Are the filthy rich for no deal?

Read the article, or my summarised conclusions. He didn't know.....initially! But it looks like he had insider information before the closing of the polls. Yes it was still a gamble, but with a higher probability of success.
If he had access to a private poll then he had access to information others did not have but legally speaking that is not insider trading. He was not an "insider" as in this case there was no company to be inside of. Technically anyone could have got hold of the same information by paying for their own poll.
 
Think about it! While Britain is getting a rebate, the French are suffering. So when we leave, we will be relieving the French of their burden.
This is economically incoherent.

We are a net contributor, despite the rebate. When we leave, France and the other net contributors will have to pay more, or the net recipients receive less.

Us leaving doesn't save France anything.
 
If he had access to a private poll then he had access to information others did not have but legally speaking that is not insider trading. He was not an "insider" as in this case there was no company to be inside of. Technically anyone could have got hold of the same information by paying for their own poll.
From the same article:
The Bloomberg report has raised difficult questions for the polling industry, which has been depicted as benefiting extensively from the sale of private polling data to hedge funds seeking to profit from insights into how markets might move.

Sources told Bloomberg that they believed Brexit to have generated “one of the most profitable single days in the history of their industry.” Odey Asset Management, run by the Conservative party donor and leave supporter Crispin Odey, is reported to have made $300m from Brexit.

It is illegal under British electoral law to “publish” exit polls before 10pm on the day of an election or referendum.
Hedge funds and pollsters appear to have interpreted the law so as to permit the private provision of exit poll data to select individuals. A prominent barrister told Bloomberg that the legal definition of “publish” had never been tested.
-----
...and why would you test it if you know that you are benefiting or could potentially benefit from the same loophole in the future.
 
This is economically incoherent.

We are a net contributor, despite the rebate. When we leave, France and the other net contributors will have to pay more, or the net recipients receive less.

Us leaving doesn't save France anything.
If don't have to pay extra to make up for the UK's rebate then it does. You could argue it either way but anyway, it was a joke. Hence the punchline.
 
Quoting from the article in UK's EU rebate - explained
In perspective
Other member states must pay more to the budget to make up for the UK’s rebate, with France and Italy facing the highest burden. According to the OBR, between 2009 and 2015 the UK’s average saving due to the rebate was £3.9 billion each year resulting in an average net annual contribution of £8.5 billion.

At the moment, the UK is the third largest net contributor, after Germany and France, to the EU budget. But in per-capita terms the UK is only the eighth biggest contributor.
------

Think about it! While Britain is getting a rebate, the French are suffering. So when we leave, we will be relieving the French of their burden.

...and you call yourself British..

Which countries farms do best out of the CAP policy? (suffering :rotfl:)
 
As I said, still a gamble, but a damn good one, and a clear conflict of interest.
To have a conflict of interest you must have some force competing interests where one of those interests is for others and one is for yourself. For example if you are a Government minister and you are choosing between suppliers one of whom is a family member. In this case Farage possibly had his own financial interest but he was not operating on behalf of anyone else so had no conflict of interests.
 
To have a conflict of interest you must have some force competing interests where one of those interests is for others and one is for yourself. For example if you are a Government minister and you are choosing between suppliers one of whom is a family member. In this case Farage possibly had his own financial interest but he was not operating on behalf of anyone else so had no conflict of interests.
Then I used the wrong legal term. But it does look like his cohorts benefited from this. If true then it's pretty obvious that he would be "thanked" for his help.

Wow my original edit of this was weird. I love auto spell check.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the same article:
The Bloomberg report has raised difficult questions for the polling industry, which has been depicted as benefiting extensively from the sale of private polling data to hedge funds seeking to profit from insights into how markets might move.

Sources told Bloomberg that they believed Brexit to have generated “one of the most profitable single days in the history of their industry.” Odey Asset Management, run by the Conservative party donor and leave supporter Crispin Odey, is reported to have made $300m from Brexit.

It is illegal under British electoral law to “publish” exit polls before 10pm on the day of an election or referendum. Hedge funds and pollsters appear to have interpreted the law so as to permit the private provision of exit poll data to select individuals. A prominent barrister told Bloomberg that the legal definition of “publish” had never been tested.
Exactly. What Farage is alleged to have done does not appear to have broken any law. Only if someone could successfully argue that providing a poll to private individuals constitutes "publishing" would he deemed to have been guilty of wrongdoing. Personally this seems unlikely as the rules around publishing exit polls are there to prevent a poll impacting voters on the day of an election - not to stop someone profiting from knowing the result of the poll.

Even if the pollsters were deemed to have "published" then they are the ones guilty of breaking the rules - not Farage. Farage would still not be guilty of insider trading.
 
True! But why help them even more ;)

Enlighten me, how exactly would we be helping them even more.

We could be removing competition from our farmers, but we are also removing some of their subsidy...
 
If don't have to pay extra to make up for the UK's rebate then it does. You could argue it either way but anyway, it was a joke. Hence the punchline.
They'll have to pay extra to make up for the UK's net contribution.

Your point may have been flippant, but it's still wrong.
 
Enlighten me, how exactly would we be helping them even more.

We could be removing competition from our farmers, but we are also removing some of their subsidy...
OK this is getting a little silly now, it was a joke :) Do I really need to put a smiley on it?
 
OK this is getting a little silly now, it was a joke :) Do I really need to put a smiley on it?

apologies, I din't get the joke and interpreted the winking smiley as you knowing something that I had missed :)
 
As I said, still a gamble, but a damn good one, and a clear conflict of interest.
Nope. A poll is just guesswork. Tomorrow have a look in the paper at see what the tipsters think will will a horse race. Bet on it. Did it win?

Betting on the result of the referendum is easier, there's only two options so you could just flip a coin. That doesn't mean any prior knowledge because there isn't any.

And how does this not happen with remain? Surely they would do the same?
 
Nope. No shortcuts. That's not the way the EU works in these kind of things. Just ask Scotland.
Which is part of the UK and hasn't previously been a member.

The UK has. Scotland hasn't as an independent country.
 
Nope. A poll is just guesswork. Tomorrow have a look in the paper at see what the tipsters think will will a horse race. Bet on it. Did it win?

Betting on the result of the referendum is easier, there's only two options so you could just flip a coin. That doesn't mean any prior knowledge because there isn't any.

And how does this not happen with remain? Surely they would do the same?
Of course they would, and you know this because?

Don't get me wrong, it could happen, maybe it is. But they simply don't have the weapons to influence public opinion in the same way. Otherwise, how do you explain people cutting off their nose to spite their faces? Remember? Biggest beneficiaries of EU grants voted for Brexit!
 
That's a guess on your part mate :)
Nope mate. :)
How does a fact turn into a conspiracy theory?
[/QUOTE]
How does a conspiracy theory become a fact?
 
Anyway all of this is just carping on the sidelines. Will rich people benefit from Brexit? Of course they will. The rest, including my thoughts, are just that, thoughts, conjecture.
 
Of course they would, and you know this because?

Don't get me wrong, it could happen, maybe it is. But they simply don't have the weapons to influence public opinion in the same way. Otherwise, how do you explain people cutting off their nose to spite their faces? Remember? Biggest beneficiaries of EU grants voted for Brexit!

because they were promised a similar if not higher level of funding with the money saved by brexit?

(I'm not saying this is what will happen, I'm saying I think that's why some may have voted that way)
 
Nope mate. :)
How does a fact turn into a conspiracy theory?
How does a conspiracy theory become a fact?
[/QUOTE]
What that Aaron Banks is bankrolling this? That large media organisations are helping disseminate the Brexit agenda? Which one of those two points is a theory, never mind a conspiracy. Aaron Banks is not (any longer because of the weight of evidence) denying bankrolling Brexit. You can see what's in the papers and on the BBC (Question time is interesting because it always "seems" to have a mojority Brexit audience even if the panel is remain.)

Anyway....
 
Of course they would, and you know this because?
And you?
Don't get me wrong, it could happen, maybe it is. But they simply don't have the weapons to influence public opinion in the same way. Otherwise, how do you explain people cutting off their nose to spite their faces?
People not liking an undemocratic, bureaucratic organisation that can't decide where it's own parliament is.
Remember? Biggest beneficiaries of EU grants voted for Brexit!
And would get more if we left!

We give a lot to the EU and get a bit back. How about cutting out the middleman?

Nice one from the EU. Takes money from the UK, then bribes a few, with their own money.
 
Some rich people may not benefit, if they just hold their money in sterling and it tanks, then they will lose a proportion of their wealth... The will probably lose more money than any not rich people - inflation will cause more issue for people with less money than anything else....

You can't lose what you haven't got...

And as has already been explained to you, the people making the gains are offset by others making a loss - its essentially a bet...
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom