investing other people’s money. His company won’t be able to make as much money running the fund in the U.K. after brexit so they’ve started another fund in Ireland to take advantage of being in the EU - thereby allowing Rees-Mogg to continue to make money and not make less money.
That’s a really telling statement of his confidence in brexit.0 -
I won't comment on whether Rees-Mogg's vision of Brexit is what was wanted by those who voted by majority to leave the EU, but it doesn't seem at all hypocritical or lacking in confidence based on my understanding of his position. A hard Brexit will likely mean the UK regulatory environment diverges from that of the EU, such that UK domiciled funds may not meet the standards required to be sold to EU consumers. Setting up an EU domiciled fund is entirely consistent with an expectation of the outcome Rees-Mogg desires and demonstrates his confidence in obtaining that outcome.Zero_Gravitas wrote: »You just can!!!8217;t admit you!!!8217;re wrong can you?
His company makes money by investing other people!!!8217;s money. His company won!!!8217;t be able to make as much money running the fund in the U.K. after brexit so they!!!8217;ve started another fund in Ireland to take advantage of being in the EU - thereby allowing Rees-Mogg to continue to make money and not make less money.
That!!!8217;s a really telling statement of his confidence in brexit.0 -
I learned in my life it.s better to keep for yourself opinions and beliefs about politics and/or religion. Becase no matter how many views/arguments you will have/give, always will be someone to say something else and the discussion will be endless.
I have no doubt on this forum, a lot of people have enough money/investments to dont worry to much and they see things differently or don't care about losing some extra money. But from someone who lost a lot before, I want to minimize the risks. As I said before and EachPenny quoted me, because I lost a lot of money before I don't want to do it again. I dont want to be homeless in my 40's or live on minimum wage for all my life. I see this as an improvement and not "180 turn". Is nothing wrong to pay a bit more on day to day expenses.. or to pay 20 instead of 15 for a haircut for example BUT is not to same losing thousands and say "oh.. it.s fine, i dont care, i lost much more in my life".
If I remember well a lot of people said after brexit, the pound was overvalued and this is the real value. And people continued to go in holidays abroad, buy cars and things. So, from this perspective I belive is nothing wrong to see the pound lower cuz people wont be touch by that. Same holidays, same expenses. Nothing wront with it
PS. If you go to "Debt free wannabe" you will see the real problem here. People struggling to pay a bloody minimum payment on CC's or saving 50pc/£1 each day to afford a gift next Christmas. They will be more and more affected but because we live in our bubble we cant see what's happening arround us.
Thanks0 -
Such a scenario may lead to a period of high inflation, which might not be a bad thing if combined with a period of static house prices and increases in overseas earnings by UK companies that trickle down into wage inflation. It could change the balance of the UK economy and does rather rely on those pesky trade arrangements being ironed out. But nobody knows what will actually happen. What we do know is the majority of the active UK electorate will get what they asked for. I don't think it is just those who are wealthy enough not to be concerned that voted leave, my understanding is a large proportion of people who were in a more delicate financial position did so also.If I remember well a lot of people said after brexit, the pound was overvalued and this is the real value. And people continued to go in holidays abroad, buy cars and things. So, from this perspective I belive is nothing wrong to see the pound lower cuz people wont be touch by that. Same holidays, same expenses. Nothing wront with it
PS. If you go to "Debt free wannabe" you will see the real problem here. People struggling to pay a bloody minimum payment on CC's or saving 50pc/£1 each day to afford a gift next Christmas. They will be more and more affected but because we live in our bubble we cant see what's happening arround us.0 -
And people continued to go in holidays abroad, buy cars and things. So, from this perspective I belive is nothing wrong to see the pound lower cuz people wont be touch by that. Same holidays, same expenses. Nothing wront with it
Problem is that it's just not true. People may have carried on but it's definitely not the same expenses when the pound has dropped 20%Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
Zero_Gravitas wrote: »You just can!!!8217;t admit you!!!8217;re wrong can you?
His company makes money by investing other people!!!8217;s money. His company won!!!8217;t be able to make as much money running the fund in the U.K. after brexit so they!!!8217;ve started another fund in Ireland to take advantage of being in the EU - thereby allowing Rees-Mogg to continue to make money and not make less money.
That!!!8217;s a really telling statement of his confidence in brexit.
I can admit that I'm wrong when I am wrong, but in this instance I'm right.
Just because someone disagrees with you and your opinion doesn't make them wrong.
And I'm quite sure that Somerset will continue to make plenty of money from their UK domiciled funds as well as the ones they've always had outside the UK, including their current one in Ireland and the new one they're opening there.0 -
AnotherJoe wrote: »I can imagine a similar argument in 1939. "Look at all the jobs we'll lose if we dont take Herr Hitlers offer "
Which offer would that be then?
In 1939, Hitler made no offer to the UK. The UK (and France) delivered an ultimatum to him following the invasion of Poland and it was ignored.
Perhaps you are confusing Hitler with Stalin, who did repeatedly make overtures to the UK and France to form an alliance against Germany, but ultimately grew tired and mistrustful of their coyness. This lead to the formation of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939, which allowed Hitler to attack Poland without fear of Soviet reprisal.0 -
Voyager2002 wrote: »And yes: there are bigger issues at stake than money. Things like preventing war in Europe; things like maintaining a central system of governance so that never again can a European country fall into the hands of a maniac like Thatcher. Things like creating a global counter-weight to the USA.
Um, not that I am in any way a fan of the aforesaid prime minister (nor of Brexit), but you do know that she became prime minister in 1979, a full six years and four months after the UK joined the EEC, don't you? You do also know, I hope, that she was actually a pro-European (despite what many in the Conservative Party like to think), who was one of the architects of the single market?0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »Precisely :T
And its worth remembering Britain is the least democratic country in Europe. We don't elect the Head of State & Hangers On, We don't elect the absurdly over-populated House of Lords (which alone is bigger than the EU Parliament for 27 countries) - both of which can over-rule the supposedly democratic Government which is held up by bribes to the DUP.
So would a little power in the far more democratic EU be such a bad thing?
Hmmm. The democratic credentials of the UK are certainly questionable, but it is not possible to say definitively that the UK is less democratic than any other state in the EU. Have you looked at Poland, recently, for example, or perhaps Hungary?
Our head of state's power to overrule parliament is oft-overstated (and I am a republican). No monarch has attempted to overrule parliament since 1708, and no monarch has involved themselves with governance since Queen Victoria. There is a firmly established constitutional convention that the monarch remains outside and above the governance of the country. Should the queen seek to exert her prerogative powers in opposition to parliament (or even more unthinkably, refuse to give assent to an act passed by both houses) it is highly likely that she would be ignored and cause her de facto removal from the throne. Monarch's who anger parliament too much don't have a happy history. Perhaps you would like to examine the careers of Charles I and James II?
Yes, the House of Lords is stupidly large, but no, it cannot overrule the government, or to be more accurate, the House of Commons. The Parliament Act, 1949 clearly establishes the primacy of the Commons (as did the 1911 Act before it) and limits the power of the Lords to only that of a revising chamber for all measures within a manifesto of a governing party, and only gives them limits on how often they may reject a bill that has received the consent of the Commons.
I'd love to see how you think the EU is a more democratic institution than the United Kingdom!
(I voted remain, but there is a lot of rubbish talked about politics in this country).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards