Bank of England Intentionally Strangles UK Economy to Discourage Brexit
By Daily Bell Staff - March 17, 2016

The longer-term effects of Brexit are … likely to be adverse. Most studies suggest that economic growth would suffer. A detailed analysis from the Bank of England in October found that EU membership had benefited the British economy. Attempts to model the consequences of Brexit point to economic damage. Two American banks, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, recently warned that growth and the pound would fall further after a vote to leave the EU.  – Economist

As we can see, above, a recent Economist analysis of Britain’s leave-taking from the EU – Brexit –  indicates a variety of negative consequences.

This is generally the tenor of the mainstream media in Britain, one of alarmism tinged with negativity.

The tone probably won’t change but a recent poll is certainly deepening tensions.

Suddenly, Pro-Brexit forces seem to be winning.

In what has been called “a huge boost”  for Brexit forces, a recent Daily Telegraph poll has revealed that pro-Brexit forces have gained a seven-point lead. The poll shows the numbers at a deadlock, but when actual voters are considered, pro-Brexit forces win by 52 per cent to 45 per cent.

The new poll has stoked concerns that a variety of pressures and “scaremongering” tactics aimed at pro-Brexit forces will be expanded. From an EU referendum article:

Brian Monteith of the Leave. EU campaign said: “The last 100 days of campaigning have already told us what the final 100 days will be like … Downing Street and the self-interested banks and corporations will try every trick in the book … [to] deceive the British public.

London’s City, Britain’s financial engine, is very obviously invested both psychologically and financially in the EU.

In fact, when considering what may be done to resolve them, we’ve come up with a “Brexit trade.” More on that in a moment.

Last year the Bank of England “accidentally” leaked a confidential internal study to The Guardian over Britain’s future in the EU and the impact of Brexit.

When Bank of England Governor Mark Carney claimed in recent testimony that Brexit could severely harm the British economy, anti-EU legislators called his remarks “unacceptable” and asked for his resignation.

But “Project Fear,” as anti-Brexit forces call it, remains ongoing.

  • Prime Minister David Cameron recently released a video warning that a pro-Brexit vote would have a negative impact on markets and real estate values.
  • A pro-Brexit vote would collapse the value of the pound by 14-20 percent, according to Goldman Sachs economists.
  • Morgan Stanley has suggested that British stocks could lose up to 20 percent of their value with an EU exit.
  • Financial firms like HSBC have suggested that jobs could move out of the City to countries like France if Britain takes its leave from the EU.

It could be that Britain will face a series of financial difficulties if pro-Brexit forces seem to be gaining the upper hand.

There are historical precedents stretching back several centuries to when US President Andrew Jackson took aim at America’s second central bank.

When President Andrew Jackson made it clear that he was going to shut down the central bank, its head, Nicholas Biddle, fought back by threatening to contract the money supply.

When he actually did so, Congress convened a special Panic Session. Eventually, Jackson won the battle to shut down the bank and the US did without a central bank until 1913, when the Federal Reserve came into being.

It sounds fairly absurd to suggest the Bank of England and proponents of the EU within London’s square mile financial City would take aim at Britain’s economy in order to remove the threat of Brexit.

And yet reading between the lines, the warnings seem clear enough.

During his recent testimony Bank of England governor Mark Carney stated forthrightly that London Mayor Boris Johnson’s decision to back Brexit cause the pound to slump in February to seven year lows.

Carney called the currency movements that took place after Johnson’s statements “relatively large [but] not unprecedented.”

And he added that Brexit had the potential to “amplify risks.” Especially affected could be housing and market functions.

Two questions occur: Has Carney issued a specific (veiled) threat to Johnson et. al? Has the pound has already been crashed as a warning?

In other words what Biddle did to Jackson, Carney and his backers are suggesting they will do to punish pro-Brexit forces.

This is only one reason why we believe pro-Brexit forces may not win this one. Another has to do with what seems to be the REAL reason for the Brexit vote.

In never made any sense to us that Cameron would call for such a vote. The answer may lie in the results of Cameron’s recently announced deal with the EU.

Under the deal, Britain received certain concessions to stay in the EU.

One was that Britain would not be part of an “ever closer union.” More importantly from our perspective, further EU regulations will not be imposed on the City.

The City may exercise significant EU power behind the scenes, but this can’t be fully admitted for various reasons. And thus the need for a formal show of negotiations leading to the exemptions that Cameron has generated.

And now that these have been negotiated, there is no further reason for London to pursue Brexit. The movement, once created, must now be halted.

They’ve already fired one shot by linking the pound’s February decline to Johnson’s statements. And perhaps there are more to come.

None of it will be directly traceable to the Brexit debate. Instead, it will be made clear in various ways, including through the controlled British media, that the “market” itself is reacting negatively to Brexit.

No threats will be issued, as Biddle once did, but the message will be quite clear, nonetheless.

We hope we’re wrong about our analysis. It would be great if those in the City finally miscalculated and Brexit acquired such momentum that it actually freed Britain from the clutches of an increasingly authoritarian EU.

Conclusion: One Brexit speculation involves shorting the pound. Another involves industrial equity plays as there are a variety of ways that the Bank of England can probably contract the money supply without being too obvious.

Tagged with:
  • Goldcoaster

    I would suggest this as a good read.

    Here is a taste:

    “Conspiracies of the Ruling Class” is immensely valuable because it shows clearly why people are fed up with status quo and political correctness, and are rising up to throw off the establishment shackles, like the first Americans revolting against Britain. Time will tell if history will repeat itself and we will succeed.

    If you want to understand the upset that is occurring in American politics, you need to read Lawrence Lindsey’s new book, “Conspiracies of the Ruling Class: How to Break Their Grip Forever,” just out from Simon & Schuster. Lindsey and I served in the White House at the same time under both presidents Bush, and his was always a voice worth hearing and an opinion worth considering.

    Lindsey uses the term “ruling class” to describe the establishment that is generating so much anger among voters today. He provides a history of the ruling class from America’s beginnings to the present. He does not mention Trump, Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders or other presidential candidates. But the anger he describes has resulted in Trump’s unprecedented victories.

    The modern ruling class believes that “they are superior beings placed on earth to be its rulers.” Now they call themselves “progressives.” Their talk about “social justice” is an attempt to manipulate people through coercion. They justify their control of most societal institutions through their alleged intellectual superiority. They believe in silencing their opponents, either by not allowing them to speak on campuses, as happened to Somali-born American scholar Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she was invited to Yale University.

    • Earn nest

      The fiat masters rear their ugly head again. It does appear that the tide may actually finally be turning though.

  • Bruce C.

    I’m going to stick to me prediction that “BREXIT” WILL happen.

    It will be a good test – hopefully not a critical one, however, though it may be – to see how much “ordinary” citizens are learning about what’s really going on and the stakes involved.

    Perhaps the best intellectual ammunition the British people have is the experience of Greece and how the EU authorities dealt with them. The whole world has witnessed the “GREXIT” saga with all the threats, fears, and scenarios expressed by both sides. Greece choose to stay and they’re hardly happy campers, and the probable reality of their exit remains a mystery – at least consciously. (According to “esoteric philosophy” both probabilities occurred and there is constant sub-conscious feedback between them.)

    Hopefully at lot more people understand that the central banks are interested in maintaining their relevance and enabling the global banking system, and the Bank of England is no different. They certainly should know that the EU authorities don’t give a rats a$$ about them. Some historical knowledge like Jackson’s fight with the Second Bank of the US should help them understand what’s going on too. Alternative explanations of events should also help to counter those from the MSM.

    • alaska3636

      From Armstrong:
      “In Britain, the get out of the EU (BREXIT) movement is in high-gear. People are out and about, handing out leaflets that basically say if you want to be part of the EU, then cross the channel and join them.

      BREXIT is right on schedule. Britain only joined in 1973. The interesting aspect has been that people are pointing to Switzerland as the example that you can be outside the EU, and not just survive, but flourish.

      • bouf

        Of course they are flourishing. They are the ones at the top of the heap. Who guards the Pope? The Swiss. Who conveniently missed both world wars but managed to profit greatly from them? Where is the BIS? The ICC? Hurm.

  • tom

    “It sounds fairly absurd to suggest the Bank of England and proponents of
    the EU within London’s square mile financial City would take aim at
    Britain’s economy in order to remove the threat of Brexit”.

    Why does that sound “fairly absurd”? It sounds perfectly normal to me – indeed, what is to be expected. It would perhaps be absurd if one assumes that the City has the slightest concern for the British economy or the interests of British citizens in general. But, of course, it emphatically does not.

    The City would be perfectly happy to set fire to all of Britain beyond the City itself, if its owners could make a good profit thereby.

    • No. They are not interested in profits. They are interested in control of money.

  • Samarami

    Psychopaths at the helm of the ship-of-state will intuitively default to the collectivist route. So, regardless of the outcome of the “Brexit” squabble, you can depend upon the result not being in favor of the individual.

    On the other hand, I’m convinced what we’re seeing here (just as with the “Trump” and the “Paul” phenomena in the comedy of US politics) is the widening gap between the science of rulership and the “will-of-the-people” — a very large part as the result of the internet reformation and human action.

    As a side note: Realizing the difficulty of
    including all ramifications in a simple definition,
    I truly miss the availability (again) of Daily Bell
    Glossery (later Daily Bell Definitions).


  • alaska3636

    Here’s a fuzzy article from the New Yorker’s Jill Lepore, a Harvard historian no less:
    After the Fact: In the history of truth, a new chapter begins

    The New Yorker fascinates me. Their readership is solidly middle-brow, and their contributors seem to revel in talking down to them. It is a sado-masochistic publication in that respect. Here’s some of what they want semi-intellectual sorts to think about things:

    “…some random old lady [Hillary Clinton] can see what Republican aspirants for the Oval Office can’t: ‘It’s hard to believe there are people running for President who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change.'”

    Relativity is a nifty idea; I’m not sure I agree with it’s unsubstantiated claims of a space-time fabric, but it seems to have broad applications in predicting observable phenomena. I’ve read that some of those verified predictions may have been fabricated, but relativity sticks around and continues to draw interesting, testable experiments. I have never heard relativity called a settled science.

    “After all, we’re already no longer able to agree about how to know. (See: climate change, above.)”

    This seems an odd statement for a historian to make. A cursory glance at the history of ideas ought to give any observer some epistemological humility. Kant and Hume engaged in a debate over this question. Again, I rarely hear this referred to as settled science.

    How about some pseud-intellectual riff-raff?
    “Most knowing now is Google-knowing—knowledge acquired online,” Lynch writes in “The Internet of Us” (his title is a riff on the ballyhooed and bewildering “Internet of Things”). We now only rarely discover facts, Lynch observes; instead, we download them.”


    “When we Google-know, Lynch argues, we no longer take responsibility for our own beliefs, and we lack the capacity to see how bits of facts fit into a larger whole.”

    I think the DB would argue the complete opposite of this: Internet Reformation.

    “Essentially, we forfeit our reason and, in a republic, our citizenship.”

    Technocratic authoritarianism? From a Harvard professor? My word!

    “People who care about civil society have two choices: find some epistemic principles other than empiricism on which everyone can agree or else find some method other than reason with which to defend empiricism.”

    There you have it. Who you gonna believe: me or your lying eyes?

    • dave jr

      Imagine young’uns wanting to be incarcerated in order to get a higher education. psst…Galileo, is that you?

  • Praetor

    Yes, the collective will try and maintain their strangle hold on the individuals. What is needed is displacement, pushing something out of the way to take its place. But of course the outcome will be friction. The collective intelligence and the individuals are and will always be in a power struggle. The Collective hates the individual because the individual makes decisions motivated by self preservation, which is an uncontrollable force (Human Action). In this age of information and connectivity. The individuals need to form their own collective to defeat the power of the present system of control. Disconnect from the controllers network, form a smart mob cooperative, reassert the individuals independence and form a decentralized network.

    The collectives is only interested in control of the individuals, so disconnecting or violence be the only options. I would disconnect!!!

    • Bruce C.

      I disagree that individuals make decisions motivated by self preservation. That’s what the collective does. Individuals are motivated by value fulfillment (roughly “happiness”).

      Otherwise agree.

  • Doski

    Smoke, Mirrors, and Threats. What’s New ?

    If the Brits done Stand they are doomed to Kneel forever.

    Britain will be the “New” Greece.

  • alaska3636

    The Economist says that a Trump presidency would threaten the global economy:

    “A leading global forecasting service has just ranked a Donald Trump presidency at No. 6 on a list of major threats to the global economy, somewhere between the utter collapse of the Chinese market and a new cold war between Russia and the West.

    That said, these same experts do not expect Mr. Trump to win the nation’s highest office.”

    Which is kind of like forecasting that an asteroid the size of Texas colliding with Earth would have dire consequences; however, we do not see any asteroids on the horizon.

    Trump is also against free trade:
    “Robert Powell, risk manager for The Economist’s Intelligence Unit and one of the assessment authors says of Trump in a telephone interview, “He’s very anti-NAFTA,” he said referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

    As Robert Wenzel says: no free trade agreement is 1000 pages; a free trade agreement would simply state: we will trade freely.

    ““One of the issues with Mr. Trump is that he has a hyper-extended ego and it’s difficult to see who he would actually listen to if he had an advisor,” Powell says. “He obviously has the thinnest of thin grasps on global politics and global economics and he’s also prone to make decisions on the fly.””

    I’m not calling the Economist out of touch, but maybe this is what ingratiates him to people: he is clearly not a party bureaucrat.

    • Bruce C.

      I love it. It all comes down to how many people are still conscious and how many will still vote.

      I know, I know, and then there are those who say ‘don’t support the system,’
      the very (intelligent) people who could make a difference.

      And then they would ask, “what difference?” It becomes circular.

      Isn’t it weird that the downfall of civilization could really be due to the most intelligent and not the dumb-a$$ masses?

      • Randy

        The REAL downfall of civilizations is their misplaced trust in politics, political systems and politicians. Those who seek office to rule over other men and women ARE the cause of the collapse of every group who abdicated personal responsibility, and elected someone to do a job that they themselves should be doing. Every politician is up on his or her soapbox, trying to sell others on the idea that there is someone else who is better qualified to run their life than they are. And of course it’s usually THEM!!
        Politicians are not really that much, if any smarter than the average man or woman, but… they certainly are more devious, conniving, dishonest, greedy, disloyal, vain and self-serving to say the least!! Where politicians exceed in abundance, is their ability to lie so convincingly that they even fool themselves into believing that they really do have our best interests at heart! And they are able to brainwash themselves so thoroughly, that when the facts of their actions are put right under their own nose, they can come up with no less than a million reasons for it all rather than admit that they were wrong at all. Someone sabotaged their good acts, someone else didn’t do their part, it’s always “someone else” ad infinitum.
        When Robert J. McNamara came out and said that the U.S. involvement in Viet Nam had been a mistake, I thought that the Earth had stopped spinning on its axis! He was once one of the staunchest advocates for it, and then suddenly he did a 180 turn there?? What’s up with that? What made him suddenly realize the truth? What ripped the blindfold off his head?

        • Steve

          As I will tell anyone, the real danger in a crisis is rarely the crisis itself, but rather the panicing empty-headed masses….
          That said, now you can also understand why so many yanks are buying forearms – they know whats coming and are preparing ( wisely ) for it…..countries like UK, Australia & Canada actively disarm citizens before brutalizing their citizens.
          If you read history, you will see gun control consistently comes before genocide in a nation…..

          Would you trust a globalist? Nope. They are evil. Literally….

          • Steve

            Damn….”firearms” not forearms……

  • celtic_gross

    Canada is part of North American Union same as Bank of England is controlled by Brussels sprouts. They all whiff with the same flatulent trumpent Dynasty.

  • AndyUK

    “But “Project Fear,” as anti-Brexit forces call it, remains ongoing.”

    I think you mean ” pro-brexit forces”, unless project fear is an official thing now!

  • dave jr

    I assumed it was the Werewolves of London and their international pack who were the architects of the EU, and whom have Europe in their clutches. Why is the UK not under the Euro? Maybe the ‘threat’ is to the rest of Europe?

    for fun:

    • Webforager

      I think that’s a good assumption. If one would retain authority and power while being in the union, the last thing one would do is be subject to a foreign currency.

  • Randy

    OK, here’s the main thing that EVERYONE needs to take away from all of this talk. The entire world wide fiat paper currency/electronic bookkeeping entry financial system is a FRAUD!! It’s a scam, a ruse, artifice and Ponzi Scheme. Once you can get your wits around that, then all the rest makes perfect sense. All of these numbers that the “economists” (who really don’t know the difference between their butt and a hole in the ground) like to bandy about are just pulled out of thin air. They have no basis in facts, they just get made up as they go along! And the proof of that is the U.S. Debt Clock. If anyone who can see through even just one eye goes to that site and sits there for only five minutes, watching the numbers whirling around and whooshing by, they will begin to see what I am saying.
    These so-called economists are only saying what they are told to say, there are absolutely no facts at all to be found anywhere that can back up what spews out of their mouth. This notion that there can be a common currency apart from a common government or nation state is completely absurd. There’s hardly a better example of insanity any place you may care to look. It’s a complete miracle that the E.U. has lasted as long as it has already! If it weren’t for high speed computers being able to manipulate numbers like a high speed juggler in a circus act, the whole thing would come crashing down to the floor in the blink of an eye lid.

    • dave jr

      Naw, the peasants might gasp and wring their hands, but they will remain in their seats and await the next act of the ‘free’ show.

      And this? “This notion that there can be a common currency apart from a common government or nation state is completely absurd.”

      A free market currency would insist on a standard measure of value. This could easily be international in scope without any hired government gun required at all.

      • Randy

        But Dave Jr., there is no such thing as a currency in a free market. Free markets require money, which is an idea backed by confidence. Please see my treatise What is Money?, which I wrote way back in 1996, for an explanation of how and why fiat paper currency systems always fail. Currencies are possible only in controlled markets, and they must be enforced at the point of a gun barrel. But eventually, via a decrease in the perceived purchasing power of a fiat paper currency, they always fail. If you add up how many of them have failed in the last 350 years or so, you will get to over 600 of them before you leave the letter B of the alphabet. PMs are readily accepted because everyone knows how much labor goes into them. That’s why spices traded on an equal weight basis for many centuries. Ever hear of the saying “Worth its weight in gold” before?
        Human labor, which is what gives confidence to the medium of exchange of the day, be it diamonds, precious metals or wampum, must be substantial. From nation to nation, the labor of any man or woman in a similar occupation is worth the same. Why wouldn’t it be so? Is the labor of a blacksmith or seamstress in one country more valuable than in another one?

        • dave jr

          Nooo. There is no such thing as currency in a free market without a standard measure of value. Whether any government aids or abets is beside the point.

          My understanding is that money either is an actual unit of the thing of value (the standard) or is redeemable for the thing of value as printed/stamped on its face (face value).

          Currency is a claim on an account, a promise to pay, and a promise that the account is valid…book keeping. Anyone who is trust worthy, with collateral, can create currency and its circulation can grow with popularity based on its trustworthiness. When you write a check, you have created currency that can circulate. How wide depends on your notoriety.

          Governments who create trust by promises to protect with militaries have an advantage until they despoil it. The USD is king world reserve currency because it is king militarily. Simply, it is protecting OUR accounts. When USG fails to protect our accounts, then the currency is toast and hard money will come back into vogue. Place your bets.

          Then come Central Banks, an animal of a whole different color. They started out as commercial bank book keepers and vault operators who worked for a living. Once they got their foot in the door of government power, they quickly gained monopoly status, engineer crises after crises, to dispose of money, hijack OUR currencies and through default after default gain control over governments, crony corporations and world resources.

          Several generations in, people don’t seem to understand. Authority is not the source of wealth. Cooperative and productive efforts are. Corporations would be the first to admit it. Banking will fight it and socialist types who have come to cozy occupations in government would rather die than acknowledge it.

          All labor is not the same. I’d agree with a minimum wage (human time) as a basic standard of value so long as everyone can negotiate their wage at or above (no limit) the minimum standard. But then, wouldn’t this be a currency in a free market?

          • Randy

            Dave Jr., you are operating off of false data. And you are mixing up terms into something that makes no sense at all. There are certain things which are fundamentals, and when those fundamentals are violated, havoc ensues. That is why we have these wild gyrations in the financial systems. You cannot achieve soundness in any system when there are elements working in it that destroy soundness. PLEASE stop drinking that Kool-Aid and get the facts.


  • john gorski

    Britain is a dying empire. Nothing more than a stoogy vassal of another dying empire. The game of international finance that supports Britain is well past its glory days. A brexit would speed up the inevitable bankrupcy of this tiny island nation. Britain needs to stay in the EU for survival.
    At the end of the day all is the same, just the way the elites like it.

    • gordon

      Garbage, have you never heard of or understand the concept of sovereignty? it means you make your own rules, decide who can or cannot visit and live in your country and inter-alia allows you to deport criminal aliens, not pay them maintenance to remain in the country.

  • DarkStarAz

    If there was no Grexit I can’t imagine a Brexit

    • peter

      With people the size of GoldmanSachs anything is impossible without belief in yourself. Only a resounding exit vote will suffice and then if they still wish to trample on us there will be a tragedy.

  • Lol

    The UK will never be allowed to leave. Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.

  • peter

    England will be subjected to lies from the mainstream money loving media creeps like Tony Blair, Mandelson, Cambelt, Cameron, Osborne, and forgotten Poodle Clegg until the public are sufficiently brainwashed enough to vote to remain in the corrupt totalitarian EU with its neofeudel agenda to be foisted upon the hapless gutless electorate. We must be aware that public schoolboys and bankers have also been brainwashed early in their lives and they must inflict their pain upon others beneath them to receive the pleasures of life.

  • Haywood Jablome

    Here comes Soros…..

  • r2bzjudge

    Would Brit’s rather stand up or go down with the EU? What ever happened to that country which stood up to the Nazi blitz?

  • Steve

    The ruskis openly acknowledge the EU as the European Soviet, so I can imagine why most red blooded Brits woudl rather tell the EU johnny foreigner to take a hike…however, we have the globalists who are in control and run all political parties and love to put on a show for theatric purposes, but ultimately the EU provides a nice garotte around the British throat, and the pollies know it and are too scared to struggle much lest it tighten up…..
    Speaking plainly – Britain is dione for – what does rot it out from inside via waves of undesirables and Leftist-instigated class warfare, will be done from outside by stangulation by EU legislation…..