|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 7, 2023 11:25:48 GMT
What a war illegally enacted by an energy rich dictatorship has done against a food rich peaceful agricultural democracy, has rightly outraged the world.
Fuck Putin.
Bankrupt his dictatorship.
Destroy his army.
Exterminate his mercenaries.
Push his cronies to the point of killing him.
"Et tu Brute ?" "Yes Putin, die you fucking cunt."
Short term economic hardship for the UK, in order to do the right thing for Ukraine, all for it.
Ukraine need our help against the invading Putin Nazis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 7, 2023 11:43:37 GMT
T he study says that we are 5% smaller because we had lower growth - so if the economy grew by 6.7% another 5% puts us on twice Germanys growth over the same time frame. Unbelievable. Maybe it is just your interpretation. You can't devalue the study by re-framing its conclusions -- well, you can try but you won't be successful. In any case; It is pointless comparing the UK's growth with that of Germany because, again, the study is not about growth rates but the size of the UK economy. Besides, the current UK economy would have to grow by an astronomical rate of over 65% in one year to match the size of Germany's economy. Now, that would be truly unbelievable! The comparison is between a factual UK economy (with Brexit) and a contra-factual UK economy (without Brexit). The study concludes that factual Britain's economy "was 5.5% smaller than it would have been had it remained inside the EU."It states that we would have grown by another 5.5% - what other interpretation is there?. So given that we know that we actually did grow by 6.7% then another 5.5% puts us over 12%. The only scenario in which we would not have grown by 12% is if the study is bollocks.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 7, 2023 11:53:09 GMT
A hypothetical UK that remained in the EU would have continued to have the problem of wage compression in the trucking industry and profound driver shortages.
It would have continued to have exacerbated problems in employment due to free movement of people and wage compression in unskilled labouring jobs.
There are no easy answers but nothing good came of our membership of the EU.
We are better off out.
We need to fix our country not fuck it up again.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 7, 2023 12:31:08 GMT
"Research by the Centre for European Reform (CER) in December showed that Britain’s economy was 5.5% smaller than it would have been had it remained inside the EU." Hmm - so had we remained in the EU, since 2016 we would have grown twice as fast as Germany - are you sure?   Those statistics weren't enough to discredit the 'Brexit has killed the economy' campaign. So, a counterfactual narrative was produced, and placed in it were flawed assumptions and methods; to bring out something that allows for the continuation of the 'Brexit has killed the economy' campaign. This narrative has been rebutted before where carefully selected dates and events are picked to make a counterfactual convenient to an agenda. It's not worth the paper it's written on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 8:17:31 GMT
Hmm - so had we remained in the EU, since 2016 we would have grown twice as fast as Germany - are you sure? Those statistics weren't enough to discredit the 'Brexit has killed the economy' campaign. So, a counterfactual narrative was produced, and placed in it were flawed assumptions and methods; to bring out something that allows for the continuation of the 'Brexit has killed the economy' campaign. This narrative has been rebutted before where carefully selected dates and events are picked to make a counterfactual convenient to an agenda. It's not worth the paper it's written on. (a) The CER study does not make comparison between UK economy and other EU economies. The CER study makes a comparison between two UK economies. One, a factual economy and the other a non or contra factual economy which assumes that the UK did not leave the EU. (b) The statistics you captioned show the growth rates. They do not show the shortfall, the gap, the deficit between the UK Brexit economy (factual) and the UK non-Brexit (contra factual). Remember: the shortfall; not the growth rates. (c) How are the counterfactual assumptions and methods flawed? (d) The report itself addresses the questions and Yes, the usual suspects tried to rebut the whole study -- unsuccessfully. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2023 8:25:25 GMT
(a) The CER study does not make comparison between UK economy and other EU economies. The CER study makes a comparison between two UK economies. One, a factual economy and the other a non or contra factual economy which assumes that the UK did not leave the EU. Which doesnt prevent anyone else putting their claims up against what really happenmed in comparison with other economies No - they show how much actual GDP growth there was over the time frame. between 2016 and 2022 we actually grew by 6.7%. If we had grown another 5.5% by staying in the EU (as this study claims) then total growth would have been 12.2% over that time frame. They are flawed when they become unbelievable - unless you really believe that the UK economy could have outpaced the German economy twice over. The usual suspects took it at face value - and ended up making themselves look silly. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 8, 2023 9:46:52 GMT
Those statistics weren't enough to discredit the 'Brexit has killed the economy' campaign. So, a counterfactual narrative was produced, and placed in it were flawed assumptions and methods; to bring out something that allows for the continuation of the 'Brexit has killed the economy' campaign. This narrative has been rebutted before where carefully selected dates and events are picked to make a counterfactual convenient to an agenda. It's not worth the paper it's written on. (a) The CER study does not make comparison between UK economy and other EU economies. The CER study makes a comparison between two UK economies. One, a factual economy and the other a non or contra factual economy which assumes that the UK did not leave the EU. (b) The statistics you captioned show the growth rates. They do not show the shortfall, the gap, the deficit between the UK Brexit economy (factual) and the UK non-Brexit (contra factual). Remember: the shortfall; not the growth rates. (c) How are the counterfactual assumptions and methods flawed? (d) The report itself addresses the questions and Yes, the usual suspects tried to rebut the whole study -- unsuccessfully. It's already been rebutted. It's old NEWS. If you believe it hasn't been rebutted successfully, you'd know about the flaws in assumptions and the cherry picked dates used to curate such a narrative around a dodgy doppelganger. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 10:35:15 GMT
(a) The CER study does not make comparison between UK economy and other EU economies. The CER study makes a comparison between two UK economies. One, a factual economy and the other a non or contra factual economy which assumes that the UK did not leave the EU. Which doesnt prevent anyone else putting their claims up against what really happenmed in comparison with other economies No - they show how much actual GDP growth there was over the time frame. between 2016 and 2022 we actually grew by 6.7%. If we had grown another 5.5% by staying in the EU (as this study claims) then total growth would have been 12.2% over that time frame. They are flawed when they become unbelievable - unless you really believe that the UK economy could have outpaced the German economy twice over. The usual suspects took it at face value - and ended up making themselves look silly. (a) You're talking about your right to misinterpret the study and post it here, of course. (b) The graph -- which you, yourself seem to have grabbed from the report and posted here -- already tells you that 5.5% is a shortfall. Very clear. The axis label reads: "UK shortfall in Q2 2022: 5.5% or £33 billion". Seriously.   (c) "They are flawed when they become unbelievable ..." -- So. How are they flawed? (d) By usual suspects I meant those who have run out of credibility but persist with their amusing habit of re-framing, deviating, deflecting, throwing in their alternative truths, reinterpreting then misinterpreting, deliberately misleading, misinforming and dis-informing in the name of BJ's Brexit. Like you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 10:39:10 GMT
(a) The CER study does not make comparison between UK economy and other EU economies. The CER study makes a comparison between two UK economies. One, a factual economy and the other a non or contra factual economy which assumes that the UK did not leave the EU. (b) The statistics you captioned show the growth rates. They do not show the shortfall, the gap, the deficit between the UK Brexit economy (factual) and the UK non-Brexit (contra factual). Remember: the shortfall; not the growth rates. (c) How are the counterfactual assumptions and methods flawed? (d) The report itself addresses the questions and Yes, the usual suspects tried to rebut the whole study -- unsuccessfully. It's already been rebutted. It's old NEWS. If you believe it hasn't been rebutted successfully, you'd know about the flaws in assumptions and the cherry picked dates used to curate such a narrative around a dodgy doppelganger. Stop flapping your gums that the assumptions are flawed and the doppelganger dodgy. How are they flawed and how is it dodgy are the questions you must answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2023 12:46:23 GMT
(a) You're talking about your right to misinterpret the study and post it here, of course. I have not misinterpreted anything - I am taking their claim at face value Yes I know - I already said that they claimed that GDP would be 5.5% larger than it currently is Easy - no attempt to explain why the UK Government would have grown twice as fast as Germany in the same time frame. As they didnt try to explain do you want to have a bash? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 13:25:10 GMT
(a) You're talking about your right to misinterpret the study and post it here, of course. I have not misinterpreted anything - I am taking their claim at face value Yes I know - I already said that they claimed that GDP would be 5.5% larger than it currently is Easy - no attempt to explain why the UK Government would have grown twice as fast as Germany in the same time frame. As they didnt try to explain do you want to have a bash? Of course, you are misinterpreting everything. The only question here is whether or not it is deliberate on your part. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2023 17:59:49 GMT
Of course, you are misinterpreting everything. The only question here is whether or not it is deliberate on your part. I'm misinterpreting their claim that had we remained in the EU the economy would now be 12% larger than in 2016 rather than just 6.7% it is now? LOL - I don't think so |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 18:19:26 GMT
Of course, you are misinterpreting everything. The only question here is whether or not it is deliberate on your part. I'm misinterpreting their claim that had we remained in the EU the economy would now be 12% larger than in 2016 rather than just 6.7% it is now? LOL - I don't think so But it's not their claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 8, 2023 18:25:42 GMT
I'm misinterpreting their claim that had we remained in the EU the economy would now be 12% larger than in 2016 rather than just 6.7% it is now? LOL - I don't think so But it's not their claim. It is on page 1 of their report - you have actually read the report haven't you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2023 18:44:48 GMT
But it's not their claim. It is on page 1 of their report - you have actually read the report haven't you? I have. Yes. |
|
