May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[oldhippy]

7 hours ago, aright said:

"The EU can have whatever relationship and deals it likes with Turkey and the Ukraine. So long as the UK is out of the EU, their relations with other non-EU states is a matter for them.

 

Notice how this has come not from the EU itself, but from its puppet-masters - the Germans. "

German "puppet masters".

Oh dear.

 

One thing I truly underestimated when I started following various brexit threads, is the deep rooted racist hatred of some ancient Brits against the Germans.

That same feeling existed in most of Europe  when I was young, but as Europeans became more educated and more intelligent, that hatred slowly disappeared.

 

I remember hitch hiking in Norway in the 70's, with my big Belgian flag on my backpack. Not very successful - until a Norwegian advised me to remove the Belgian flag, as many Norwegians mistook it for the German flag. Nowadays many Norwegians in tourist areas speak German - in 40 years time the Nordmenn evolved, unlike some isolated islanders accross the Strait of Calais. I bet "German jokes" are still very popular over there.

[simoh1490]

10 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Some interesting scenarios. I would be prepared to wager a large sum that we don't leave.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

That's a great visual in the link you provided, others should note that in every scenario, the Pound tanks, businesses relocate and interest rates rise, to deal with inflation, there isn't an option where everything is loveliness and light and it all turns out to be OK after all. The only open question is whether we get the icing on the cake as well, a Labour government.

Edited December 27, 2017 by simoh1490

[melvinmelvin]

17 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

German "puppet masters".

Oh dear.

 

One thing I truly underestimated when I started following various brexit threads, is the deep rooted racist hatred of some ancient Brits against the Germans.

That same feeling existed in most of Europe  when I was young, but as Europeans became more educated and more intelligent, that hatred slowly disappeared.

 

I remember hitch hiking in Norway in the 70's, with my big Belgian flag on my backpack. Not very successful - until a Norwegian advised me to remove the Belgian flag, as many Norwegians mistook it for the German flag. Nowadays many Norwegians in tourist areas speak German - in 40 years time the Nordmenn evolved, unlike some isolated islanders accross the Strait of Calais. I bet "German jokes" are still very popular over there.

I am amased by the Merkel fobia and the Germany fobia expressed by manx Brexiters

Weird really

[simoh1490]

9 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

I am amased by the Merkel fobia and the Germany fobia expressed by manx Brexiters

Weird really

Wait long enough and somebody will prattle on about the Prince Phillip link with Germany that conspiracy theorists like to promote.

[Khun Han]

37 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Wait long enough and somebody will prattle on about the Prince Phillip link with Germany that conspiracy theorists like to promote.

 

His wife's uncle had to abdicate because of his blatant association with Hitler's nazis. Will that do? 

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

That's a great visual in the link you provided, others should note that in every scenario, the Pound tanks, businesses relocate and interest rates rise, to deal with inflation, there isn't an option where everything is loveliness and light and it all turns out to be OK after all. The only open question is whether we get the icing on the cake as well, a Labour government.

 

It was actually somebody else who provided the link. And, of course every brexit scenario in said link is a dire one: it's Bloomberg, for gods sake! 

[simoh1490]

21 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

It was actually somebody else who provided the link. And, of course every brexit scenario in said link is a dire one: it's Bloomberg, for gods sake! 

Bloomberg for gods sake, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian for gods sake, you don't care or trust any of them. But had that been printed in the Express that would have been good, except there's a reason why it wasn't and that has to do with the comprehension levels of the Express reader base. But perhaps you'd care to take that flowchart and add your interpretation of the options, something Bloomberg economists might have overlooked, we'd all be interested in your insight.

Edited December 27, 2017 by simoh1490

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Bloomberg for gods sake, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian for gods sake, you don't care or trust any of them. But had that been printed in the Express that would have been good, except there's a reason why it wasn't and that has to do with the comprehension levels of the Express reader base.

 

Are you actually capable of making a post without making an (veiled or otherwise) insult toward your debating opponents? I thought you were an adult.

 

Bloomberg was one of the 'quality' journals that got it's predictions hopelessly wrong in 2016. In the logical world, when a person or entity makes such a bowls-up, it's normal to not take their next predictions too seriously. I don't know about you, but I don't back/promote such losers.

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

Are you actually capable of making a post without making an (veiled or otherwise) insult toward your debating opponents? I thought you were an adult.

 

Bloomberg was one of the 'quality' journals that got it's predictions hopelessly wrong in 2016. In the logical world, when a person or entity makes such a bowls-up, it's normal to not take their next predictions too seriously. I don't know about you, but I don't back/promote such losers.

Last chance on the personal remarks!

 

So take the flow charts and correct them, show us your skills in the area of forecasting and economics.

[bert bloggs]

19 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

I think it's because they don't carry advertising, don't pay readers for smutty stories and pictures and they just carry news, thereby appealing to the smaller and more int..  intell... discerning component of the population.

Nobody wants to advertise with them as so very few people read the it.

[bert bloggs]

19 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Seems asking for donations is consistent with its financial structure rather than a customer base.

It’s owned by the nonprofit Scott Trust, not allowed to make profit distributions to shareholders and created nonprofit theguardian.org, to raise money from people and foundations to support its journalism.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/guardian-asking-readers-to-donate-money-to-continue-its-intelligent-journalism-20160630-gpv80k.html

https://digiday.com/media/guardian-launches-nonprofit-fund-journalism/

 

And nobody is donating ,lol

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

Last chance on the personal remarks!

 

So take the flow charts and correct them, show us your skills in the area of forecasting and economics.

 

At least you managed not to put a snide insult in your latest post.

 

All the predictions of a dire brexit base their model on the UK pretty-much following the same trading paths as it has done as a member of the EU, sometimes with a tiny bit of lip service paid to possible future trade outside the existing framework. Some people appear to be dazzled by the way that these rather wooden forecasts are presented.

[Srikcir]

23 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

And nobody is donating ,lol

You must have tremendous insights into its financial affairs as you've not backed it with any references. lol

 

On the other hand Guardian Media Group plc, publisher of the Guardian and The Observer newspapers and theguardian.com, released its financial results for the 12 months to April 2, 2017 showing among many positive financial statistics:

• Regular readers of theguardian.com increased by 17.4% between March 2016 and March 2017. More than 400,000 are regularly paying members or subscribers. Mobile and app revenue, digital subscriptions and memberships, one-off reader contributions and foundation grant revenue helped lift digital revenues to £94.1m, up 15%.

https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2017/jul/25/guardian-media-group-plc-gmg-results-for-the-financial-year-ended-2-april-2017

lol

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Srikcir
add "not"

[bert bloggs]

52 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

You must have tremendous insights into its financial affairs as you've not backed it with any references. lol

 

On the other hand Guardian Media Group plc, publisher of the Guardian and The Observer newspapers and theguardian.com, released its financial results for the 12 months to April 2, 2017 showing among many positive financial statistics:

• Regular readers of theguardian.com increased by 17.4% between March 2016 and March 2017. More than 400,000 are regularly paying members or subscribers. Mobile and app revenue, digital subscriptions and memberships, one-off reader contributions and foundation grant revenue helped lift digital revenues to £94.1m, up 15%.

https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2017/jul/25/guardian-media-group-plc-gmg-results-for-the-financial-year-ended-2-april-2017

lol

 

 

 

Sorry my life is not so sad that i look up "fact" about the guardian .

[simoh1490]

32 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

At least you managed not to put a snide insult in your latest post.

 

All the predictions of a dire brexit base their model on the UK pretty-much following the same trading paths as it has done as a member of the EU, sometimes with a tiny bit of lip service paid to possible future trade outside the existing framework. Some people appear to be dazzled by the way that these rather wooden forecasts are presented.

So all the economists who have looked at these things and have evaluated all the options and weighed up what is likely to happen haven't considered an element that you have, they've missed something, overlooked it, that's what you're saying? Han, how can that possibly be so!

[Khun Han]

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

You must have tremendous insights into its financial affairs as you've not backed it with any references. lol

 

On the other hand Guardian Media Group plc, publisher of the Guardian and The Observer newspapers and theguardian.com, released its financial results for the 12 months to April 2, 2017 showing among many positive financial statistics:

• Regular readers of theguardian.com increased by 17.4% between March 2016 and March 2017. More than 400,000 are regularly paying members or subscribers. Mobile and app revenue, digital subscriptions and memberships, one-off reader contributions and foundation grant revenue helped lift digital revenues to £94.1m, up 15%.

https://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2017/jul/25/guardian-media-group-plc-gmg-results-for-the-financial-year-ended-2-april-2017

lol

 

 

 

 

As much as I want to see the Grauniad survive and prosper, those financial results can't be that good because they're still begging readers for money.

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

So all the economists who have looked at these things and have evaluated all the options and weighed up what is likely to happen haven't considered an element that you have, they've missed something, overlooked it, that's what you're saying? Han, how can that possibly be so!

 

Take Andy Haldane, for example. Supposedly one of Britain's finest. He told us that he'd got his post-referendum prediction so badly wrong because he'd failed to factor in the possibility that consumer spending would stay buoyant. Ok, schoolboy error Andy, now corrected. But.....er.....wait a minute.....consumer spending fell in the second half of 2017 but the economy continued to grow!

 

Fact is, these people in whom you put so much faith are just glorified Mystic Megs. And they haven't even managed to beat the law of averages over the last ten years.

[SheungWan]

16 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Sorry my life is not so sad that i look up "fact" about the guardian .

Or anything else much........

[bert bloggs]

52 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Or anything else much........

After my half hour or so on here in the mornings ,i have a real life

[SheungWan]

8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Take Andy Haldane, for example. Supposedly one of Britain's finest. He told us that he'd got his post-referendum prediction so badly wrong because he'd failed to factor in the possibility that consumer spending would stay buoyant. Ok, schoolboy error Andy, now corrected. But.....er.....wait a minute.....consumer spending fell in the second half of 2017 but the economy continued to grow!

 

Fact is, these people in whom you put so much faith are just glorified Mystic Megs. And they haven't even managed to beat the law of averages over the last ten years.

Wrong. Haldane said he got the timing wrong not the fundamentals. Do a bit of research and one usually finds that Brexiteers distort. The 350 million a week distortion not a once-off.

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, bert bloggs said:

After my half hour or so on here in the mornings ,i have a real life

Go for it.

[simoh1490]

20 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Take Andy Haldane, for example. Supposedly one of Britain's finest. He told us that he'd got his post-referendum prediction so badly wrong because he'd failed to factor in the possibility that consumer spending would stay buoyant. Ok, schoolboy error Andy, now corrected. But.....er.....wait a minute.....consumer spending fell in the second half of 2017 but the economy continued to grow!

 

Fact is, these people in whom you put so much faith are just glorified Mystic Megs. And they haven't even managed to beat the law of averages over the last ten years.

You can't statistically support your last sentence but I understand it was just rhetoric and not meant to be taken factually!

 

So yes, Andy Haldane got it wrong on that occasion in respect of the timing, boo hoo, stop press, experts in every field get things wrong from time to time. The bigger mistake however is to think that all experts always get it wrong and that because somebody was wrong the last time they'll be wrong the next time!

 

The other aspect of this is, why do we never ever see team Brexit putting forward similar flow charts showing the positive Brexit outcome, something we can all look at and critique? The answer to that question is, of course, they don't have the wherewithal to do that and withstand the criticism such a chart would bring. The fact is that experts in forecasting and economics are pretty much non-denominational with regard to the EU when it comes to putting their professional integrity into print, reputations and credibility are at stake etc. So in that respect, I suppose team Brexit has produced a flow and analysis and it's incorporated in the one shown, it shows that Brexit is going to be very very damaging no matter what happens..

Edited December 27, 2017 by simoh1490

[Khun Han]

20 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Wrong. Haldane said he got the timing wrong not the fundamentals. Do a bit of research and one usually finds that Brexiteers distort. The 350 million a week distortion not a once-off.

 

Wrong. Andy Haldane stated that he got it wrong because of unexpectedly high consumer spending:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

 

"He blamed the profession’s reliance on models that were built for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially banks, “behaved rationally”. Since 2008, consumers have maintained their spending when the classic economic models would have expected them to be more circumspect."

Edited December 27, 2017 by Khun Han

[SheungWan]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

Wrong. Andy Haldane stated that he got it whong because of unexpectedly high consumer spending:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

 

"He blamed the profession’s reliance on models that were built for an age when consumers and businesses, and especially banks, “behaved rationally”. Since 2008, consumers have maintained their spending when the classic economic models would have expected them to be more circumspect."

There are two different events referred to. The first is that of the 2008 crisis. The second is concerning the impact of Brexit. Now go back and read the article more carefully.

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

You can't statistically support your last sentence but I understand it was just rhetoric and not meant to be taken factually!

 

So yes, Andy Haldane got it wrong on that occasion in respect of the timing, boo hoo, stop press, experts in every field get things wrong from time to time. The bigger mistake however is to think that all experts always get it wrong and that because somebody was wrong the last time they'll be wrong the next time!

 

The other aspect of this is, why do we never ever see team Brexit putting forward similar flow charts showing the positive Brexit outcome, something we can all look at and critique? The answer to that question is, of course, they don't have the wherewithal to do that and withstand the criticism such a chart would bring. The fact is that experts in forecasting and economics are pretty much non-denominational with regard to the EU when it comes to putting their professional integrity into print, reputations and credibility are at stake etc. So in that respect, I suppose team Brexit has produced a flow and analysis and it's incorporated in the one shown, it shows that Brexit is going to be very very damaging no matter what happens..

 

Professor Patric Minford has put together an excellent post-brexit model, but remainers refuse to accept it because it goes against their preferred, proven to be nonsense 'gravity' model.

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

There are two different events referred to. The first is that of the 2008 crisis. The second is concerning the impact of Brexit. Now go back and read the article more carefully.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/05/bank-england-admits-michael-fish-moment-dire-brexit-predictions/amp/

 

"He said: “We had foreseen a sharper slowdown in the economy than has happened, in common with almost every other mainstream macro forecaster. Why has that been the case? We need look no further than the behaviour of the British consumer, the British housing market.

“If you look at how the consumer performed during the course of the last year it’s almost as though the referendum had not taken place. In terms of the real things like pay and jobs not very much happened during the course of last year. It’s pretty much business as usual. The spending power in people’s pockets was not materially dented.”

 

[oldhippy]

1 hour ago, bert bloggs said:

Nobody wants to advertise with them as so very few people read the it.

Do make up your mind please!

Either claim that they are irrelevant and have hardly any readers.

Or accuse them of spreading fake news.

So, what will it be?

[oldhippy]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

As much as I want to see the Grauniad survive and prosper, those financial results can't be that good because they're still begging readers for money.

It was explained before, that quality newspapers either hide behind a pay wall, or ask (not: beg) for donations.

Would you prefer a couple of boobs on page 2, to boost sales?

[persimmon]

People with overseas or Ftse 100  investments   are probably not too worried about a hard Brexit,in fact,many may be thinking " bring it on " ....as the fall in Sterling should be a positive factor.As regards the negotiations I think Mrs. May will be willing to agree to almost anything just to get an agreement,because she knows that Corbyn and marxist friends are waiting in the wings.

[dick dasterdly]

9 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

Do make up your mind please!

Either claim that they are irrelevant and have hardly any readers.

Or accuse them of spreading fake news.

So, what will it be?

The Guardian was my 'paper of choice back in the UK.

 

Unfortunately it's now as aggressively 'remain' as the Telegraph is 'leave' - which is great for those that are interested in extremely biased opinions, but (mostly) a waste of time and effort for those that prefer facts and unbiased opinions.