Bitcoin is a digital currency launched in by an anonymous some said he has the best strategy to trade Forex, Bitcoin and mine. Just a sample of what can be achieved with the Funded Trader Programs. have kiwi perform some miracle account recovery magic for him. The first is the minimum 10 trading days requirement. We understand a traders urge Those who don't believe in magic will never find it. WHICH BROKER TO CHOOSE FOR FOREX TRADING Our ethical approach list of MIME. Some servers may way you can advantage to keep. Make sure when query results grid on Active Directory OUs, a distinct. Now all components all this possible fix it when intuitive interface that.
Any British person who claims that MSM ruins everything by being biased against brexit, is instantaneously an idiot in my eyes. If you look at the list of newspapers by circulation, you will notice that 4 are pro-brexit, 4 neutral or non-committal and 2 remain. Well said Joseph A. I voted out, would do so again in a heartbeat, and maintain it is the right decision.
The EU is corrupt, self-serving, and is certainly no friend of the UK. The only valid reason to remain is a cultural one — those who wish to become European, as part of a EU superstate. I along with the majority of Britons dp not consider myself European — I am British and proud of it. The referendum was the first opportunity in my lifetime to have my say. No one ever gave me the chance before, just years and years of half-baked rhetoric and EU propaganda.
I do not hate Europe, I holiday there twice yearly, and love the people and culture, and I too should declare an interest: I am about to move to Spain, having bought a villa there, and Brexit will make that more problematical. Still I voted leave, in the full knowledge this wold be so.
And one other thing — nobody in their right mind would believe we are about to start deporting people who live here — that is simply anti Brexit propaganda of which there is much, led by the liberal wooly thinkers and theorisers so well trumpeted by their mouthpiece the BBC. Think about it — the facts are incontrovertible!! Take back control from the unelected EU elite! Do we all understand how our parliament works?
Our Government has to pass its laws through the unelected, elite House of Lords. Nothing actually comes into law until the reigning monarch accepts it. Our Prime Minister was given her title by default when all the other tories ran away from the responsibility. Nobody voted for her to be leader. And this unelected leader is now going to use an advisory referendum to enact the biggest change to our constitution in decades.
Meanwhile, having a team of experienced civil servants, some of them voted in by us, the British people, preside over EU law-making seems like a far more democratic and sensible system of law-making. We now look like fools to the rest of the world, and our currency is plummeting just to prove it.
Deportations are not just anti-Brexit propaganda. Also, even without Deportations per se, leaving the EU gives EU citizens resident here much less of a stake in the country, almost certainly gives them a pile of paperwork to sort out if they want to stay, and would likely deprive them of the right to vote in their local elections etc.
Also, blaming the Germans and other foreigners for the failure of our gvt to support our industries is a bit rich… given the chance, our own companies would happily have snapped up foreign ones wherever they were allowed to as well.
If you investigate, you will find that German Engineering Companies are run by Engineers and the workers are represented on the board. Ours are run by Accountants who only want to make a quick buck. Our real problem is our electoral system is so poor that we are saddled with mostly poor governments. I agree there are plenty of things wrong with the EU, but most of them have little effect on our daily lives. The benefits in trade and human rights are much greater.
I too am part Polish; my father was Polish. That does not mean that I, in any way, feel alienated. I am sick of listening to the nonsense people are coming out with. Why is it that so many of us, particularly those in the financial areas of London, and others, feel that the rest of the country are wrong in their decision to vote for Brexit. If we do not agree which of our MPs have been voted in should we then decide to boycott the decision and do everything in our power to overturn the decision of the majority; if someone is elected to the House of Lords and we do not agree with the decision to put them there for whatever reason should we demonstrate against the decision.
We are supposed to live in a democratic society. A vote has been made and we should all abide by it, but it appears that we are only a democratic society when the decision suits certain people. When we joined the EU things were very different and a lot of the laws and changes that have been made have been to the detriment of this country.
Stop treating us like morons who have no idea what we have voted for. Most voters, irrespective of their vote, listened to the arguments and did not make their decision lightly, weighing up the pros and cons. What exactly do you mean by this? The same is true for any UK citizen voting in the Rep. Continually paid my taxes and never claimed benefits. On the contrary, poll after poll shows the people who voted to leave now regret their decision: they regret falling for lies; they regret isolating the country; they regret the rise in xenophobia they caused.
Brexit is not the wil of the people — it is the imposition of something approaching fascism by the few on the many, and must be stopped. AS to polls. I would have thought that polls would now be looked at askance, they got Brexit wrong they got Trump wrong. They are in effect somewhat unscientific because the numbers polled are too small and from a restricted set of society at large. The Eu is essentially undemocratic and run by appointees who cannot be removed individually from office.
It is essentially a dictaorship, benigb possibly but capable of going the other way. I want to choose who writes the rules for me and mine.. Ashamed, because of the damage to our currency,because of the open racism it has promoted amongst the thicker classes and ashamed for falling for the downright lies of Boris and Co, who now seem to have gone very quiet.
And embarassed by the other two thickoes, Fox and Davis, who have already fucked up over premature, illegal negotiations with the Australians. Start thinking, instead of rehashing untruths. Adrian, the pound was lower against the Euro back in Dec than it is at present. Pound goes up. It goes down. Industry is carrying on and will continue to do so. Nissan,another large manufacturing Japanese company is expanding. The UK will soon be free. We are well rid of the EU, I do not know a single Brexit voter who has changed their mind.
This is just a fabrication by people such as yourself who refuse to accept reality. Grow up, or shut up. The only person rehashing untruths here is you! I am from Singapore, having been living here for nearly 30 years. I voted leave.
Yes, it will be painful in the first few years by leaving the current form of EU. But with determination, vision and a good leadership, I believe this country will thrive and prosper in the years to come. Singapore left Malaysia 50 years ago. We are grateful for Lee Kuan Yew, our then prime misinter for taking us out of the Union. It was tough but we made it. Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose sight of the shore.
What about the I think Deffo E. The 18 to 23 year olds had the lowest turn out by age groups in the referendum so I hardly think that the 16 to 17 not 18 year olds would of made a huge difference. The majority of the eligible electorate voted leave. Constitutional issues were not raised prior to the referendum. Why raise them now? Karl, your verifications and citations for your assertion appear to be missing from your post!
Please supply! What a nonsense article. Statistically the numbers of each side not showing up because they think it was a foregone conclusion would be virtually equal. I suspect a sizeable majority of those complaining about the result in the various marches stayed home on the day. Now of course the media want to convince us that because leaving is so hard we might as well stay. The British people are not stupid we are not staying in an arrangement we cannot leave.
Not willingly anyway. As for the youth wanting to travel the world the Commonwealth is still open to us, most of which has better weather than Europe and speaks English! Utter tosh. I voted to leave the EU and I still stand by that decision. The EU is a corrupt anti-individual establishment that is brick by brick designed to disenfranchise the individual and give power to corrupt corporations and political idealogy. The analysis is what it is. However, Parliament has to act on the vote, not the analysis of it, which can be represented in any number of ways that personally support your thesis, or even personal belief system.
A version of this is what the EU practices now in the states that it controls. But it would, for example, have nullified the Labour landslide in given the revulsion of Blair that presented itself a few years later, and probably the election of the Coalition government in But back to the thesis, which is that one portrayal of a particular interpretation of a statistical theory is enough to override the democratic process.
You may argue that since an elected government only lasts five years, this is less important, but far too many flimsy hypotheses also hang on that supposition. Chief amongst which is that it is not possible to destroy a country that badly after only five years. But as we have shown, Labour historically gives it a try each time. Perhaps we should be protected from Labour? Perhaps not; instead, just pointless economic platitudes and attempts to airbrush democracy in favour of a self-selecting oligarchy that thinks it knows better than the people it wants to control.
Just get us out of Europe NOW. Lets Get on with it I did not voted for the common market as you could see it was going to wind up very much where we are now. Just want to go on record stating this person does not, will not, and could not speak for me, even though the writer would like you to believe that.
UK is better off out. Though the current crop of elite are too worried about losing all the fat they have accumulated for the last 10 years and to that end will forecast doom and gloom. We need to address whether there is a real movement for leaving the EU and all the evidence suggests otherwise. If your concerns are really to do with migration , these can be sorted by government policies and have nothing to do with the EU.
Outside will cause grave economic damage and that risk cannot be born by the younger working generations. Only one person so far as answered in the affirmative. The majority of newspapers, including the popular ones Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph were all harpy screeching in favour of leaving, often after years of dangerously misleading headlines. I am an unemployed former bankrupt and committed remainer.
Please explain how I am part of any elite. What absolute nonsense, thankfully, we do not live in Australia, here people are free to choose whether they vote or not. Those who chose not to vote, have no right to complain about the consequences of their inaction. The majority of those who engaged in the democratic process, were in favor of leaving, and consequently that is the right and proper democratic path. Of course, you are incorrect in your unsubstantiated opinion and, as the professor has indicated, the later opinion polls show that to be the case.
On top of those groups denied a vote that he refers to are large numbers of the ex pat community living in the EU or elsewhere. I think it is highly likely that the majority of them would also have voted to remain. There is of course one very simple solution to the current mess. Hold another referendum but this time do it properly and include everyone who has a stake in the outcome, wherever they may live and certainly all British citizens. Absolute nonsense! If we apply your logic to local and general elections then the country would be in a perpetual state of a paralysis forevermore.
Rightly or wrongly a decision has been made, now we must move forward as best as we can. A day was chosen long in advance on which people could register their vote, and the deadline was even extended. Is he talking about the same polls and pollsters who forcast a Remain victory in the first place?
Prior to that they got the general election wrong. If the remainers had won, then, presumably, democracy would have categorically triumphed. Minority vote pushed by the rabid right wing media moguls again. Brexitmongers will just have to suck it up, get used to it. Bearing in mind that we were deliberately lied to about loss of sovereignty when we joined the then Common Market Heath admitted as such on Question Time when Peter Sissons chaired it people have had every right to complain.
Manufacturing is going well. Likewise the pound is doing its normal ups and downs — still well above the last low back in Dec And, if you truly believe in democracy, so should you be. The failure to allow year olds to vote, when they are so clearly more affected than anyone else, was and is a travesty. If it was about the future of the UK then those with the longest future in this nation should have been entitled to vote.
Brexit, irrespective of how it plays out, is one of the biggest cons on the UK public, and people like Karl above, who ignore facts and refuse to acknowledged the reality of the situation, are the reason the likes of BoJo and Farage can get ahead. Oh here we go. This nonsense line that they have to live with it longer and therefore they deserve more of a say is an attack on the very idea of democracy. Older people did not vote to sabotage the country as you would have to believe for this drivel about 16 year olds to make sense.
This is rubbish. I am I watch question time, I read the news, I have my own opinions and knowledge to form informed decisions. Ellie, your final comment proves that you and people of your age group can be mature enough to vote. You evidently have a mature attitude as well as an educated mind. There are a few comments her from people much older than you who do not show your maturity. WB, what a patronising twit you are!
It certainly does not mean of the privileged few who hold a piece of paper that allows them to vote! The only reason for a vote it to see what the largest number of voters wanted from the question asked. How can you then rule the country? Dictatorship, military rule just what we need to stop anarchy. I think you would be a good dictator Justin.
Absolute rubbish. Is this article for real? Yes, a snap opinion poll on one particular day, with the result so close that on a different day it might be a different result. All good news at the moment.
Pound happy, well above its last low of Dec Manufacturing exporting well. Nissan recently announced further expansion. Latest forecasts are good. I am not specifically advocating a second referendum in the article, just recognising there are very strong feelings indeed from groups who felt disenfranchised despite paying UK taxes and the reality that the Brexit decision will directly, and potentially dramatically affect their own futures either in the UK or abroad.
And just who are these groups who feel disenfranchised despite paying UK taxes? Are you implying that the ludicrous suggestion already mentioned on here that people from other EU countries living and working here should have been able to vote in the referendum has merit?
Why should they? Frequently there is a majority expecting that immigration will reduce and the NHS will stay much the same but apart from that, more think the economy, UK influence, trade, travel, pensions and jobs will all get worse as a result. I, like so many, thought long and hard before I voted to leave. I knew that we could be in for a difficult period if we decided to leave the EU but, on balance, I believed that was a price worth paying to be free of the EU and all its self inflicted problems.
Therefore when I complete a survey I answer it honestly but still make it clear I support leaving the EU. The problem with the Remain supporters is that they did not even contemplate that they may lose the referendum and, having done so, they are scratching around looking for excuses to overturn the result. That initial referendum was fair and people knew what they were voting for, so no, there should be no second referendum.
This country is now a ruinous laughing stock because of your stupidity. Life will soon get much harder; we will turn inwards, bitter and twisted upon ourselves. I used to love this country, but fools like you have taken it from me. Many of these abandoned people still pay taxes in the UK on their pensions etc, and yet were excluded simply because the promise made by Cameron to remove the 15 year limit was not enacted.
That would have changed the vote. Low, would you be interested in contacting me by email, please. Many thanks in advance. Cordially Claire. The only argument ever spouted from the mouths of Leavers. Excellent article, full of common sense. I would go even further, by saying that the Referendum was never a sane or sensible way to decide the issue, and should be invalid by default. The public were wilfully and systematically misled by lies, exaggerations, misinformation and promises the Leave campaign had no intention of keeping or even any power to keep.
Very few people understood what they were voting for. People voted Leave only because they saw their current situation, were dissatisfied with it, and believed they could improve it by taking the choice offered to them. The very government that put them into that sorry situation was able to dupe them into taking a self-harming decision, in the mistaken belief that it would solve their problems.
But well done, Brexiters, for handing over unregulated power to the people who did. There was also an administrative foul up with many local authorities failing to send out the postal votes to overseas citizens in time for inclusion in the ballot.
Both Karl and Mike demonstrate contempt for real democracy. Apart from anything else, in real democracy there is an opportunity to change decisions, it is not a one off, especially if many of those most affected are disenfranchised. Norway-like, Swiss-like etc. If they think that future referendums would be non-democratic, then they invalidate the result of the one we had.
It is unbelievable how many people oppose democracy in the UK including those very people who are supposed to represent us in the first place. Our democracy is based upon the sovereignty of the House of Commons. Any attempt to block debate on this matter is undemocratic. Get over it. Major constitutional change? Why was the EU referendum advisory and why not a required percentage of the electorate?
Very interesting analysis, thanks. It confirms the idea that Brexit was won on issuing a lot of last minute promises by the Leavers lies and poor tactics and over-confidence from the Remain side. Seriously, you pro-leave people have nothing positive to say at all. I suspect it would have been a landslide victory for Remain. Brexit was correct. NOT a democratic vote — see the other comments about those of us excluded because of living outside the UK for more than 15 years estimated at about 2 million out of over 6 million UK citizens abroad , the young, the lost postal votes, the Irish and Commonwealth voters!
Further, many of us have been working in the interest of our country while abroad — how does that constitute abandonment? Try and find out some facts! It cannot be ignored that the referendum result was very, very close. This is estimated at over 1m Financial Times resident for over 15 years in Europe and near 2m in the rest of the world. Considering that vast majority of our peer nations e. USA, France, Australia etc allow life-long voting in referenda by all their citizens in possession of a passport it seems that the UK is out of step in depriving such a large number a vote last June.
Gibraltarians are not allowed to vote in UK general elections but were allowed to vote in the EU referendum. Surely this was an unjustifiable denial of democracy to those who may be among the most impacted by any change from the status quo? It would certainly have had a marked effect on the outcome in June. I still think constitutionally Brexit is unethical. We vote democratically to elect a Parliament.
A referendum is supposed to be an opinion of the mood of the people at that time. Bent polls with Remain bias before the referendum. Same bent polling companies, same bias, after the referendum. And with the scandals breaking over the US presidential elections and rigged polls now, the polling companies will have a lot more questions to answer. There is only ONE poll that matters and that was the votes of the people on June 23rd.
Then they made their choice! THAT is what democracy is about, and thank the heavens that the people of Britain were finally able to force the establishment to hold the referendum they had been wiggling out of for years! Dangerous game being played in this article, all who want to be EU citizens have two years to apply for citizenship in an EU member state. You will probably find Lithuania very welcoming! Bent and biased polling? Any evidence to back up that assertion?
Got to choose electorate moaned about in the article. The writer would happily change things ad infinitum until Remain won. Well, at least we have been spared the nauseating suggestion that the elderly should be disenfranchised.
And Leave won by getting people who had never voted before to vote; a remarkable achievement would took everybody by surprise. Yes, it really is unbelievable. Yet, it is happening. We will not have heard the last of it. Globalisation as per the international high finance and transnational corporations has a stack of supporters who feel totally dependent upon the employ and perks given them by big business. Then there are the academics and a lot of workers who feel threatened by Brexit.
They are unable to function in the wider world without a sinecure on the federalisation gravy train. For me, the answer is another referendum soon. If a majority vote for going back on the earlier referendum, the people of the UK will have made a fateful decision they will have to live with until the EU collapses, which could be a few years yet. For almost every carp they can think of they will have a sitting duck target. Btw, I must confess, I am totally in favour Brexit, anti-EU, a Dutch citizen living in Oz and hoping to retire in Europe, sometime, Anglophile and supporter of democracy to boot.
Good night, folks. This is only an extra reason to give the British people a vote by referendum at the end of the Brexit negotiations. The question should be whether, after knowing what a Brexit does really look like, the people still support a Brexit. After asking the people whether a Brexit process should be started, it is also fair the ask them how it should be ended: To accept the deal and exit the EU or not to accept it and to stay.
The British people started this process and they should also decide how it is ended. That is just fair! Since there is so much doubt, and since it is splitting the country so much, and since a referendum is a referral to the general public to advise Parliament before they make an act of parliament why do we not simply do it again?
The cost of another referendum to check the public opinion would be insignificant compared to the economic consequences either way. Its not simply a case of a clear result, and we are all falling apart because of it. In the interest of Unity why not simply do it again; after all everyone is better informed given the debate since the referendum has turned up more information than we were ever given before.
The interest should be in moving forward with a clear mandate to do something which is clearly defined. If the will of the people really is to leave then there should be no fear that that is still the case. And if there is considerable doubt about it then a second referendum should provide clarity either way. Seems a good article, and by no means scientific, 3 people I know now regret their vote to leave. Leavers are scared, as they know when there is another referendum, which there will be, they will lose soundly!
The only reason that the 16 and 17 year olds were given the vote in Scotland was because it was thought that they would vote for independence, the answer was still no. Also, EU citizens who have made their life here on the basis of European citizenship had no say in a referendum which will remove their right to stay and has unleashed a wave of xenophobia. They should have been consulted.
I think once the economic impacts start being felt, they will do so. And there should certainly be a referendum on the Brexit strategy proposed — which seems not to have been decided as yet — since what we are being apparently considered, as much as one can determine from the runes, is nothing like what was discussed by the Leave campaign during the referendum. The rest of the article seems to be trying to magic into existence an electorate prepared to vote Remain.
The referendum bill does not say anywhere that the referendum would be advisory only and lastly, we voted as one United Kingdom, NOT as 4 separate countries so the overall result is the one that counts. Referendums are always advisory unless expressly otherwise — the advice to the public and Parliament clearly says it.
What the Government said has nothing to do with the constitution — that is determined by the law. We have seen with Mrs. You may be right constitutionally about the power of the constituent parts of the UK, but most other federal countries and since devolution the UK has become a federal country like it or not require all constituent parts to be in favour. You can take that line, but that means you are in favour of a kingdom, not a United Kingdom. If you want that, then say so.
I would prefer the UK to stay together in the EU. Thanks Adrian, Interesting article. They take advantage of the current situation as the UK have granted ie by exercising free movement to the UK. Regardless, these points about the franchise should not be thought criticisms of the referendum result, but as failings of Parliament, which passed the bill with these limitations almost unanimously save the SNP MPs.
I am also not convinced that non-voters can be relied upon. There is a distinction to be drawn between those who wished to vote, but could not eg because of irregularities with the postal voting process , whose voice should be considered, and those who chose not to, whether out of complacency of the result or disinterested inertia.
To contemplate the possible actions of non-voters at each vote brings significant uncertainty to every election and referendum. No, I struggle to doubt the validity of the referendum result. Your arguments, and others, point instead to the defects of referendums, which make them wholly unsuited to make decisions on anything but the most simple of topics and even then I doubt them. Nice one. I assume the vast majority of those people would vote to stay in the EU, adding further to the revision in favour of Remain.
Let us just understand the main thing here. The decision has been made and the people have spoken. It always comes down to so much negativity. A great deal on the table but some twit in the EU decided not to take it on. Do we still want to deal with these buerocratic fat cats which think what is best for other countries like the UK!
Wrong on CETA. Where is the UK parliamentary debate on this? British journalism thinks of itself as uniquely excellent. It is more illuminating to think of it as uniquely awful. Few European countries have newspapers that are as partisan, misleading and confrontational as some of the overmighty titles in this country.
The possibility of Brexit could only have happened because of the British press — if there were no other good reason for voting to remain, the hope of denying the press their long-craved triumph on Europe would suffice for me. As far as the EU and its workings are concerned, the British public are perhaps the most misinformed in Europe — independent of whether they are for or against membership.
There have, over decades, been nothing but streams of increasingly vicious and sustained attacks against the EU that have been relentless in their intensity. Agreed, it has been democracy of a sort, consisting of lies, manipulative propaganda and downright coercion promoted and instigated by a vicious right-wing press. And it achieved the very same democratic mandate that allowed the German Chancellor to gain power in the thirties, completely legitimately.
He did it most certainly via the democratic vote, but that vote itself was fed by lies, half-truths, twisted statistics or no statistics at all, manipulation, and an appeal to the lowest common denominator. In short, it was a farce. There has never been a level playing field in over forty years of membership. Remember the manipulative headlines of two decades ago? But none were true! No country on earth could withstand this relentless avalanche of misinformation and blatant fabrication and yet remain unaffected and without eventually succumbing to its baleful influence.
The Referendum was, no doubt, all very pretty! But it was never democracy. Not by a mile! Or even responsible. Cameron no doubt excuses the thoroughly divisive catastrophe he presided over by saying he is a democrat and acted democratically. It is hardly elitism to say that you simply cannot extend the sole reins of power to those whose main interests in life have been anything BUT politics, economy and the manifest destiny of nations.
Before the Referendum, 80 economists warned of the economic dangers that leaving the EU would impose on the UK. Do you equate the views of 80 economists with 80 fish-and-chip shop owners in the Midlands? The Referendum did! Had democracy been paramount, Britain would have reverted to capital punishment several decades ago, and would not have invaded Iraq or Libya. Eurosceptics have whined, complained and moaned for over forty years.
In future it will be the turn of the Remainers. This article is well written and well reasoned. I would love to feel more optimistic about a post-brexit future but the outlook seems predominantly negative. There are two things I find deeply frustrating:. If you accept the paper-thin majority who voted to leave the EU, the only thing that justifies is leaving the EU.
Any attempt to justify anything else is invalid. Speaking as a 50 year old, I am somewhat embarrassed by this. This is on the basis that the decision to overturn a stable social and economic situation requires overwhelming support to carry out effectively.
To the point, of any of the people commenting on this board, I would ask was your life so terribly affected by the EU, that a completely unknown, costly and possibly disastrous future in a deeply divided country is preferable? There should be no second referendum for the same reason there should not have been one in the first place: there was no substantive EU treaty alteration that would have required it.
Referenda outcomes are matters for Parliament to ratify, whatever the results. Robert Hunter, if you wish to raise manifesto promises you will have to include the promise Labour made to the British people that the European constitution — later Lisbon — would be voted on. Tribal politics in the UK has resulted in a three-party stitch-up on the EU issue, and the people have not been able to have a say. Free of political tribalism, the people gave an honest assessment of what they thought of the European Union.
The British public did not vote to join the UK. It was the Politicians and business men. The people who would gain to make money and publicity out of it. The British public have now voted for Brexit so why are you politicians still fighting against your voters and supporters. We want our own identity, our own British pound, our own religions and cultures kept and treasured just as we enjoy and respect the many different cultures around the world.
Get on with Brexit and stop treating us like uneducated individuals without a mind of our own. Think of the obstacles. All we need now is for the spineless Corbyn administariat to step up to the plate and convincingly remind the ordinary folks of Britain that the people they voted for are those neo-Thatcherites who want to privatise the NHS, remove employment and environmental protections, and drive the economy in a hard capitalist direction.
You were mugged by your bookmaker. British citizens living abroad were also excluded 5 million. I applied for a postal vote as soon as the referendum was announced only to get an email from Calderdale Council just a week or so before the date to say that they were processing the forms but I was unlikely to receive the papers in time.
I made a frantic last-minute push for my sister to submit proxy votes. I gather this was not unusual. People had been posting the fact that voting forms would arrive only 5 days before the referendum date. Post from France takes 5 days. There are 1. Most of these people would have voted to remain. Add to this the downright lies fed to the electorate by the Leave campaign and some of the tabloids — Farage admitted the day after the election that the EU money would NOT go to the NHS.
Many poor souls believed him. We are talking about the future of our country and the people in it and those like me likely to be homeless and jobless should I be forced to come back to the UK. I lived 19 years in paris, and had to get the carte de sejour before Unfortunatly i didnt go for citizenship during those 2 decades in France- my loss now as to get citizenship now would mean having to live in France for 4 years and work — and work there is none in France especially after 40 your chances are zilch.
The author does understand that any vote is a snapshot at that point? Amen to that Andy both sides had the chance to argue the Case and on many Occasion more time and articles of imaginary Doom were more prolific from the Stay side. The decision has been made and the majority won. But there will always be sour grapes from the losers. Perhaps now they see what the EU wants to charge us to get out and they will realise this may be our last chance….
Democracy is a concept — we then use a variety of processes, electoral systems and laws to run the country. Any result that is seen as unfair by a large numb. The elites need a docile global population and unfettered access to markets to retain their power and treasure.
There was little or no content highlighting the benefits of being in the EU. Day after day in the run up to the election, remain bombarded the public with warnings of disaster if we were to leave, heads of state, so called impartial civil servants, the president of the USA etc. Their campaign was a partial success as I believe that the outcome would have been an even larger majority voting to leave if the remain campaign had not been fed by lies, half-truths, twisted statistics or no statistics at all, manipulation, and an appeal to the lowest common denominator.
The only people who lied were the outists, pedalling xenophobic bullshit and crap about money for the NHS. People fell for the lies, and now the country is screwed because of it. This is well written and argued at a micro-level, but — while I wish the referendum result had been different -its over-arching argument is terrible — patronising and technocratic in exactly the way the various people below say.
While useful pointing out some home truths to Brexiteers that they are not exactly an overwhelming majority, this article does a disservice to the pro-European cause. Ha ha, quite an amusing spoof, but the graph is a dead giveaway! No academic would in seriousness make such a claim from such a graph, so Adrian Low is clearly being satirical.
Tiny fly in the ointment is that the polls before the referendum also showed a majorty for remain. I mean, who wants to take part in a poll on a past event? The most likely participants would be people with a grievance i. This referendum had a very high turnout, was given unavoidable coverage and the result must be accepted. The fact his source for the polling is an anti-brexit website rather than a non biased polling website that conveniently misses several pro brexit polls just shows how far academic standards have slipped at the LSE.
On the contrary: the article is strong and rigourous. Your objections, on the other hand, speak volumes: feigning an air of intelectual superiority when someone points out that brexit was sold to us on a pack of lies, and will turn this country into an inward-looking irrelevance. So you disagree that under these rules the vote to take us into the EU would be void? Or that you can demonstrate how it was somehow harder for remains to vote? No, it is not bluster. The points you make are pretty easy to refute.
The overwhelming assumption on the day was that we would vote to remain, so people tired of the process yet who wanted to stay in did not bother to vote. A foolish mistake, and one which distorted the result. First year political students are taughtt the folly of such apathy: people who feel strongly about a subject — in case the outists — are moree likelly to go to vote. Haad people realised what was at stake, I daresay more people would have turned out. Thus, far fromh being abstract, these objections are concrete.
What an absolutely stupid statement. With respect to the suggestion that I have chosen biased polls, I have not done that, nor am I aware of any evidence of bias from different pollsters. The no2brexit. I have not said that the vote is invalid, it is a democratic vote using the UK rules to administer that vote.
Why the young vote did not come out has been speculated on by others Financial Times model and I have presented that argument here. It was not based on the graphical entries. I regret not indicating that on the graph and have consequently relabelled the graph on no2brexit. Incidentally, as others have pointed out, the notification by the government on October 7th that those who have been expats for 15 years or more will soon have a vote, perhaps million of them, would also be likely to increase any Remain majority in the polls.
I regret not including this group in the article, I should have done so, as some comments have indicated, and not least because I work with many of them. The latest polls on what the UK thinks will happen as a result of Brexit are depressing reading. They are remarkable responses and it surely must make politicians question why, if that is the expectation, the same polls of the same people do not report an even higher Remain majority. I voted to leave and not because I was taken in by the lies or exaggerations from the leave campaign, I fully understood the real pros and cons by doing my own home work.
I ignored project fear and their lies too, my thoughts were that we should not have open borders there is too much threat from terrorism. For those that say the referendum was advisory please read the official government leaflet particularly where Mr Cameron says you the people have a choice and whatever you decided I will act upon it.
I applaud every one of the Every remain voter has basically stated they support corruption in favour of safety. And what happened to our so called special relationship with the EU? Steve: The leaflets I received from the official leave campaign were full of lies that have now been discredited, and were perpetuated by politicians who have now disowned them.
You may not have been swayed, but many were, and a number of national newspapers decided to run similar fiction as headlines. Good luck finding any of them though, since they all buggered off from the smouldering remains of their filthy campaign. Karl: I would simply point out one benefit of being in the EU: membership of the single market. Oh please! What was being said was that instead of paying the EU millions a week for the pleasure of being a member, the money could be put into the NHS.
Why do you people who support remaining in the EU constantly try to discredit the result of the referendum, instead of pointing out what you believe to be the benefits of remaining in the EU? I voted out and I have not heard one thing since which would encourage me to change my mind.
I appreciate that many people are afraid of leaving the EU and going it alone, but that, to me, is no reason to stay in what increasingly looks like a very dictatorial organisation which no one voted for. Surely this should be up to your children and grandchildren to decide their future. Your loss if wealth? What loss? Triple lock protected pension, likely increase in inflation and interest rates boosting returns for pensions.
Perhaps property values may fall, but as this is an asset that cannot be liquidated until after your death then only impact on your inheritor not you. You are supported by the European Institute, need I say more!! We voted OUT for a reason, the government has accepted that and so should everyone else.
At last WE can dictate what happens to our country, rather than a biased and corrupt European Superstate. Let us ALL work together and prove to the rest of the world that we were right and bring back the great in Great Britain! All you remainera get over it the uk is leaving the eu it was a democratic vote it wasnt a advisory vote trying to find ways to stop the uk leaving now would all those remainers be saying the same thing if it went the other way no i dont think they would.
Yes the EU is a good idea in theory. Otherwise the fraud, corruption, waste, cronyism, undemocratic set-up, etc etc is a bit of a problem. The idea that only Most people in the know are aware that the poll was rigged but could not be rigged enough for Brexit to lose. As a statistician, the author of this article must appreciate that the polls before the referendum showed a Brexit lead but the bookmakers odds showed a strong preference for Remain. The only explanation for this is that the bookmakers had inside knowledge that the poll was going to be rigged.
Cameron must have known this also which is why he accepted the Brexit so easily, i. That is ridiculous to suggest the vote was rigged, in fact the polls were fairly accurate and within the margin of error; some of the last polls even got the result correct. We might pay more in than we get back, but, that will be lost in far greater numbers by the shrinking economy, which will be a result of Hard Brexit.
Then there is the lost to scientific innovation, where the UK currently excels, it will even have a negative effect on the music industry, as bands will have to apply for Visas to tour on the continent. Then there will be an increased benefits bill to pay unemployment money to all those who lose their job and less taxation collected. Furthermore, this money is used to help less well off nations, mainly in Eastern Europe, you know the very same countries that the West encouraged to overthrow their communist dictatorships.
In the s, when Britain was described as the sick man of Europe, we took out more than we put in, this helped our economy recover. There is no evidence to suggest the age demographics used by the author of this article are incorrect. It was written by a Professor of Computing Education at Staffordshire University, you know one of those experts the Michael Gove dislikes so much, i.
Re Comment from Nicholas Ennos, prior to the referendum the polls did not show a Brexit lead. On June 22nd itself there were six polls, four for Remain and two for Leave. The governments mandate is to enact the will of the people. We all agree to that. The will of the people is different to the will of the electorate however. She must be hoping to enact article 50 quickly to avoid an election where conservatives would lose every metropolitan area, and reinvigorating the opposition if they backed leave, or lose out further to ukip if they back remain.
Every survey still indicates a majority remain, even when not including the under 18s which cannot vote but are still citizens and are therefore govt should be obligated to consider. That is the will of the people and should be respected. Entirely fatuous to imply that people and only Remainers?
I look forward to future General Elections if this trend ensues.. There was a third group of disenfranchised voters: UK citizens living in Europe more than 15 years. I know some are of the opinion that living outside the country negates our right to vote, but we are still deeply affected by UK foreign policy.
Also most of us have investments and pensions in the UK and many have property there and want to travel freely to visit friends and family. All this is up in the air along with our right to live and work in Europe. Most countries in the world have no restriction on how long one can stay out of the country and still vote. The UK is moving to this as well, but rushed through the referendum before it will be in place. Just to point out, the insistence that the vote was the exercise of the democratic will of the British public is severely called into question by the nature of the campaign.
A democratic vote is not just the exercise of the will of the public, but an exercise of the will of a well informed public. The integrity of this particular exercise is compromised by the fact that many voted on either side may I add on the basis of arguments that were simply not true in the case of historical circumstances, or unsupportable in the case of future forecasts. Even if we accept that what you say is fact, how does that differ from local council elections or a general election?
An advisory referendum to fundamentally change the conditions of life and livelihood of 66 million people, at least 6 million of whom are UK citizens resident abroad, 2 million or so disfranchised, carried by a very narrow majority of votes cast, without any of the safeguards of a mandatory referendum, won on the basis of outright blatant and criminal lies by politicians and a rabid tabloid press run largely by overseas interests, without any prospect of a change back for something like 40 years or more, furthermore destroying relations between the UK and the rest of the EU, being pushed by a stubborn, incompetent and dishonest government bent on the destruction of the country, is VERY different from local council or general elections.
This article would get laughed out of. Do you have any idea how many European potential loans and investments will be stopped in other areas such as the infrastructure and even the NHS? Sorry to say this but you live in a darker age than this century….. What sort of funds are you talking about? The Government has already made it clear that any current funds being received from the EU will be protected for a given period. How many lives are being affected and how?
What is a Premier store? If you are that enamoured about living in the EU, have you thought of moving to a country which is a current member and looks like continuing to be one for the near future? I care about the lifestyles of the workers of my own country not the elites that only care about themselves. I am English NOT European and nothing will change my mind or convince me to live under European law whilst they dump their criminals on us.
I have never read a more ridiculous pile of rubbish. The 16m who voted remain is about the same as who took part in the last EU Elections it could be argued that the remainder of the 40 or so million voted with thier feet and didnt want to be involved in the whole European project.
Given the chance to kick it into touch a majority of the entire electorate said an emphatic NO to the EU. To Andrew Harvey: No, not a majority of the entire electorate, only a narrow majority of those who actually voted, i. And skewed anyway by the number of votes lost through the postal voting papers not being dispatched in time from the UK to many abroad. To Nicholas Newman: If you make the assumption that those who support something will demonstrate an interest.
You will see from the following data the level of support shown by casting a vote has for some time been abysmally low. Where as for the Brexit election there was a It may not be scientific but me it says given the opportunity to do something about the EU project a majority of those interested got out and registered their disapproval and desire for something new and better.
You forgot 2 million expat Britons excluded because of living out of the UK more than 15 years, despite Tory manifesto pledge to scrap the 15 year limit on expat voting. Simply because we are UK citizens. The UK is contravening a fundamental human right in continuing to deny us a vote, and Brexit is an outstanding example of the necessity to regain that right. Most of us have no other citizenship, a very high proportion of us have been working abroad for UK interests, UK firms, UK membership of international organisations, and many many of us civil servants, teachers, armed forces, police etc.
Many of us ave family in the UK and maintain a keen interest in UK affairs. Anyway Karl, stop trolling. We are talking about people who have been living outside of the UK for more than 15 years. Not people who are just working abroad. The results is that we voted to leave. Might it be that the LSE as an academic institution fears Brexit and the possible loss of funding?
The author of the leading article seems to me to be a remoaner who cannot accept the result and is fearful of grant loss from the EU hence the tenor and content of the article. Special pleading methinks. The Eu is undemocratic by design, go look at the treaty of Rome. If the EU implements a decision I do not like I have no democratic response available to me, the commission is appointed not elected.. For example incandescent light bulbs that I can no longer buy due to a ruling from the commission who are appointed not elected.
The EU is an incipient dictatorship driven by what I can best describe as dreamers with a fixed view of the3 future, i. Any dissent will be punished! Bring it on Juncker! What utter nonsense, We should never have gone into Europe in the first place.
They only want to control us.. We have had to fight practically every country in the Eu at some point. We are already better off now than before the brexit vote, The doom mongers said we would all be out of work in two weeks!! So what happened there then? We remember what it was like before Europe and it was much better. Why do so many want to come here? It is the one that is most adaptable to change. You forgot the UK citizens currently resident in other EU countries who were denied the right to vote.
Of the probably conservative, since it may exclude descendants with dual nationality UN estimate of 1. If that is the case, why on earth should they be allowed to vote on an issue which affects those of us who still live here, pay our taxes here, spend our money here and have to put up with the negative aspects of our membership of the EU.
Many of us have family in the UK and maintain a keen interest in UK affairs. The network incentivizes users to participate in the block validation process by assigning newly mined Bitcoins to the first user who randomly finds a hash with a value smaller than the threshold. Presently, after the latest Bitcoin halving, this remuneration is 6. Sometimes forks occur in the blockchain when two blocks containing different transactions are attached to the same block.
Eventually other blocks are mined and attached to them, forming two branching chains after the fork. In this case, the longer chain, the one with more cumulative proof of work or hash computations, would be considered as the main chain upon which future blocks are built on. The Bitcoin proof of work is very costly economically Thum, and environmentally Stoll et al.
Technological improvements over the years have made hashing a very efficient operation, consuming at little as 0. See Table 2. This has reduced energy cost per hash by about thirty thousand times during the last 10 years. However, the miners in the Bitcoin network are presently May computing nearly 10 25 hashes per day, up over 10 orders of magnitude from the levels. We estimate in this paper that this hashing activity currently corresponds to an energy cost of around 1 million USD per day and around a billion USD over the past year.
In turn, this corresponds a per transaction costs as high as 13 USD in January This cost is not borne by either the sender nor the receiver in a transaction but rather by the miners. While a billion a year burned in hashing is definitely a large amount of money that could be seen as a waste of resources, the Bitcoin proof of work is a necessary process for such an anonymous permission-less network to function.
It is indeed required to validate transactions and obtain community consensus to secure the system from attacks. Table 2. Mining hardware with optimal energy efficiency and their dates of release. One question arises: is this cost fair or could it be lowered?
In Aste made the argument that, at equilibrium, the cost of Bitcoin proof of work should be such to make a double spending attack too expensive to be profitably carried out. From this principle, it is relatively straightforward to estimate the fair cost of the proof of work under an ideal equilibrium assumption. Let us consider an attacker that owns some amount of Bitcoin and wants to artificially multiply it by spending the same Bitcoin with several different users.
This is known as a double spend attack. Indeed, a transaction involving a substantially larger sum than the usual will capture unwanted attention from the network. Of course, the duplication can be repeated several times both in parallel or serially but, as we shall see shortly, this does not affect the outcomes of the present argument.
To be successful the attacker must make sure that both the duplicated transactions are validated and this requires the generation of a fork with two blocks containing the double spent transaction attached to the previous block. If the attacker has sufficient computing power, she can generate two valid hashes to seal the two blocks giving the false impression that both transactions have been verified and validated.
However, for a final settlement of the transaction, it is presently considered that one should wait six new blocks to be attached to the chain to make the transaction statistically unlikely to be reverted. The attacker should therefore use her computing power to generate six valid hashes before the double spent transaction might be considered settled.
Note that only one of the two forks the shortest must be artificially validated by the attacker since the other will be considered valid by the system and can be let to propagate by the other miners. Of course, it is quite unrealistic to assume that nobody notices the propagating fork for such a long time, but let's keep this as a working hypothesis.
The artificial propagation of the fork has a cost that is the cost of the proof of work per block times six. The attacker will make profits if this cost is inferior to the gain made from duplicated spending. In the previous unpublished note by Aste the following formula is reported:.
We can re-write this formula to formally express the cost of proof of work per day, C t , as. The value of p must be considerably smaller than one because an attacker will be spotted immediately by the community if she tries to fork with a large double-spent value with operations that involve a significant portion of the entire network activity. We must note that this formula is an upper bound for the cost of the proof of work.
It greatly underestimates the costs of an attack and largely overestimates the attacker's gains. It indeed considers a system that has no other protections or security system than the proof of work. Further, it does not consider that after a successful attack, the Bitcoin value is likely to plunge making it therefore unlikely for the attacker to spend her gain at current market value.
This requires either huge investments in mining equipment not taken into account in the formula or other methods to control the mining farms, such as through a cyber or a conventional physical attack, which will also cost considerable amount of money. Independently on the estimate of a realistic value for the parameter p , the principle that the cost of the proof of work must be a sizable fraction of the value transferred by the network to avoid double spending attacks should rest valid Aste, ; Aste et al.
Specifically, according to this principle, we expect that, for a given system, the ratio between the cost of the proof of work and the value transferred by the network should oscillate around some constant value which reflects the fair balance between the possible gains in an attack and the cost to perform it.
In this paper, we test if this is indeed the case for the Bitcoin proof of work. For this purpose we are looking across the entire period of existence of Bitcoin, estimating the mining costs and comparing them with the value transferred through the network.
This is an amazing period during which the value transferred through the Bitcoin network has increased several million times and the hashing activity has increased by 10 orders of magnitude. Let us note that ten orders of magnitude is an immense change. To put it into perspective this is the ratio between the diameter of the sun and the diameter of a one-cent coin.
These are formidable changes to a scale never observed in financial systems or in human activity in general. We show in this paper that, despite these underlying formidable changes in the Bitcoin mining and trading activities, the ratio between the estimated mining cost and the transaction volume rests oscillating within a relatively narrow band supporting therefore the argument about the fair cost of the proof of work by Aste The energy cost of mining.
The overheads for the maintenance of the mining farm, such as infrastructure costs and cooling facilities. The cost of purchasing and renewing the mining hardware. For the purpose of this study, we focus only on the first element, the energy cost of running the Bitcoin mining hardware which is likely to be the key driver and is the only cost that can be estimated with some precision.
The maintenance costs for running a Bitcoin mining farm varies widely depending on the location, design and scale of the facility and since such information are usually not disclosed to the public, it is infeasible to estimate it accurately. The sales price of mining hardware is publicly available but incorporating it into cost calculations is arduous because of the rapid rate of evolution in the industry and the information opacity regarding the market share of each hardware and the rate at which obsolete mining hardware are replaced.
Newer mining hardware may achieve faster hash rates and higher energy efficiency but the renewing costs makes it unlikely that all Bitcoin miners immediately replace all their existing mining hardware with the latest versions as they are released. Certainly a combination of both old and new mining hardware should coexist in the Bitcoin network as long as each machine continue to generate a profit.
However, the market share of each hardware and its evolution over time is an unknown. With respect to the purpose of the present estimate of the lower bound of the mining cost, we must stress that the maintenance and the hardware costs must be anyway proportional to the energy consumption costs. By ignoring them we are under-estimating the total mining cost by some factor but, beside this factor, the estimation of the overall behavior of the mining cost should not be significantly affected.
Most prior works have priced energy usage according to global average electricity prices see for instance Vranken, ; Derks et al. In this paper, we introduce a different approach, by converting the energy consumed during Bitcoin mining into barrels of oil equivalent and priced according to the Brent Crude spot price. Our rationale is that the Brent Crude oil price is a publicly available daily value standardized around the world whereas electricity prices varies widely across different countries and suppliers.
Note that there is a premium that electricity producers and distributors charge on the electricity price with respect to the oil cost and there can be also taxes. These extra charges depends on countries and situations but they will add a certain percentage to our estimate of the mining cost based on oil prices.
As another point of comparison, regional electricity prices were also used as a proxy for the energy cost. The average global electricity price used for mining was calculated based on the geographic distribution of hash rate on the Bitcoin network and the local industrial electricity price. An overwhelming proportion of Bitcoins are mined in China so the data there is further stratified based on provinces. They are shown in Table 3.
The three nations also publish government statistics regarding industrial electricity prices on a regular basis China: NEA, USA: EIA, Russia: Petroelectrosbyt which allowed for the annual weighted average electricity price for Bitcoin mining, E t , to be calculated as. Table 3. Geographic distribution of the share of hash rate on the Bitcoin network, — A disproportionately large percentage of mining activity within China was based in provinces with lower than average electricity prices so where provincial data were not available, a 0.
Regional share of hash rate and electricity prices were not available for USA or Russia so similar adjustments weren't possible. Another limitation of electricity prices is that a growing proportion of Bitcoin mining uses low-cost stranded renewables Andoni et al. Due to these other factors and the lack of historic data on electricity prices in several other countries around the world, the majority of this paper will focus on energy pricing using the Brent Crude oil index.
A comparison of ratio between the cost of mining and Bitcoin transaction volume is presented in Figure 6 to show the standardized oil prices as a measure of energy cost yield similar results to using regional electricity prices. For the purpose of estimating a lower bound to the energy costs of Bitcoin mining, we considered at any point in time that the entire network is adopting the most energy efficient machine available at that time.
In situations where a mining hardware has different power setting options in which the user may choose to increase or decrease the hashing speed of the machine along with energy consumption, the most efficient power setting is used for calculation. The lower bound of the energy costs of Bitcoin mining is estimated from total number of hashes times the energy cost of hashing by the most energy efficient Bitcoin mining hardware available on the market at any give time, divided by the conversion factor between energy and barrel of oil and multiplied by the cost of the oil.
Specifically, the lower bound for daily mining cost, C t , is:. H t is the daily number of hashing operations in Th on day t ;. Table 2 reports a list of the Bitcoin mining hardware which consumed the least energy per hash operations at the time of their release to the market.
In a previous work a power-law model was proposed by Kristoufek However, the exponential model is more consistent with what is commonly expected for the rate of technology growth, according to the Moore's Law Moore, Figure 1. Figure 2 displays the total number of hashing operations per day. We note that the number of daily hashes have increased from 10 15 to 10 25 in the period between September to May when this paper was written.
Daily hashes have been growing at exponential rates linear trends in semi-log scale , which is in agreement with previous observations O'Dwyer and Malone, However, we can see from the figure that there are four, very distinct, periods with different grow rates. Specifically: i mid to mid ; ii mid to early ; iii early to early ; iv early to early The estimated best-fit doubling times in these periods are respectively: 1 33 days; ii days; iii 38 days; iv days.
Figure 2. Daily hashes computed by the Bitcoin network. The lines are best-fits with exponential growth laws in the corresponding sub-periods. Doubling times are respectively i 33 days, during mid to mid ; ii days, during mid to early ; iii 38 days during early to early ; iv days, during early to early Figure 3 shows the variations of the energy price per gigajoule in the period — computed from the Brent Crude spot prices.
One can notice that the cost of one gigajoule of energy has two distinct levels—around 20 USD from to mid and around 10 USD from late to early Oil prices has since collapsed under the coronavirus pandemic, dropping to below 3 USD per gigajoule of energy. However, while large, the rate of change in energy price is several orders of magnitude smaller than the rate of change in the number of hashes. Figure 3. The lower bound of the total energy costs of Bitcoin mining is estimated as the minimum energy cost of each hash multiplied by the total number of hashes computed over a given period of time a day in our case.
Note that this is the lower bound estimate and the actual cost is presumably much larger. The growth in mining costs is affected by both the changes in energy cost see Figure 3 and by the increase in the hashing rate in the Bitcoin network see Figure 2.
We note that the variations in energy cost oscillates in a much narrow band with respect to the changes in the daily number of hashes and therefore, the minimum Bitcoin mining costs Figure 4 mostly mirrors the growth in the total number of hashes.
FOREX STRATEGIES FOR OPTIONSFrom Web Console: Automate agent installation The ConnectWise Control do when you between the operation of the close. The only real with many data small cabinet to prop up my. Pictures, files, along disabled this option. I assumed he property of their virtual machine to.
Some Features: - Trend trading, only follow trend to reduce DD - News filter to stop EA before high impact news - Smart time filter to avoid unexpected falling, rising, gap This will cause back testing results to be ina.
Renate Gerlinde Engelsberger. The algorithms of the robot provide investors of any level of training with an investment opportunity that is both safe and aggressive. Golden Coup EA imitating the work of the brain, capable of learning and adapting to changing conditions and predicting situations. When applied to trading i. It's very different from most other scalping systems, since it uses a unique trading logic on cross pairs that have a strong mean-reverting tendency with high profit targets.
EA enters the market with mark. Yevhenii Mavletbaiev. Manual guide here. Because MT4 only allows back testing 1 currency pair at a time but this is one chart set up - trade all major pairs. This will cause back testing results to be inaccurate, because News Filter will help EA remo. Golden Standart it is a self-regulating Expert Advisor based on a breakout strategy of key levels, and the stop loss is calculated automatically. It reacts to volatility breakdowns and price spikes at support and resistance levels.
The combination of 7 strategies allows for a unique approach in conducting transactions with the desired profit. Intelligent algorithms and a self-learning adaptive multilayer perceptron have all been integrated into my new Expert Advisor. The algorithm does not use. Instead of fitting the system to reflect historical data like most people do it was designed to exploit existing market inefficiencies. Therefore it is not a simple "hit and miss" system which only survives by usi.
Jakub Norbert Bogusz. Look at the signals to see how profitable this Expert Advisor is links are listed below!!! Huckster is an absolute breakthrough in Forex Algo Trading. As an Artificial Intelligence type of robot,. It was developed using years of experience in live trading with the mean-reverse strategy, and selected only the best pairs and techniques to be included in this EA.
Since the EA is build upon existing technology that was. This EA analyzes momentum and looks for trading signals with high winrate, low risk. EA does not use risk strategies such as martingale, grid. All trades have fixed Stop Loss. Settings: Max S. A very warm welcome to this wonderful expert adviser.
The EA uses these unique patterns to be successful. The EA uses M5 indicators that is why it is tailored to work with M5 period. EA shows everything on the chart, such as the Indicators used, etc. There are other background concepts used, such as intraday gaps and bars analysis to determine when to place trades.
The inputs for this EA. It is a trend trading strategy, which uses as an input signal my best indicator developments, and also uses neural networks. The Expert Advisor opens an order based on a signal from the indicators and fixes the profit at a certain level. No dangerous money management techniques, no martingale, grid or scalp. Suitable for any. DFX Only loss for me - Aleksei not supportive.
Unable to make mine work :. Andrei Lisaichuk Getting losses so far much more than wins will update soon again No more live signal even? Claudio Amore Truamztrader Great EA, works well! And excellent customer service, very Helpful! Fallet Willy Serafin Perez Excellent EA!! Ajmal Jamseeth Samer Gowid DamianPe82 Sooyong Kim Daniele Tosolini Great EA and great support!! Excellent EA and ease to use. Excellent EA! Aleksei Moshkin is very nice. Sean Zeph Honest, unbiased review from first time user: Got it a week ago, was confused on how to set it up.
Aleksei you are the man! When I make money live, i'm sending you beer money. Atep Novic Faham Abdullah Juan Patricio Vazquez Kadek Oka Mahendra NyiNyiHtay If I get profit I will post result here. PanchOleg Jesus Torres Parraga If you want an EA of news you buy other than this one.
Svyatoslav Kucher Yuan Liu I tested 7 months, I like it. Mohamed Sanjania Need to adjust Input Parameters for optimal performance. Francisco Javier Lucena Zurera Jozef Vasko Waw best news trading ea Anatolie Pavliuc Waleed Almutairi Evgenii Golovan Aleksandr Romazanov Md Monir Hossain First news robot that made a profit also very good support.
Lo recomiendo. Tran Ngoc Nam Ala Khasawneh Stefan Marjoram Andrey Bakhilin Linq; using System. Net; using System. Text; using System. Threading; using System. Download downloads. Double-click on the downloaded file.
This will install all necessary files in cAlgo. Download the Indicator Double-click on the downloaded file. This will install all necessary files in cTrader. Select the indicator from Custom in the functions f menu in the top center of the chart Enter the parameters and click OK. Two suggestion i would give if you care 1 It is not showing Times in local time zone.