Brexit Referendum Superthread

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

in review after review , Anglo was seen as a bank with impeccable security of its loan book.

Anglos failure came because it was almost exclusively operating in a market that itself failed , i.e. property development. There was nothing else wrong with Anglos model over any other bank . Europe is full of potential Anglos

Not quite.

One developer in an interview on RTE said Anglo went to developers with a project that was basically unsound.

For example (not actual figures) Project required purchase of €100 m, Anglo would lend €150 m, take a €25 m finders fee which would be posted to P&L, and the remainder would be to provide interest - nothing to pay for three years. If the price was good, not so bad, but if the project price was inflated (as many were) then the whole deal was nonsense - think of the D4 deals Jurys, Lansdowne House etc (some of these were Ulster iirc) and the Irish Glass Bottle site and you see what was going on - total Ponsi and had to crash at some point. Developers were allowed to roll up their profits and postpone their taxes - until they went bust.

Irish Nationwide were even worse.

BoatMad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not quite.

One developer in an interview on RTE said Anglo went to developers with a project that was basically unsound.

For example (not actual figures) Project required purchase of €100 m, Anglo would lend €150 m, take a €25 m finders fee which would be posted to P&L, and the remainder would be to provide interest - nothing to pay for three years. If the price was good, not so bad, but if the project price was inflated (as many were) then the whole deal was nonsense - think of the D4 deals Jurys, Lansdowne House etc (some of these were Ulster iirc) and the Irish Glass Bottle site and you see what was going on - total Ponsi and had to crash at some point. Developers were allowed to roll up their profits and postpone their taxes - until they went bust.

Irish Nationwide were even worse.

Many of the banks engaged in this sort of over lending. Anglos trouble was all its business was in one sector

CMOTDibbler

BoatMad wrote: »

Many of the banks engaged in this sort of over lending. Anglos trouble was all its business was in one sector

Wouldn't be too sure about that. What you're talking about is unsecured lending at the outset. What transpired after the crash was that security (based on values that couldn't be sustained) fell below that of the loans and became effectively unsecured lending.

What Anglo were also doing was lending money to developers to buy Anglo shares and although it was denied (that this was being pushed by Anglo), the fact is that many of the developers had purchased shares in Anglo for which they had borrowed heavily. Sean Quinn being a case in point.

We're getting way off topic though.

I see the eurosceptic Five Star Movement in Italy have stated that they want Italy to stay in the EU. The Northern League (who have called for Italy to leave the EU) have lost support in the last few weeks.

BoJack Horseman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

In what way?
Unemployment?
GDP/GNP?

Great news! - UK unemployment rate falls to 4.9%

Official stats here - https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/july2016

The employment rate (the proportion of people aged from 16 to 64 who were in work) was 74.4%, the highest since comparable records began in 1971.

The inactivity rate (the proportion of people aged from 16 to 64 who were economically inactive) was 21.6%, the lowest since comparable records began in 1971.

But don't read this one ....

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-economy-deloitte-idUKKCN0ZX0ZZ

Some 82 percent of chief financial officers from FTSE 350 and large private companies expect to cut capital spending in the next year, the biggest proportion on record and up from 34 percent in the first quarter, accountancy firm Deloitte said.

In the next three years, 58 percent of CFOs surveyed said they expected capital spending to be "somewhat" or "significantly" lower.

Friday might not be too good either

A first concrete gauge of business activity will be published on Friday, when Markit publishes a one-off preview version of its monthly purchasing managers' index (PMI).

Calina

http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-will-relinquish-eu-presidency-in-2017/

UK relinquishing its scheduled presidency. Saw a rumour on twitter that Belgium might take it up.

Bob24

Tusk says that he told May he wants a "velevet divorce" (whatever it means! :-))

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-tusk-idUKKCN0ZZ2KR

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Tusk says that he told May he wants a "velevet divorce" (whatever it means! :-))

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-tusk-idUKKCN0ZZ2KR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia

It is sometimes known as the Velvet Divorce, a reference to the bloodless Velvet Revolution of 1989 that led to the end of the rule of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the formation of a democratic government.

whatever_

Deleted User wrote: »

Great news! - UK unemployment rate falls to 4.9%

Official stats here - https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/july2016




But don't read this one ....

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-economy-deloitte-idUKKCN0ZX0ZZ


Friday might not be too good either

Well I read all of your articles. Those of us that argued for Brexit expected a short/ medium term economic hit. In fact I would say that the negatives have been less than expected.

Contrary to the articles that you are quoting The Bank of England is saying that the economy has not slowed down and that companies are not putting investment decisions on hold:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/20/bank-of-england-agents-report-business-as-usual-after-brexit-eu-referendum

However, I'm sure you are aware that even without Brexit the economy was forecast to slow down and it is likely that this will now happen more quickly. The employment figures are fantastic, but will probably be the best for a few years to come.

I think the crucial thing though is that it is now clear that with Osborne sacked and Carney gagged, "Project Fear" has now been concluded and there will be no sharp Brexit slowdown :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/20/ftse-100-smashes-6700-but-pound-flounders-below-131-as-investors/

whatever_

Calina wrote: »

Eh, no it isn't. That mismanagement takes place at national level.

The bigger problem is the EU which is dysfunctional. It is unable to account for its spending to a satisfactory accounting standard (the auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts), it is unable to create growth in the Eurozone and it is unable to agree a policy on important issues like the migration crisis.

TBF, I don't think Greece would have avoided its meltdown whether it had retained the drachma or not. One of the key reasons Greek people value the euro is that it theoretically limits some of the issues that Greece has had with governance. This is happening now although at great cost.

Creating a single currency which included Greece and Italy was a disaster waiting to happen. That disaster is still happening. Anybody want to buy some Italian bank shares ?

If you want to be truly honest, Brexit was won on ignorance. There are people in Wales, Cornwall and the NE of England who are about to find out how dependent on the EU they were. Given what Jeremy Hunt has been doing to the NHS and Andrew Lansley before him, I am stunned anyone believed that any money the UK saved from its contribution to the EU would be directed towards the NHS and that's already before you look at the scale back in economic prospects which will almost certainly result in less funding being available.

Hyperbole. First and foremost, we rebelled against the EU. Secondly provincial England rebelled against London-based elites. We did not (and do not) believe Project Fear, or that a border will be built across Ireland or any of the other nonsense that was peddled. Subsequent events have proven us right. Have you checked the UK employment figures ? above 95%, and that's with three million EU migrants in the country . Many Eurozone economies will dream about being able to employ 95% OF THEIR OWN citizens (never mind three million of everybody else's)and will never, ever achieve that in the single currency.

Much of the European Union's impact has been in opening markets and reducing nationalistic regulation. When the UK screams on about red tape, they are missing the point that the EU put the red tape at a supranational level which is how the single market exists. 28 separate markets would have a lot more red tape for exports and whether the UK likes it or not, they're going to need to figure out where those exports are going to come from and how they might possibly be cost effective from the UK which has few raw materials, and whose indigenous financial services industry is dependent on access to a single market they voted to leave. And yes, if they want to get rid of freedom of movement, access to the single market will be going with it.

Nonsense. The EU takes years to negotiate trade deals. Typically there are 28 countries sitting on (ostensibly) the same side of the table and 20 are only trying to protect their own industries, not promote free trade. Only Germany, UK, Holland, Ireland, Sweden consistently push for free trade within the EU. Bilateral trade deals are much easier to negotiate. We will have trade deals in place with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and China by the time we exit.

Voting to exit the EU is a good idea if you live on an island and want to limit your horizons to that island. But the fishermen are not going to get increased quotas and right now, trade with the world outside the UK is incredibly unclear in what terms will be applied.

No it isn't unclear. GATT rules are very clear. We joined the Common Market largely because of GATT rates that were running at 20-30%. Post Buenos Aires, GATT import duties are no longer punitive. If you don't have a trade deal, you pay an average of around 3-5%. Hardly a big deal. VAT rates in the EU vary by around 10%, corporation tax rates vary by 25% ... tax rates vary full stop. Import duties are just another form of tax. I don't see people arguing that the Hungarian economy is about to collapse because it's VAT rate is 10% higher than say Luxembourg. But some people here believe the British economy is about to collapse if it starts trading by GATT. Comical !


"Voting to exit the EU is a good idea" ... got to agree with you there ... the rest of your post is superfluous.

oscarBravo

whatever_ wrote: »

It is unable to account for its spending to a satisfactory accounting standard (the auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts)...

Ye gods, it's Euromyths 101 in here. How many times do the same lies have to be debunked?

Pro Hoc Vice

whatever_ wrote: »

The bigger problem is the EU which is dysfunctional. It is unable to account for its spending to a satisfactory accounting standard (the auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts), it is unable to create growth in the Eurozone and it is unable to agree a policy on important issues like the migration crisis.




Creating a single currency which included Greece and Italy was a disaster waiting to happen. That disaster is still happening. Anybody want to buy some Italian bank shares ?



Hyperbole. First and foremost, we rebelled against the EU. Secondly provincial England rebelled against London-based elites. We did not (and do not) believe Project Fear, or that a border will be built across Ireland or any of the other nonsense that was peddled. Subsequent events have proven us right. Have you checked the UK employment figures ? above 95%, and that's with three million EU migrants in the country . Many Eurozone economies will dream about being able to employ 95% OF THEIR OWN citizens (never mind three million of everybody else's)and will never, ever achieve that in the single currency.




Nonsense. The EU takes years to negotiate trade deals. Typically there are 28 countries sitting on (ostensibly) the same side of the table and 20 are only trying to protect their own industries, not promote free trade. Only Germany, UK, Holland, Ireland, Sweden consistently push for free trade within the EU. Bilateral trade deals are much easier to negotiate. We will have trade deals in place with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and China by the time we exit.




No it isn't unclear. GATT rules are very clear. We joined the Common Market largely because of GATT rates that were running at 20-30%. Post Buenos Aires, GATT import duties are no longer punitive. If you don't have a trade deal, you pay an average of around 3-5%. Hardly a big deal. VAT rates in the EU vary by around 10%, corporation tax rates vary by 25% ... tax rates vary full stop. Import duties are just another form of tax. I don't see people arguing that the Hungarian economy is about to collapse because it's VAT rate is 10% higher than say Luxembourg. But some people here believe the British economy is about to collapse if it starts trading by GATT. Comical !


"Voting to exit the EU is a good idea" ... got to agree with you there ... the rest of your post is superfluous.

https://infacts.org/mythbusts/auditors-havent-refused-sign-off-eu-accounts/

I assume you are just mistaken, which means I also assume you are mistaken about all or at least most of your claims.

For example the real issue with trade is not tarrifs high or low, but the real issue is the other ways to keeps products out of another state, regulation, customs inspection, no use having no tarrifs on your fame produce if you fresh good are held up at port for months on end, even non perishable goods it's not good for cash flow if you can't get paid for months. In a single market there can not be any of those barriers. Even if Greece want to piss off Germany it's cant keep its BMW's in the port so long they become classics. The is what's central to the single market certainty, if in the future the USA car companies get pissed off with cars from Sunderland they can put pressure on Washington and tie up the imports in regulation.

For example the 7 largest car buying countries/areas are as follows

China
USA
EU
Japan
India
Brazil
Russia

In each of those areas for example Nissan manufactures cars. Thereby reducing importation regulation so allowing Nissan to sell in the top 7 markets with little regulation and limiting tarrifs but regulation is main benefit. Post exit they may remain in UK but they also have plants in Spain if it's easier to supply 3 rd biggest world market solely from Spain they may do so and keep Sunderland only for UK market there by reducing production by 4/5. It may not but if I was one of the 8000 employed I would worry.

Clearlier

whatever_ wrote: »

The bigger problem is the EU which is dysfunctional. It is unable to account for its spending to a satisfactory accounting standard (the auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts), it is unable to create growth in the Eurozone and it is unable to agree a policy on important issues like the migration crisis.

That's not really accurate about the accounts is it? Here's a nuanced view which by the by says that the EU performs at the same levels as national governments. The issues have little to do with fraud but are instead a report on whether EU rules were correctly followed or not.

You can easily argue that almost any government (and any private business for that matter) is dysfunctional. Even just on the points you make compare the UK governments response to the migration crisis (by which I assume you refer to Syrian war refugees) or even just the question of general migration.

Do I need to point out how the Conservatives made a promise (stupid one IMO BTW) to reduce net migration to less than 100,000 but still allowed (at least according to that well known liberal leftie mouthpiece "migration watch") non-EU net migration of 188,000 last year?

Technically you're wrong about growth but it has been anaemic at best. Gordon Brown's adamant refusal to join the Euro and his reasons for it look almost prescient. The attempts to fix the mess caused by the failure of the Euro still look like the rock upon which the EU could founder. There's a lack of political will to fix the problem. It's not a direct problem for the UK though. A much bigger one for Ireland.
[/QUOTE]

whatever_ wrote: »

Hyperbole. First and foremost, we rebelled against the EU. Secondly provincial England rebelled against London-based elites. We did not (and do not) believe Project Fear, or that a border will be built across Ireland or any of the other nonsense that was peddled. Subsequent events have proven us right. Have you checked the UK employment figures ? above 95%, and that's with three million EU migrants in the country . Many Eurozone economies will dream about being able to employ 95% OF THEIR OWN citizens (never mind three million of everybody else's)and will never, ever achieve that in the single currency.

A somewhat selective take on why people voted for Britain to leave, no?

You're right about the suggestions that the UK economy would take an immediate nosedive if people voted to leave. They were just plain wrong, the only thing that changed from one day to the next was expectation. In an economic sense nothing changed.

What has changed are plans, universities are seeing it already. British universities are no longer welcome to be part of major pan-European projects that use EU money. I hope and expect that this will sort itself out eventually and there's certainly scope for EU projects to include participants from outside the EU in a lot of cases but it's a hit that universities are starting to take.

The bigger question is over the long term. I was a remain supporter but I'm a lot less pessimistic than many people who voted remain about those longer term economic prospects.

whatever_ wrote: »

Nonsense. The EU takes years to negotiate trade deals. Typically there are 28 countries sitting on (ostensibly) the same side of the table and 20 are only trying to protect their own industries, not promote free trade. Only Germany, UK, Holland, Ireland, Sweden consistently push for free trade within the EU. Bilateral trade deals are much easier to negotiate. We will have trade deals in place with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and China by the time we exit.

Even if the UK has got those trade deals in place by the time of formal Brexit (and that does seem a trifle optimistic) that's still way, way fewer opportunities for UK business than it currently enjoys.

As I've said before the UK will undoubtedly be more agile in trade negotiations than the EU. On the flip side the EU is a much bigger market and has the capacity to get better trade deals than the UK.

whatever_ wrote: »

No it isn't unclear. GATT rules are very clear. We joined the Common Market largely because of GATT rates that were running at 20-30%. Post Buenos Aires, GATT import duties are no longer punitive. If you don't have a trade deal, you pay an average of around 3-5%. Hardly a big deal. VAT rates in the EU vary by around 10%, corporation tax rates vary by 25% ... tax rates vary full stop. Import duties are just another form of tax. I don't see people arguing that the Hungarian economy is about to collapse because it's VAT rate is 10% higher than say Luxembourg. But some people here believe the British economy is about to collapse if it starts trading by GATT. Comical !

Would that tariffs were the only barrier to trade. The challenge that the UK faces in negotiating a trade deal with the EU is not about tariffs, it's about regulations. Just because the UK is in the EU now doesn't mean that UK business will get a pass on meeting EU regulations. They'll have to prove that they do and do it using the EU process unless the UK can negotiate otherwise. There will likely be similar barriers to entry for the UK in many of the other trade deals that it will negotiate post-Brexit. There are opportunities for sure but there are costs too and it's a lot more than what tariff/tax rate says.

freddyuk

Reasons to be cheerful:
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html

Pro Hoc Vice

freddyuk wrote: »

Reasons to be cheerful:
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10565686/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html

The House of Lords circus costs about 90 million sterling a year. At least EU parliament is elected.

Charles Babbage

whatever_ wrote: »

Hyperbole. First and foremost, we rebelled against the EU. Secondly provincial England rebelled against London-based elites. We did not (and do not) believe Project Fear, or that a border will be built across Ireland or any of the other nonsense that was peddled.

Well we too might not believe that a border would be built across Ireland if you would kindly explain how it will all work. Unlike the typical Brexit voter we don't do blind faith, but like to see explanation, something that seems to be associated with "experts", i.e people who have a clue.

Bob24

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Well we too might not believe that a border would be built across Ireland if you would kindly explain how it will all work. Unlike the typical Brexit voter we don't do blind faith, but like to see explanation, something that seems to be associated with "experts", i.e people who have a clue.

On this the status quo is to have no border control. Fair enough of you to like relying on expert opinions (they certainly hold value although they can also be wrong/biased or easily manipulated), but then on which one(s) are you basing your opinion that the status quo will be changed by the vote and that border controls necessarily be reintroduced, and how how do they argument that this is inevitable?

On borders there were two things mentioned by the remain campaign in case of a Brexit vote:
- the border with France would have to move from Calais to Dover. This seems to have been proven wrong yesterday by an official statement from May and Hollande agreeing on the contrary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/theresa-may-meets-francois-hollande-french-president-demands-pm/
- border checks would have to be reintroduced in Ireland. Clearly there is not the will of the British and Irish governments to do so, and yesterday Hollande again (he seems to have had a busy day) and Kenny issued a joined statement saying a special status would have to be found for this border. Merkel hasn't shown as much enthusiasm and time is needed to tell what will happen, but certainly there is no certainty one way or the other.

I think scaremongering and lies were present on both sides ... And if you only pick on one side you are being biased. Of course the NHS message on leave campaign buses was rubbish, but was it worse than lying about an influx of 50000 asylum seekers in case of Brexit because the border would surely move? (Statement which btw was supported by an expert's opinion - it seems like the opinion was either wrong or misused)

UK economy hit hard by Brexit vote

Breaking: Britain’s economy is shrinking at the fastest pace since the financial crisis, as the Brexit vote hits confidence and spending.

Data firm Markit reports that services and manufacturing sectors have both suffered a big hit this month. They are contracting at the fastest pace since 2009, as output and new orders have fallen across the sector,.

Many firms blamed uncertainty caused by June’s EU referendum.

It suggests that the UK economy is shrinking, at a quarterly rate of 0.4%.



Markit economist Chris Williamson says:

July saw a dramatic deterioration in the economy, with business activity slumping at the fastest rate since the height of the global financial crisis in early-2009.

“The downturn, whether manifesting itself in order book cancellations, a lack of new orders or the postponement or halting of projects, was most commonly attributed in one way or another to ‘Brexit’.

Here’s the details (any reading below 50 shows a contraction):

Flash UK PMI Composite Output Index at 47.7 (52.4 in June). 87-month low.
Flash UK Services PMI Activity Index at 47.4 (52.3 in June). 88-month low.
Flash UK Manufacturing PMI at 49.1 (52.1 in June). 41-month low.
Flash UK Manufacturing PMI Output Index at 49.1 (52.9 in June). 40-month low.

.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/jul/22/surveys-brexit-impact-uk-eurozone-g20-lagarde-sports-direct-live

Zubeneschamali

Ouch.

Still, contraction in one month is not recession - it takes two full quarters to diagnose a recession. So it'll be the end of the year figures before it's official, and they won't be out until into 2017.

And the impact on the Eurozone of Brexit is a dagger too.

Brexit casts shadow over euro zone growth outlook: ECB survey

According to the ECB's regular quarterly survey of professional forecasters, euro zone growth is expected to average 1.6% this year, unchanged from an earlier prognosis.

But growth will then slow to 1.4% in 2017 and pick up only modestly to 1.6% again in 2018.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit casts shadow over euro zone growth outlook: ECB survey

From the tail end of that article: economists now see on average a 60% chance that the Brexit vote will tip the economy into recession

Patser

The pound is taking another smacking after that report, losing all its bounce from the initial Brexit day collapse.

But what I can't understand is that yesterday a lot of the British press (pro-brexit papers especially) were saying that all the economic doom predictions were being proven to be false and the UK was doing well. How was this news so at odds with what the PMI report is now saying.

Patser

Patser wrote: »

The pound is taking another smacking after that report, losing all its bounce from the initial Brexit day collapse.

But what I can't understand is that yesterday a lot of the British press (pro-brexit papers especially) were saying that all the economic doom predictions were being proven to be false and the UK was doing well. How was this news so at odds with what the PMI report is now saying.

Today is the first day that hard data is available really.

Deleted User wrote: »

Great news! - UK unemployment rate falls to 4.9%

Official stats here - https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/july2016

But don't read this one ....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-economy-deloitte-idUKKCN0ZX0ZZ

Friday might not be too good either

Bob24

Patser wrote: »

The pound is taking another smacking after that report, losing all its bounce from the initial Brexit day collapse.

That seems quite exaggerated and doesn't really match what the numbers are saying. The pound never actually bounced back to a higher value than what it was on Brexit + 1 day, so it couldn't possibly have lost that bounce.

The lowest point was 1.1672 euros on July 7th. Currently its value is higher at 1.1886.

Overall if you look at the full history from Brexit to now (the last point on the graph is as of right now), unless there is a sharp drop in the afternoon, there is a drop today but it isn't massive and doesn't significantly change the story of the previous few days.



Historical values against the USD are telling the same story as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/britains-economy-shrinking-at-fastest-rate-since-2009-says-survey

In the first survey of business confidence since the referendum on 23 June, the services sector was particularly hard hit, showing its biggest drop on record.

Services makes up ~ 78% of the UK GDP.

If services gets shook, the UK gets shook.

Good news for exporters (as expected) as weakened currency boosts orders;

Manufacturing looks to be weathering the storm slightly better than the services sector, as manufacturers have seen somewhat of a boost in export orders following the depreciation in sterling

(Approximately 11% of the UK economy)


Every silver lining has a cloud though of course.

Yet the flip side is a spike in input costs as the weaker sterling is pushing up import prices.

djpbarry

Patser wrote: »

But what I can't understand is that yesterday a lot of the British press (pro-brexit papers especially) were saying that all the economic doom predictions were being proven to be false and the UK was doing well.

Because the British media is largely anti-EU and most papers campaigned for an exit. There’s no way they’re now going to admit that the warnings about the economic damage an EU exit could do had some validity. Hence everything negative is reported in a positive light (e.g. falling value of the pound is good for exports).

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Because the British media is largely anti-EU and most papers campaigned for an exit. There’s no way they’re now going to admit that the warnings about the economic damage an EU exit could do had some validity. Hence everything negative is reported in a positive light (e.g. falling value of the pound is good for exports).

I don't think it is that one-sided, and from what I can see more newspapers actually campaigned to remain rather than to leave.

Seems like to me overall British TV channels were leaning towards remain. And if I try to summarise newspaper's positions: tabloids where mostly in favour of Brexit, the conservative press was in-between, and the liberal press as well as a good bit of the regional press was firmly on the remain side.

See here the list of newspapers who endorsed remain and there the list of the ones who endorsed leave (which is quite shorter).

micosoft

I guess the next step of the Brexiters will be to claim that there was always a recession coming and the Brexit will help UK better weather that recession. I suspect a lot of revisionism over the coming months as the damage to the UK economy is clearer.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't think it is that one-sided, and from what I can see more newspapers actually campaigned to remain rather than to leave.

Most of the biggest circulating papers supported leave (Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, The Sun, Daily Mail) and most of the newspaper coverage supported a leave vote:

The findings, which cover two sample days of coverage a week during the first two months of the referendum campaign immediately after David Cameron's post-summit Cabinet meeting on 20 February, find that of the 928 articles focused on the referendum, 45% were in favour of leaving compared with only 27% in favour of staying in the EU. Of the remainder, 19% of articles focused on the referendum were categorised as ‘mixed or undecided’ and 9% as adopting no position.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-05-23-uk-newspapers-positions-brexit#

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Most of the biggest circulating papers supported leave (Daily Express, Daily Telegraph, The Sun, Daily Mail) and most of the newspaper coverage supported a leave vote:

True, but it doesn't make it correct to say "most papers campaigned for an exit". They might sell less print copies, but more papers campaigned to remain than to leave (and if you also look at internet readership the picture would be very different, the Guardian for example has many more on-line readers than print readers while if you look at the Sun online readership is a fraction of the print one).

Also when talking about "the media" TV is very influential, and from what I can see it was overall closer to remain than to leave.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

True, but it doesn't make it correct to say "most papers campaigned for an exit". They might sell less print copies, but more papers campaigned to remain than to leave…

You really want to be this pedantic? I think I made it clear in my last post that I was referring to the big papers, the ones that matter.

Bob24 wrote: »

Also when talking about "the media" TV is very influential, and from what I can see it was overall closer to remain than to leave.

Given the amount of coverage Farage was given (someone who has failed to get elected to the Commons how many times?), I would have to disagree.