As The Wall Street Journal reports, investors were rattled on Tuesday when ECB President Mario Draghi talked of a “strengthening and broadening recovery” in the eurozone’s economy.
Analysts are now weighing whether these moves will turn into a full-scale “taper tantrum” or whether investors’ continued hunger for fixed-income assets will temper any wider selloff.

"Yesterday was the first explicit sign that the ECB will be looking to remove some of the stimulus,” said Mike Bell, global market strategist at J.P. Morgan Asset Management. “Clearly not everybody was expecting that.”
"I don’t think his speech was a big surprise, but you saw the market reaction,” said Joachim Fels, global economic adviser at Pacific Investment Management Co., who attended the forum. “It’s a warning sign that there are some unintended consequences as central banks head toward the exit.”

1. The ''stimulus'' being debt printed (from thin-air) to prop up a market that is unable to stand on it's own two feet.
2. The 'bumpy ride' (that some of us have predicted) gets closer by the day.

Buy Litecoin.

But you did do that didn't you . I'd argue it's fairly hard to assertain the meaning of any vote and to bring a decision as big as this down to a yes or no vote was one of the most idiotic things any prime minister has ever done. Farage mentioned Switzerland and Norway on many occasions, that indicates at the very least that the terms of our exit can be argued and to suggest everyone wanted to just completely f*** the EU off is speculative at best.

We're the Arthur over ere!

No not really...I may disagree with them but in general I think most people have some idea. It's like I say....out of every group who vote for whatever there will always be a percent who vote out of tribalism or 'insert reason' where they will change their minds later...or indeed double down.

As this is true for any vote for anyone it's just a false argument to use for the Brexit vote.

Like I say, we could use the same argument for those who voted Corbyn. It isn't an argument I use because i see the flaws in it.

That's why I'm criticising the argument here.

As an aside..it isn't just two options on Brexit, there were three...You weren't forced to vote.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Jun 2017 11.32pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It's ok. Once we are out our very own pleasant Scouse, British Yardies and Glaswegian gangs can take over again.

Hoo-rah for Brexit

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

What is the purpose of the National Crime Agency?

To inform us about Albanian drug gangs what could we possibly do.

I shall certainly be vigilant on my way to Tesco Express this week.

I accept what you're saying but surely the staunchest brexiteers would argue there isn't even any need for any negotiations and we should just fall back on WTO rules and get out straight away. There's also, of course, many backing the government for a need to negotiate some kind of trade deal with the EU (thank God). But there are also undoubtedly people, which we cannot account accurately, who would've seen someone like Farage consistently bringing up the happiness in Norway and prosperity in Switzerland and were subsequently influenced by those comparisons in the way they eventually voted.

You can't constantly bring Norway and Switzerland up to suit your argument and win votes when you're demonstrably against us being even remotely like them - because that isn't making a prediction and getting it wrong, that's just straight up deceit and manipulation. And he wasn't the only to do this, but for obvious reasons he's a very good example.

Following the "brexit means brexit" rhetoric is kind of meanlingless because it's a rejection of any interpretation of what the exit arrangement would be that differs from yours, and whether leavers like it or not there are different interpretations to what leaving would mean. Even if a "soft" brexit isn't possible or is wrong, it shouldn't be hounded out of any debate, in a result as close as this, when it is impossible to say what the entire (or even majority) of the 52% were voting for. The overall destination should be debated and scrutinised, and the public should be consulted on the terms of exit or, for the reasons given above, it's actually quite undemocratic.

Edited by Mstrobez (30 Jun 2017 3.01am)

Edited by Mstrobez (30 Jun 2017 3.13am)

We're the Arthur over ere!

I see we are taking back some control of our fishing waters. Good first step but we need to get back to pre-EU fishing limits.

[Link]

Edited by hedgehog50 (02 Jul 2017 2.04pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

British Yardies?

Ha ha.

Gullible as usual. The government is 'doing something' in the interest of the government that's all.

That would depend entirely on whether it is fished at a sustainable level and whether or not the excluded countries still want to buy their catch.

Anyway, the foreign boats will still be allowed but the contractual terms will be re-negotiated. Gove said so himself more or less on Marr this morning.

Edited by Kermit8 (02 Jul 2017 10.37pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]