How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
hyphen said:
Goldmand boss is now coming across as a bit of a joke 
After making all that fuss on Twitter about the lovely weather in Frankfurt, he has now decided on Paris as the preferred option.
https://www.ft.com/content/f7397d3c-ce03-11e7-b781...
You know, he might just be suggesting that both Paris and Frankfurt will benefit from the move of Goldman jobs from London.After making all that fuss on Twitter about the lovely weather in Frankfurt, he has now decided on Paris as the preferred option.
https://www.ft.com/content/f7397d3c-ce03-11e7-b781...
I'm sure you know better though.
Do we get a divorce bill when the Banks leave for Frankfurt ?
So much noise about this whole process most of it pure speculation and Political posturing .
I don't care if we have to pay £500 billion as long as it can be justified at the moment its just nonsense figures being quoted with no way of making a valid judgement.
So much noise about this whole process most of it pure speculation and Political posturing .
I don't care if we have to pay £500 billion as long as it can be justified at the moment its just nonsense figures being quoted with no way of making a valid judgement.
ORD said:
Digga said:
rofl:
Clearly, you have not read either, or if you have, not properly.
To be clear, experts are not all bad, asking experts to make (reliable and usable) predictions is the folly.
What, then, do you base decisions on? Guesses? Clearly, you have not read either, or if you have, not properly.
To be clear, experts are not all bad, asking experts to make (reliable and usable) predictions is the folly.
Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
Digga said:
What do you think most 'predictions' are?
Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
There is also difference between a projection and a prediction!Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
Digga said:
What do you think most 'predictions' are?
Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
So we agree that informed predictions are valuable and important, even if imperfect. Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
On that basis, the Brexiteer hostility to all economic predictions is a bit silly. Do you agree?
In point of fact most of us have objected to the misrepresentation of economic forecasts. In that lower growth, than would have otherwise been the case, in the period to 2030 has been presented as an immediate fall.
There is also the already discussed issue with the Treasury forecast which deliberately introduced errors into its models to get the desired result.
I trust we can all agree that forecasts by "experts" are not useful where they are basing them on deliberate errors.
There is also the already discussed issue with the Treasury forecast which deliberately introduced errors into its models to get the desired result.
I trust we can all agree that forecasts by "experts" are not useful where they are basing them on deliberate errors.
Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 21st November 11:00
Digga said:
Fittster said:
Digga said:
ORD said:
I find this attitude very troubling. You seem to think that making predictions is not a genuine or useful activity.
You really need to watch or, better yet, read some of what the likes of Mark Blyth and also Nassim Nicholas Taleb say about economic 'experts' before you commit yourself on this issue. the facts are pretty damning.Do right wing columnists = good?
There's only one true source of knowledge and his name is Paul Dacre.
Clearly, you have not read either, or if you have, not properly.
To be clear, experts are not all bad, asking experts to make (reliable and usable) predictions is the folly.
ORD said:
Digga said:
What do you think most 'predictions' are?
Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
So we agree that informed predictions are valuable and important, even if imperfect. Decisions, by nature, are all guesses (absolute certainty is a mirage), but the certainty of most rational decisions can be enhanced by reasoned analysis of the variables, including both past norms, as well as potential, future exceptional circumstances.
The issue with most or many economic predictions is they are hostage to almost incalculable variables.
On that basis, the Brexiteer hostility to all economic predictions is a bit silly. Do you agree?
What gets me is we seem to have a group of people who use this knowledge-based and scientific way of evaluating and predicting thing in one instance. Who go around claiming to be the rational logical ones. But refuse to do the same in other areas. Like sexual, race and social inequalities.
sidicks said:
Fittster said:
So we new how the world was but all predictions about the future can't be trusted. How can a change of status with the EU be a good think when its impossible to know the future?
More strawman nonsense.Do you mean ‘knew’?
Brexiter don't want to accept that prediction of a negative outcome for their ideological goals are reliable. So expert predictions should be ignored. However they also have belief that massive upheavals with EU will result in a brighter future.
What tortuous logic is used to dismiss a negative future but support the sunny uplands that will come as of the 29 March 2019?
Fittster said:
Love the cliched use of strawman.
Brexiter don't want to accept that prediction of a negative outcome for their ideological goals are reliable. So expert predictions should be ignored. However they also have belief that massive upheavals with EU will result in a brighter future.
What tortuous logic is used to dismiss a negative future but support the sunny uplands that will come as of the 29 March 2019?
More generalised nonsense about what ‘Brexiters’ want or don’t want. And about ‘expert’ predictions (actually projections) without understanding the assumptions underlying those projections. How dull.Brexiter don't want to accept that prediction of a negative outcome for their ideological goals are reliable. So expert predictions should be ignored. However they also have belief that massive upheavals with EU will result in a brighter future.
What tortuous logic is used to dismiss a negative future but support the sunny uplands that will come as of the 29 March 2019?
Meanwhile (presumably) all ‘Remainers’ are crying in their beds as their long hoped for march towards the United States of Europe is being denied them...?!
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 21st November 11:58
sidicks said:
Fittster said:
Love the cliched use of strawman.
Brexiter don't want to accept that prediction of a negative outcome for their ideological goals are reliable. So expert predictions should be ignored. However they also have belief that massive upheavals with EU will result in a brighter future.
What tortuous logic is used to dismiss a negative future but support the sunny uplands that will come as of the 29 March 2019?
More generalised nonsense about what ‘Brexiters’ want or don’t want. And about ‘expert’ predictions (actually projections) without understanding the assumptions underlying those projections. How dull.Brexiter don't want to accept that prediction of a negative outcome for their ideological goals are reliable. So expert predictions should be ignored. However they also have belief that massive upheavals with EU will result in a brighter future.
What tortuous logic is used to dismiss a negative future but support the sunny uplands that will come as of the 29 March 2019?
Meanwhile (presumably) all ‘Remainers’ are crying in their beds as their long hoped for march towards the United States of Europe is being denied them...?!
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 21st November 11:58
Fittster said:
So we new how the world was but all predictions about the future can't be trusted. How can a change of status with the EU be a good think when its impossible to know the future?
Sorry, been in an engineering prototype meeting. (Just over 5kgssaved, whoo hoo!)You can base decisions on things that are probable; we will maintain a fleet of gritter lorries through the spring, summer and autumn, because we can be fairly certain we will need them in winter. How much grit we actually need is less certain.
What we know now about the EU we did not (and could not possibly have) when we joined. Had the EU negotiated with Cameron, Brexit would have been very difficult to envisage, now that we have reached the stage negotiations are now for all involved (UK & EU, as with Remain & Leave) it would be hard to envisage Brexit not happening.
Fittster said:
Love the cliched use of strawman.
Brexiter don't want to accept that prediction of a negative outcome for their ideological goals are reliable. So expert predictions should be ignored. However they also have belief that massive upheavals with EU will result in a brighter future.
What tortuous logic is used to dismiss a negative future but support the sunny uplands that will come as of the 29 March 2019?
You have been accused of arguing with a Strawman as your assertions don't match most Brexiteers beliefs.Brexiter don't want to accept that prediction of a negative outcome for their ideological goals are reliable. So expert predictions should be ignored. However they also have belief that massive upheavals with EU will result in a brighter future.
What tortuous logic is used to dismiss a negative future but support the sunny uplands that will come as of the 29 March 2019?
What you ignore is that nothing can be said with any certainty about the impact of a "no deal" Brexit. To try and ESTIMATE the effects of such a scenario the various economic forecasters have to construct models to determine both the effect on UK trade and then the follow on effect on overall UK growth. The assumptions used in constructing such models are key to the outcomes they predict.
The reason why the Treasury forecasts in the run up to the referendum attracted so much criticism is that a number of assumptions were clearly incorrect. So not so much the UK public having had enough of "experts" but had enough of "experts" lying to us for political reasons.
I have already posted a link to the flaws the LSE found in the Treasury's model. Here is another article about its problems
and then a conclusion about likely impacts.
Guardian said:
Using different but still relatively pessimistic assumptions, the Cambridge study says the loss peaks at 3% of GDP early in the 2020s. The loss of GDP per head is smaller – never much more than 1% – and soon recovers.
The chancellor, Philip Hammond, would do well to have a squint at the Cambridge paper, since its findings are much more in tune with the May government’s view about how the economy will perform after Brexit. It will, of course, still be the same economy – warts and all.
Now clearly 3% of GDP is not nothing, but neither is it Armageddon. The chancellor, Philip Hammond, would do well to have a squint at the Cambridge paper, since its findings are much more in tune with the May government’s view about how the economy will perform after Brexit. It will, of course, still be the same economy – warts and all.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blo...
Fittster said:
So we knew how the world was, but all predictions about the future can't be trusted. How can a change of status with the EU be a good thing when its impossible to know the future?
I hope I have edited your post correctly? Assuming that I have, I think the point you are making is flawed. It's true that we knew how the world was at the time of the Referendum, and it's also true that we knew, broadly, the principles the EU was following in regards to its own future development. We did not precisely know what the future would be, but we could predict that things like "ever closer union" and the eventual creation of more of the organs of a single European type state. Those are knowns that the UK voted to exit.
What we know now is that the UK will not be part of the same future as the EU. That the UK and the EU will diverge in a number of those "known" areas of the future.
As of right now the only extra unknown we face as the UK is how we will interact with the EU in the future. Yes, it's a biggee, but it is what is being discussed now, so we will have a fairly clear idea of the way things will be in the next 12 months or so.
Beyond that, in the wider world, the future is as unknown as it has ever been, regardless of our EU membership status. Your question suggests that knowing our position within the EU was/is somehow comforting, or represented some sort of certainty in an uncertain world. It wasn't and the certainty it offered is not one that the UK people wanted to share. That is why we are leaving.
On the question of damage to the economy, I voted Leave in the sure and certain knowledge that there would be pain for a few years. Nothing I have heard since that day has lead me to question my decision to any significant degree, let alone change my mind. On the contrary, some of the messages coming out of Brussels have served to confirm that I made the right choice for me and my family.
Fittster said:
So sidicks are you happy to say the economic forecasts of Economists for Free Trade should be rejected out hand, just like all economic predictions?
Who has said that any forecasts should be ‘rejected out of hand’? By repeatedly making claims about all ‘Brexiters’ that are entirley false (or at best encompasss a small proportion) you demonstrate that you don’t actually want to understand to discuss the issues.Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 21st November 13:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff