Britain Owes Fiat Currency To The Bank Of England

The history of the British national debt, which dates back to the establishment of the Bank of England in 1694, offers contemporary policy-makers important lessons for today;

www.historyandpolicy.org...

Back in 2011 a man asked a question.

Today in the European Parliament I raised the subject of the Bank of England shareholders.

I sometimes get people writing to me about the Bank of England and the fact that its shareholders enjoy privileged secrecy.

What does that mean? And is it still legal given that the European Union now makes our laws and not our own Parliament? So I made the following speech asking the question. I will be very interested to see what comes back.

www.ukipmeps.org...


This is the answer.

Member States are free to legislate on this matter as they see fit . . . it is not problematic that national systems of shareholder identification do not cover all shareholders . . .

www.europarl.europa.eu...




Britain owes money to the Bank of England.

Link to chart. i2.wp.com...

. . . who does Britain owe most of its money to? The answer is in the chart above. It shows you who owns UK government bonds (gilts) – everyone from UK households to overseas investors to (most notably) the Bank of England.

www.edmundconway.com...

The UK government are borrowing every year to pay off the previous year’s shortfall. This borrowing incurs an interest charge, so it cannot be counted as “income”, and every year we are borrowing more to pay off the loans. This is ” Wonga loans” economics.

www.economicshelp.org...


It all seems very complicated. Perhaps the shareholders will identify themselves so we can discuss the issue.

Can any ATS members help us to understand the Wonga philosophy behind this?

a reply to: Kester

banks de rothschild

United Kingdom: Bank of England
Complete List of BANKS Owned or Controlled by the Rothschild Family

The Bank of England is owned entirely by the UK government. When the government borrows from the bank it borrows from itself.

a reply to: ScepticScot

. . . do we really need to be paying interest to the Bank of England on the £300 billion+ of gilts that it holds as part of the Quantitative Easing programme? In fact the Bank holds these gilts on behalf of the Treasury anyway, so the Treasury is effectively paying interest to itself on assets that it bought with “free” printed money. Could we decide that this is a waste of time, that we are unlikely to sell these gilts back to the market in any case, and that we may as well just cancel the gilts we bought for the nation?

propertyvision.com... ds

If it was wrong they’d have to be saying the BofE isn’t actually ours after all. I look forward to that! Anyway, the Tories themselves did something similar back in Thatcher’s day, they had one part of government obligingly write off a debt owed it by another part of government and then held the resulting drop in the National Debt up as example of their fiscal prudence. This was uncovered after FOI requests by one James Gibb Stuart and you can read about it in his book The Money Bomb. So the idea’s not actually new, just kept secret.

www.taxresearch.org.uk... -debt-is-now-just-45-1-of-gdp/

I am a bit lost with this one as the BOE is nationalised, so the only "shareholder" is the nation. It is not owned by anyone else, Rothschild et al. That's just a bit of fantasy from YouTubers et al.

Who owes what to who is just way to keep an army of accountants busy.

a reply to: Kester

That confirms exactly what I said. The government owing debt and paying interest to the Bank of England is purely an operational accounting exercise.

a reply to: paraphi

Odd that the EU seemed to take his question seriously.

a reply to: ScepticScot

On the surface so it appears.

My experience of the world is that it's half full of lying gob#es and they frequently occupy 'responsible' positions. I suspect profit is being made on this operational accounting exercise.

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: paraphi

Odd that the EU seemed to take his question seriously.

It demonstrates that the MEP doesn't know the difference between the Bank of England and the Bank of England Nominees ltd.

I dont think you can fully judge the Rothschild Banking Cartel without looking at its positive qualities

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: ScepticScot

On the surface so it appears.

My experience of the world is that it's half full of lying gob#es and they frequently occupy 'responsible' positions. I suspect profit is being made on this operational accounting exercise.

You are entirely correct. The issue of debt is done more for the benefit of the private sector in that provides a risk free investment and a base interest price to work from.

It also involves lots of fairly intelligent people often with advanced degrees getting well paid to do something that has very little economic or social value.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So it's an aspect of government that could shed some fat?

I get a headache trying to make fiscal sense of the UK government, but it seems to me that if they are still lending to pay off loans the butchering of government isn't what needs to be done nor is it the issue.

It's that internal lending scheme that's happening of which I hardly understand, that's the problem.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Can you explain?

here is something people might find interesting.

first look up the Bank of England Nominees Limited, who when first open and still to this day only has two share holders that when opened were at valued at £1 each. the BOE owns 1 share and according to the linked article below

A reply from Ben Norman, the Deputy Secretary of the Bank, to an enquirer Mr E Danielyan, dated 5 March 2010 explains: BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey.(4)

this is from their disclose.

Mr. Clinton Davis The Secretary of State has granted one exemption under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 in favour of Bank of England Nominees Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of England. Bank of England Nominees Ltd. have given a number of undertakings about the use to be made of the exemption. They will hold securities as nominee only on behalf of Heads of State and their immediate family, Governments, official bodies controlled or closely related to Governments, and international organisations formed by Governments or official bodies. They will in turn seek certain assurances from anyone in the eligible categories who wishes them to hold the securities as that person’s nominee. These assurances are to cover
(a) the fact that the person is the beneficial owner of the securities to be held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd.;
(b) that the beneficial owner will not use his interest in any securities held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd. to influence the affairs of the company in which shares are held except as shareholders in general meetings of that company;
(c) that the beneficial owner is aware of his overriding obligation, under Section 33 of the Companies Act 1967 as amended, to disclose his interest to the company in which shares are held if he is interested in 5 per cent. or more of that company’s share capital. 152W

the above is from here, Investigating the Bank of England Nominees Limited

it is important to note two things,
according to the above article, the BOEN is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements, and is supposedly dormant as of the writing of the article in 2011.

now i'm not knocking your government, but yours is as bad if not worse than ours is when it comes to telling the truth.

another thing you might find interesting,
from the Bank of England Act 1946

(4)After the appointed day, no dividends on Bank stock shall be declared but in lieu of any such dividends the Bank shall pay to the Treasury, on every fifth day of April and of October, [F1a sum equal to 25 per cent. of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree.]
Bank of England Act 1946

also here is the Search Legislation Title: Year: Number: Type: Advanced Search Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016, i couldn't find the transfer of stock in this one. maybe someone more fimilar with it can find out it.

that being said, looking at the 1946 act, who got the 75% left over after the British government got their 25%, and do they still do it that way and are you being told the truth.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

i just click the green Changes to legislation bar in the 1946 act and it apppers other than just a few words this stands as of 30 Oct. 2016

a reply to: Kester

The UK (or any government that has own central bank and currency) doesn't really need to issue debt.

It could fund the deficit directly, as pretty much happens with the proportion held by the BOE at the moment.

The reason it does issue debt the way It does so is partly for historical reasons, partly for the balance of trade and mainly as the private sector loves to hold government debt as a safe investment. This helps provide a good degree of stability in the financial sector.

You can see that actually funding the deficit has pretty much nothing to do with it. In Australia there was a point (mid 00s from memory) when despite the government running a surplus the market requested that the government issue more bonds to provide that stability and safe investment.

originally posted by: Kester
Odd that the EU seemed to take his question seriously.

Not really, and were they?

Don't forget the EU takes the bendiness of bananas seriously.