Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
R K

We Need A Higher Inflation Target

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10668455/Jim-Leaviss-Investors-should-hope-for-an-inflation-target-of-4pc-not-2pc.html

snip......

Europe is exhibiting all the symptoms of debt deflation. Credit conditions are weak, with loans to households and corporates falling in 2013 – suggesting that consumers either don’t want more debt or are struggling to access loans (perhaps both). One measure of money supply (M3) shows an increase of only 1pc in 2013 compared to 11.6pc in 2007, when credit flowed freely through the euro area.

This isn’t just a European problem. The US and UK are also being hit with the deflationary forces of high debt levels, weak wage growth, stronger currencies and lower commodity and energy prices.

With interest rates at historic lows, central bankers have limited firepower to stop the slide towards deflation. But their central banks acted quickly and aggressively to try to avert the disaster of deflation – the Fed’s Ben Bernanke was a student of America’s Great Depression, and wrote papers on making sure they didn’t let another one happen. With the Bundesbank still incredibly influential in the ECB (Germany is after all around 25pc of all the eurozone's GDP), an anti-inflation mind-set lasted far longer than it should have.

So what can Europe’s central bankers do? Quantitative easing – printing money and using it to buy government bonds - seems unlikely, with Draghi noting recently that the European Union treaty prohibits the ECB from buying government debt directly from member states. But there are still plenty of things that they are allowed to do. And the most effective might be to follow Ben Bernanke’s advice to Japan in 1999, and revise the definition of price stability up from 2pc to 4pc.

It's going to be fascinating to see who goes first - FED, BOE or ECB. First mover advantage an' all that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inflation is the mechanism by which the upper class ensure that the working man can never challenge their position. The assets of the wealthy are still assets no matter what paper currency is worth.

However if you are a working man, paid in a currency with an inflation target of 2%, you have to earn 2% more every year just to stand still. And the wages you saved ten years ago are now only worth 82% of what they were worth when you earned them. By the time you have built up enough capital to challenge the position of the established upper class, your money is worthless.

They are explicit about this aim - the economic justification for inflation is that it prevents hoarding, so stimulating the economy as people buy stuff they don't need before they 'miss the boat' as things get more expensive. Sounds like they'd love a population living hand-to-mouth, dependent on their next paycheque, forced to work for whatever wages they can get and then spend them as quickly as possible.

And it's working - I regularly read stories about how the average person is just a couple of months of joblessness away from bankruptcy, and the popularity of payday loans show how many people run out of money before the end of the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US and UK are also being hit with the deflationary forces of high debt levels, weak wage growth, stronger currencies and lower commodity and energy prices.

Despite £$Trillions in printed QE already... hmm. And UK house prices, that on the Rightmove listings are now Medusa insane frighteningly high.

We need more entrepreneurship, more VI over-leveraged business broken up (as a lot of RBS has been broken up, into new hands, so loads more small business owners) - more competitiveness, lower prices, and QE only to support main banks positions to handle the corrective shocks.

Small business creates jobs... not so much Govs, and harder these days when they try to, for its's difficult to identify any large spend stimulus project. And stimulus, under capitalism, has to bring about postive economic returns... not just a one off £100m spend, which creates a few jobs during the build, then nothing much after.

.which would (it was simpler in US 1930s.. new roads = new towns in suburbia = need cars... new housing estates, new businesses to serve them... those days are gone.) Just look at the losses US made pumping stimulus into solar energy firms. Loads of other examples too. Couple of successes, at least temporarily, via gov funding, but more wasted than gained. Also 30s stimulus/Gov redirecting where money should be spent, often involved subsidising the faltering sectors of industry and impeding the emerging sectors, retarding private sector small business.

And we need a massive hpc, to break up the complacent hpi-prouders, especially the older ones, with the houses they were bragging about being worth £500,000 in 2006/07, now thinking they're worth loads/£100ks more.

Keep relying on Gov to support your position at the top, via determined reflation without cost, older/overleveraged HPI prouders, the rag balance sheets which Govs and corps post their numbers on today, and some want them even filthier with more ripping off markets and capitalism (think of the victims they say, from their million pound houses) - instead of debt liquidation (where HPI prouders also call for savers to be wiped out now, or laugh it will happen during the process, instead of their house prices taking the brunt of it).

A point where further inflation would be self-defeating. A concerted attempt by political authorities to override market disciplines and write down debt through inflation would lead, in the extreme, to the disappearance of credit altogether - an outcome that would doom a modern political economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my radical idea. We need a base rate triple lock, exactly like the current pension one.

i.e. the base rate is set as the maximum of price inflation, wage inflation, or 2.5% (whichever is bigger).

No QE, no MPC, everybody knows what's happening.

Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/10668455/Jim-Leaviss-Investors-should-hope-for-an-inflation-target-of-4pc-not-2pc.html

snip......

It's going to be fascinating to see who goes first - FED, BOE or ECB. First mover advantage an' all that

Japan went first. Abenomics/stagflation is what's coming here next. When that fails we default/hyperinflate.

Got gold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inflation is the mechanism by which the upper class ensure that the working man can never challenge their position. The assets of the wealthy are still assets no matter what paper currency is worth.

However if you are a working man, paid in a currency with an inflation target of 2%, you have to earn 2% more every year just to stand still. And the wages you saved ten years ago are now only worth 82% of what they were worth when you earned them. By the time you have built up enough capital to challenge the position of the established upper class, your money is worthless.

They are explicit about this aim - the economic justification for inflation is that it prevents hoarding, so stimulating the economy as people buy stuff they don't need before they 'miss the boat' as things get more expensive. Sounds like they'd love a population living hand-to-mouth, dependent on their next paycheque, forced to work for whatever wages they can get and then spend them as quickly as possible.

And it's working - I regularly read stories about how the average person is just a couple of months of joblessness away from bankruptcy, and the popularity of payday loans show how many people run out of money before the end of the month.

I think you are right......assets worth more than people and their labour.....the rich get richer hoping the poorer don't notice.

But all riches die eventually.....and all rich people don't hold onto their inherited riches. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with a raised inflation target the government would have to abandon deficit reduction (no chance of debt reduction).Maybe there are early signs that in a run up to election they are easing back and the deficit will miss the forecast.

Edited by Ash4781

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inflation is the mechanism by which the upper class ensure that the working man can never challenge their position. The assets of the wealthy are still assets no matter what paper currency is worth.

However if you are a working man, paid in a currency with an inflation target of 2%, you have to earn 2% more every year just to stand still. And the wages you saved ten years ago are now only worth 82% of what they were worth when you earned them. By the time you have built up enough capital to challenge the position of the established upper class, your money is worthless.

They are explicit about this aim - the economic justification for inflation is that it prevents hoarding, so stimulating the economy as people buy stuff they don't need before they 'miss the boat' as things get more expensive. Sounds like they'd love a population living hand-to-mouth, dependent on their next paycheque, forced to work for whatever wages they can get and then spend them as quickly as possible.

And it's working - I regularly read stories about how the average person is just a couple of months of joblessness away from bankruptcy, and the popularity of payday loans show how many people run out of money before the end of the month.

No. It's not the inflation target that is the problem but the debt based monetary system.

It's that system that sucks up income and wealth from the plebs and transfers it to into the hands of the wealthy. Moreover it means that we have to have inflation to stop debt from overloading the system and causing it to implode. And yes inflation does deflate the savings of the masses but it also deflates their debt, and the masses hold far more debt than savings relative to the wealthy.

We need a system that for its function does not depend on the masses getting into ever increasing debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite £$Trillions in printed QE already... hmm. And UK house prices, that on the Rightmove listings are now Medusa insane frighteningly high.

We need more entrepreneurship, more VI over-leveraged business broken up (as a lot of RBS has been broken up, into new hands, so loads more small business owners) - more competitiveness, lower prices, and QE only to support main banks positions to handle the corrective shocks.

Small business creates jobs... not so much Govs, and harder these days when they try to, for its's difficult to identify any large spend stimulus project. And stimulus, under capitalism, has to bring about postive economic returns... not just a one off £100m spend, which creates a few jobs during the build, then nothing much after.

.which would (it was simpler in US 1930s.. new roads = new towns in suburbia = need cars... new housing estates, new businesses to serve them... those days are gone.) Just look at the losses US made pumping stimulus into solar energy firms. Loads of other examples too. Couple of successes, at least temporarily, via gov funding, but more wasted than gained. Also 30s stimulus/Gov redirecting where money should be spent, often involved subsidising the faltering sectors of industry and impeding the emerging sectors, retarding private sector small business.

And we need a massive hpc, to break up the complacent hpi-prouders, especially the older ones, with the houses they were bragging about being worth £500,000 in 2006/07, now thinking they're worth loads/£100ks more.

Keep relying on Gov to support your position at the top, via determined reflation without cost, older/overleveraged HPI prouders, the rag balance sheets which Govs and corps post their numbers on today, and some want them even filthier with more ripping off markets and capitalism (think of the victims they say, from their million pound houses) - instead of debt liquidation (where HPI prouders also call for savers to be wiped out now, or laugh it will happen during the process, instead of their house prices taking the brunt of it).

There are plenty of large scale stimulus projects that could give a return. The reason we don't do them is for ideological reasons nothing else, because to do them would be to interfere with the (not) free market in a way that would harm the vested interests that operate in the (not) free market.

Examples would be a large scale council house building program for either rent or for sale at cost. Even uber-capitalist Hong Kong does this so why can't we?

Other examples would be building those damned new nuclear power stations ourselves instead of subsidizing the french gov to do it (honestly you couldn't make it up - the public sector doing it is supposedly more costly, less efficient, yada, yada, yada.....so instead we get the french gov to do it for us). Or building the severn trent barrage as a source of electricity for the next 200 odd years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of desperation creeping in from those holding assets. Huge paper profits aren't much good if the debt remains undiminished and the mortgage becomes a life sentence. Bulls are desperate for money destruction to further enhance their holdings and destroy their debt.... be it gold, houses or equities. It finally dawned on the Japanese around 1990 to stop chasing ponzied assets because the debt was becoming unmanagable and the asset prices weren't real compared to what cash could buy instead. At that point deflation starts to win the day.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small business creates jobs... not so much Govs, and harder these days when they try to, for its's difficult to identify any large spend stimulus project. And stimulus, under capitalism, has to bring about postive economic returns... not just a one off £100m spend, which creates a few jobs during the build, then nothing much after.

Stimulus projects could focus on big science as these kind of projects at least bring intellectual progress as a minimum, and while normally loss-making in the short to medium term (making them less attractive for the private sector in any case) they can often generate long term profit-making spin offs which are self-sustaining and external to the original projects, such as the tecnological innovations derived from the Apollo program (can't remember where but I'm sure I've read a paper that had the economic benefits of Apollo somewhere around $7 for every $1 spent), or the massive and widespread economic benefits derived from the development of the world wide web as a research sharing tool at CERN. Personally I've always wanted a space elevator (handy for profit-making extra-terrestrial mining) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stimulus projects could focus on big science as these kind of projects at least bring intellectual progress as a minimum, and while normally loss-making in the short to medium term (making them less attractive for the private sector in any case) they can often generate long term profit-making spin offs which are self-sustaining and external to the original projects, such as the tecnological innovations derived from the Apollo program (can't remember where but I'm sure I've read a paper that had the economic benefits of Apollo somewhere around $7 for every $1 spent), or the massive and widespread economic benefits derived from the development of the world wide web as a research sharing tool at CERN. Personally I've always wanted a space elevator (handy for profit-making extra-terrestrial mining) :D

If I accept your studies earlier Government funding has produced positive economic returns from the Government funding, Apollo [Project Paperclip German Scientist]. Is there anything else that could bring about a return from huge Gov investment. I know it's not possible to know in advance, but you can plan and narrow it down.

The guy who was head of the Hadron Collider was on R4 a few weeks ago, talking about how it was a real effort to get commitments from Govs for the funding. Is that likely to produce a return in any way?

IT reduces stuff down to scale and intellect. Might not something come out of Barcalona's IT village, or Norway's - or private sector, without huge stimulus, allowing market to do it. Stimulus scares me because I fear corruption, Govs deciding who should get the money, Govs having a tendency to stick with backing old-stimulus that's worked in the past such as pouring more concrete, malinvestment, sloppy project planning and management - for national fire-stations and state-of-the-art NHS computers.

I remember crowd-funding calls for a Space Elevator in mid 2000s (when I should have been out there getting a liar-loan way more than my income), and seem to recall reading about the principle of them in US 'Popular Science' magazine in mid 1990s - describing how it would save massive sums, such as getting satellites in to space. There were certain scientific complications to overcome.

Let's build two of them. One to mine the moon, to send stuff back to earth (if the science works that way). Another to use to siphon up and out and over industrial/nuclear waste to dump onto the moon. (Can't really be left in orbit because enough dangerous junk up there already). You can run the moon mining operation side, and I'll be on the earh side, taking payments for the waste-management. :lol:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of large scale stimulus projects that could give a return. The reason we don't do them is for ideological reasons nothing else, because to do them would be to interfere with the (not) free market in a way that would harm the vested interests that operate in the (not) free market.

Examples would be a large scale council house building program for either rent or for sale at cost. Even uber-capitalist Hong Kong does this so why can't we?

Other examples would be building those damned new nuclear power stations ourselves instead of subsidizing the french gov to do it (honestly you couldn't make it up - the public sector doing it is supposedly more costly, less efficient, yada, yada, yada.....so instead we get the french gov to do it for us). Or building the severn trent barrage as a source of electricity for the next 200 odd years.

Could have started these 5 years ago.

Led by donkeys.

Fwiw we seem to be a long way from formally changing the inflation target, or formal NGDP targetting. Informally it seems pretty clear to me BoE at least will be very happy to sit behind the curve. ECB clearly not for obvious reasons.

It would be simpler for them to all adopt a 3-4% target concurrently I would have thought to avoid currency wars/volatility.

I posted 'cause I thought it was interesting an article talking about this was in the mainstream Torygraph. Drums are (perhaps) starting to beat in the distance...........

Edited by R K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other examples would be building those damned new nuclear power stations ourselves instead of subsidizing the french gov to do it (honestly you couldn't make it up - the public sector doing it is supposedly more costly, less efficient, yada, yada, yada.....so instead we get the french gov to do it for us). Or building the severn trent barrage as a source of electricity for the next 200 odd years.

Sounds good in principle to me (I don't know the science) - although not sure about the council houses.

Simply because to rent, or at cost, seems to always factor in over-inflated land values, or some other gimmick in the UK. Don't know how your Hong Kong goes about it, and haven't yet seen any reports of low-to-mid workers enjoying affordable/fair standard accomodation over there, at a reasonable price.

Not followed the French nuclear stations that closely, other than some report how we've supposedly signed up to pay a very high rate per Kwh/or is it Gwh? it's definately decided.. in one way I think we're paying for their supposed expertise and experience. Do we have British firms with high-qualified people to do it, and what would that cost overall? If it's more, because UKers need higher wages to afford UK house prices for instance... instead of France, cheaper housing, manufacturing plant already in place as built quite a few already.. rent whilst over here - job done more cheaply, on time, to a higher standard. Then it's complicated.

I think this is where humans should be aiming; even when less is more. Then the mega debts of Govs won't matter so much; if perhaps conquered by technology and surplus. Instead of accumulation (including houses) power/control/dominance.

One Culture adage is, Money is a sign of poverty, meaning that money only has a function in a scarcity economy, and therefore its existence betrays a pre-abundant (poor) society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I accept your studies earlier Government funding has produced positive economic returns from the Government funding, Apollo [Project Paperclip German Scientist]. Is there anything else that could bring about a return from huge Gov investment. I know it's not possible to know in advance, but you can plan and narrow it down.

The guy who was head of the Hadron Collider was on R4 a few weeks ago, talking about how it was a real effort to get commitments from Govs for the funding. Is that likely to produce a return in any way?

IT reduces stuff down to scale and intellect. Might not something come out of Barcalona's IT village, or Norway's - or private sector, without huge stimulus, allowing market to do it. Stimulus scares me because I fear corruption, Govs deciding who should get the money, Govs having a tendency to stick with backing old-stimulus that's worked in the past such as pouring more concrete, malinvestment, sloppy project planning and management - for national fire-stations and state-of-the-art NHS computers.

I remember crowd-funding calls for a Space Elevator in mid 2000s (when I should have been out there getting a liar-loan way more than my income), and seem to recall reading about the principle of them in US 'Popular Science' magazine in mid 1990s - describing how it would save massive sums, such as getting satellites in to space. There were certain scientific complications to overcome.

Let's build two of them. One to mine the moon, to send stuff back to earth (if the science works that way). Another to use to siphon up and out and over industrial/nuclear waste to dump onto the moon. (Can't really be left in orbit because enough dangerous junk up there already). You can run the moon mining operation side, and I'll be on the earh side, taking payments for the waste-management. :lol:;)

I wouldn't necessarily accept my half-remembered reading of an old economics paper on Apollo, that should definitely be classed as anecdotal!

The Hadron Collider is at CERN so we've already had a massive pay off from that with the world wide web, which has definitely generated more much more money than has ever been spent, or is ever likely to be spent, at CERN. That's not to say that there won't or haven't been other profitable developments out of there (essentially all contemporary computing apparatus runs on the basis of an understanding of quantum mechanics only achieved because of such research) the web is just the most glaringly obvious one. I think the whole point with big science projects is you go for clear intellectual goals rather than profit-making as the best of such spin offs are likely to be emergent features rather than something that it's easy to target for (hence why they're unlikely to happen with purely private finance).

The problem is exactly as you point out though, you can't trust the government to make the right decisions about what to fund and science is probably incredibly low down on their list of preferred stimulus measures. I think this is symptomatic of the fact that we don't have enough (barely any) MPs with scientific backgrounds. I was at a comedy gig/science lecture (interesting hybrid) a few years ago where Brian Cox claimed that the British government had spent more on bailing out the banks in 2008 than they have on science (of all kinds, including research, degree funding, school science teaching, etc) since Jesus. Tells you everything you need to know about how important politicians think intellectual and technological progress is to our economy and quality of life :blink:

I've grown up reading SF stories about space elevators so I probably have an overly romanticised view of them. Essentially you need to set up a space station in a geosynchronous equatorial orbit and run what amounts to a pressurised lift and cable system down to the Earth. Initial expense for set up is high as you need to rely on rocket technology during this phase, but once you have it set up running costs are low as you use the energy from what you're bringing down (such as minerals) to pull up whatever it is that you want to bring up (maybe the nuclear waste could be sent on a trajectory to burn up in the sun? and travel around the solar system could be a lot easier if space ships didn't need to be capable of achieving escape velocity and could be brought up on the line). AFAIK the real stumbling block that needs some serious application of funding is making a strong enough cable (graphene is apparently looking promising).

Totally up for running linetop, now if only we could get a government stimulus package to fund our joint enterprise :D

Edited by Neverwhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good in principle to me (I don't know the science) - although not sure about the council houses.

Simply because to rent, or at cost, seems to always factor in over-inflated land values, or some other gimmick in the UK. Don't know how your Hong Kong goes about it, and haven't yet seen any reports of low-to-mid workers enjoying affordable/fair standard accomodation over there, at a reasonable price.

Not followed the French nuclear stations that closely, other than some report how we've supposedly signed up to pay a very high rate per Kwh/or is it Gwh? it's definately decided.. in one way I think we're paying for their supposed expertise and experience. Do we have British firms with high-qualified people to do it, and what would that cost overall? If it's more, because UKers need higher wages to afford UK house prices for instance... instead of France, cheaper housing, manufacturing plant already in place as built quite a few already.. rent whilst over here - job done more cheaply, on time, to a higher standard. Then it's complicated.

I think this is where humans should be aiming; even when less is more. Then the mega debts of Govs won't matter so much; if perhaps conquered by technology and surplus. Instead of accumulation (including houses) power/control/dominance.

A barrage such as on the severn would have a high initial capital cost, but after the capital repayment peroid produces electricity that it dirt cheap. Some of the estimates I have seen are that for the initial period it has costs roughly the same as offshore wind. But after that its half the price of the dirtiest coal power station. Of course we having a modern british economy don't do long term.

http://www.tidalenergy.eu/severntidalbarrage.html

As for council housing the gov can buy farmland and self-grant planning permission. That's how we built the new towns. But of course that would be to interfere with the (not) free market landowners and shoe-box builders so we don't do that sort of thing anymore.

With respect to getting the new nukes online if we had any sense we'd get other companies to build them for us on contract via a competitive bidding process. The way we are currently doing it is that we pay for it via electricity bills, and underwrite the risk of the project while they will keep the profits. In essence we've traded short term upfront costs for paying out a heck of a lot more just over a much longer time frame. It's akin to buying outright vs hire-purchase or PFI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've grown up reading SF stories about space elevators so I probably have an overly romanticised view of them. Essentially you need to set up a space station in a geosynchronous equatorial orbit and run what amounts to a pressurised lift and cable system down to the Earth. Initial expense for set up is high as you need to rely on rocket technology during this phase, but once you have it set up running costs are low as you use the energy from what you're bringing down (such as minerals) to pull up whatever it is that you want to bring up (maybe the nuclear waste could be sent on a trajectory to burn up in the sun? and travel around the solar system could be a lot easier if space ships didn't need to be capable of achieving escape velocity and could be brought up on the line). AFAIK the real stumbling block that needs some serious application of funding is making a strong enough cable (graphene is apparently looking promising).

Totally up for running linetop, now if only we could get a government stimulus package to fund our joint enterprise :D

Good reading Neverwhere. :)

Yes, now I recall the 90s issue was not having a material with the necessary strength for one component of it, and as you say, now Graphene is about as a possibility.

And, "Doh!" - of course... that's a much much better idea - the sun. You've just avoided the more serious protests from Greenpeace types on earth, with my moon dumping plan. (I think my mind was concerned about nuclear waste hitting a meteor, or getting caught in orbit of a comet, or something and the slight risk of its finding its way back to earth.)

I'd like to see energy tech improve though, so we can do without nuclear. There was some promising stuff about batteries and nanotechnology and batteries a couple of years ago, but with energy, lots of stuff floated for years, which never seems to come to anything. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8556656.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing that the telegraph was/is suggesting a higher inflation target when the UK recovery was/is so strong - even last February when the article was written. It's as if despite all the strongest recovery ever claptrap it keeps pumping out in advance of the general election for some reason it doesn't believe itself.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief. :huh:

2% theft isn't enough we need 4%.

4% theft isn't enough we need 8%.

8% theft isn't enough we need 16%.

16% theft isn't enough we need 32%.

32% theft isn't enough we need 64%.

.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tells you everything you need to know about how important UK politicians think intellectual and technological progress is to our UK economy and quality of life :blink:

Additions in bold italics.

Just saying .

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the OP telegraph article:


Let’s cast our minds back to 1998. Ahead of the launch of the single currency, a new central bank monetary policy regime is in vogue – “inflation targeting”.

They can't have forgotten that the BoE had been given unofficial responsibility for the base rate and inflation targeting from the early 90s and as they'd been reasonable successful at that the NuLabour government made it official in 1997 soon after NuLabour won the 1997 general election.

It didn't suddenly become "in vogue" in 1998 it had been actively pursued for many years before that and justified as being beneficial to the UK economy and absolutely necessary in order to compete with economies like Germany that were very stringent about keeping inflation under control since World War 2.

However almost as soon as the BoE had the job officially then inflation started to get more and more out of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.