BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

Well I can vouch for hospitals not having enough beds.

I’m in for emergency surgery and 10 hours in I’ve not been able to have a bed yet.

Sorry to hear that.
Best of British to you. (In keeping with the spirit of the thread)

coopster_the_1st

pblakeney said:

Boris Coopster will claim fake news no doubt..

I have no doubt his operation is real. Having experienced Rick it is easy to see how a lobotomy can be judged to be an emergency.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Well I can vouch for hospitals not having enough beds.

I’m in for emergency surgery and 10 hours in I’ve not been able to have a bed yet.

Best of luck RC.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Does our Dear Leader need to get approval from anyone else for the agreement that comes in on 1st Jan? I understand that the EU negotiators need to get formal approval from the European Council and the European Parliament.

What agreement comes in (or came in if that's the date)?

1st Jan - when the withdrawal agreement transition period has run out. Who needs to agree to it on the UK side? Just the person who signs it, or does anyone else have to agree to it?

OK - you mean 1 Jan 2021/22/23 depending on whether there's an extension. I think we've already signed up to that. The only decision is that by 30 June this year we need to elect whether we want a 1 year or 2 year extension or leave it at the current end date 31 Dec 2020.

I think the government can decide, but in any event even if parliamentary approval is needed, it will get through anyway. So in the end it doesn't really matter if he does or not.

That might be the only decision on timing, I think there's one or two decisions to be made still on what is in the long term agreement that is due to come in once the transition period runs out.

I take it you don't know either. I think it is presumptuous to think that the ERG is going to go along with anything regardless of what it is. That doesn't seem to be their way of working, especially when the alternative option is something they might want anyway. If parliament has no say, then it doesn't matter, he has the flexibility.

The ERG dont have the numbers to cause a problem so my original point still stands.

rjsterry

Get well soon, RC.

rick_chasey

Cheers guys. Am all dressed up for surgery. Now gotta hope they can fit me in tonight.

shortfall

Good luck with the op RC 👍

orraloon

Ok, on behalf of da communiteh, I'll ask the obvious Q. Wassup?

Emergency = serious. Crash? But you've been on the forum....

Best wishes btw

rjsterry

Someone was saying the other day that we couldn't possibly know what might have happened if Brexit had taken another route thus far.

Well, Bloomberg have compared our GDP growth to the rest of the G7. Bear in mind this is just the effect of the uncertainty over the past 3.5 years.




https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Someone was saying the other day that we couldn't possibly know what might have happened if Brexit had taken another route thus far.

Well, Bloomberg have compared our GDP growth to the rest of the G7. Bear in mind this is just the effect of the uncertainty over the past 3.5 years.




https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

I think you're still having problems grasping the difference between actual historical data and predicting the future...how many times do I need to explain this?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Someone was saying the other day that we couldn't possibly know what might have happened if Brexit had taken another route thus far.

Well, Bloomberg have compared our GDP growth to the rest of the G7. Bear in mind this is just the effect of the uncertainty over the past 3.5 years.




https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

I think you're still having problems grasping the difference between actual historical data and predicting the future...how many times do I need to explain this?

Nope. No problems at all. I've not said anything about predicting the future. The argument was that there was no way to know where we would have been had things been different. Key sentences from the article:

There is a strong historic correlation between the U.K. and G-7 countries. But they have been diverging since the vote to leave the EU, with the British economy now 3%

That strong historic correlation gives us a good idea of the alternative timeline.

ballysmate

Why do you think at the bottom of every sales pitch there is that phrase re past performance not being indicative of future results?

pblakeney

Precisely. The graph shows clear divergence from historical figures after the referendum. Which I assume to be the point. Just happens to be a divergence to the negative.

ballysmate

I see RC is in da house.
Op went well then?

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Someone was saying the other day that we couldn't possibly know what might have happened if Brexit had taken another route thus far.

Well, Bloomberg have compared our GDP growth to the rest of the G7. Bear in mind this is just the effect of the uncertainty over the past 3.5 years.




https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

I think you're still having problems grasping the difference between actual historical data and predicting the future...how many times do I need to explain this?

Nope. No problems at all. I've not said anything about predicting the future. The argument was that there was no way to know where we would have been had things been different. Key sentences from the article:

There is a strong historic correlation between the U.K. and G-7 countries. But they have been diverging since the vote to leave the EU, with the British economy now 3%

That strong historic correlation gives us a good idea of the alternative timeline.

Lots have people have come a cropped because they have extrapolated past trends on a graph into the future. As mentioned many times before, you will never know if the predictions turn out right.

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

Why do you think at the bottom of every sales pitch there is that phrase re past performance not being indicative of future results?

Exactly. If I could predict the future I wouldn't be here, I'd probably be on my own Caribbean Island. And I'm sure that RJS isn't in the Carribean either

rjsterry

Why do you keep talking about predictions??

This is analysis of our past GDP growth up to and after June 2016, relative to the rest of the G7. It's assessing the effect of the last three years of dithering, not predicting the future performance. The point is that the performance of the rest of the G7 provides a reasonable baseline for us to assess UK performance.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Why do you keep talking about predictions??

This is analysis of our past GDP growth up to and after June 2016, relative to the rest of the G7. It's assessing the effect of the last three years of dithering, not predicting the future performance. The point is that the performance of the rest of the G7 provides a reasonable baseline for us to assess UK performance.

- I am talking about what will happen in the future.
- You are talking about past performance up to the current time

Two different things

If you are then trying to use your past performance to predict future performance, Bally explained quite succinctly why that is often not an accurate method. Otherwise investment firms wouldn't have to use those disclaimers

rjsterry

I can see that; I'm asking why. It's pretty clear the article is talking about the past.

I'm well aware that every forecast comes with a probability less than 1.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

I can see that; I'm asking why. It's pretty clear the article is talking about the past.

I'm well aware that every forecast comes with a probability less than 1.

OK, but my point above was never about the past, only the future. I was pretty clear about that.

I only mentioned past performance when people started piping up about how past performance will show in however many years time what would have happened in the hypothetical scenario where we had never left, compared to the reality of leaving.

coopster_the_1st

rjsterry said:

Someone was saying the other day that we couldn't possibly know what might have happened if Brexit had taken another route thus far.

Well, Bloomberg have compared our GDP growth to the rest of the G7. Bear in mind this is just the effect of the uncertainty over the past 3.5 years.




https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

We know EU migration is lower so how much is that influencing GDP?

Perhaps they should do a GDP/Capita graph for a more accurate.

At least they have not been pathetic like pblakeley and tried to misrepresent it via currency fluctuations

tailwindhome

The agreement to restart the NIA

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/856998/2020-01-08_a_new_decade__a_new_approach.pdf

One interesting Brexit related paragraph

"The Government welcomes the consensus reached by all the parties recently on the
protections they wish to see for trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
under the Protocol. The Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Northern
Ireland remains an integral part of the UK internal market, in line with the clear
guarantee in the Protocol that Northern Ireland remains in the customs territory of the
United Kingdom. To address the issues raised by the parties, we will legislate to
guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK
internal market, and ensure that this legislation is in force for 1 January 2021. The
government will engage in detail with a restored Executive on measures to protect and
strengthen the UK internal market"

How?

rjsterry

Cakeism lives on.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Why do you keep talking about predictions??

This is analysis of our past GDP growth up to and after June 2016, relative to the rest of the G7. It's assessing the effect of the last three years of dithering, not predicting the future performance. The point is that the performance of the rest of the G7 provides a reasonable baseline for us to assess UK performance.

As above, we are talking about 2 different things.

I mentioned the issues with predicting future performance. You made a separate point about performance to date.

Stevo_666

coopster_the_1st said:

At least they have not been pathetic like pblakeley and tried to misrepresent it via currency fluctuations

Not sure what was worse, the initial mis-representation or the subsequent attempts to justify it.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

I can see that; I'm asking why. It's pretty clear the article is talking about the past.

I'm well aware that every forecast comes with a probability less than 1.

You have been dragged into an argument about whether economic modelling/forecasting exists.

You know you are correct so just ignore them.

I have seen numbers of that magnitude suggested elsewhere so it seems plausible.

Staggering to think of the lengths a Govt would go to in normal circumstances to increase GDP by 1%pa.

It should also be noted that the shortfall is expected to revert to 0.5%pa

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

I can see that; I'm asking why. It's pretty clear the article is talking about the past.

I'm well aware that every forecast comes with a probability less than 1.

You have been dragged into an argument about whether economic modelling/forecasting exists.

You know you are correct so just ignore them.

I have seen numbers of that magnitude suggested elsewhere so it seems plausible.

Staggering to think of the lengths a Govt would go to in normal circumstances to increase GDP by 1%pa.

It should also be noted that the shortfall is expected to revert to 0.5%pa

No, he made a different point from mine. But it initially appeared to be in response to mine, thereby confusing the issue.

Bit of a pointless argument anyway as we are laving regardless and its all a bit hypothetical.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

Bit of a pointless argument anyway as we are laving regardless and its all a bit hypothetical.

It doesn't strike me as 'hypothetical' to want to consider whether a decision was a sensible one, and the only way of doing that is by assessing possible/probable outcomes for different scenarios. After all, looking at historical choices and seeing how they worked out prevents one from making the same poor choices again. I'm guessing that in your line of business, you do a fair amount of financial modelling, which, (again, I'm guessing), is based on reviewing historical data, and then making your best guesses based on how previous decisions panned out.

You give the impression of wanting for there to be no baseline from which anyone will be allowed to claim that this was a poor choice, if things do go pear-shaped.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Bit of a pointless argument anyway as we are laving regardless and its all a bit hypothetical.

😁 I'm sure you take the same approach at work. No point reviewing last year's figures: it's all in the past. And forecasts can't be relied upon: you just have to live in the moment.

rick_chasey

Finally had the op late last night after it was pushed back 8 times.