Was Britos our best brexit tackler? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/14/brexit-tackle-politics-children-football
I’m just pointing out that I would be about as surprised by that as I would if Couts’ board turned out to be a ‘load of baguette living euro lovers’. See. The answer to that one literally wrote itself.
Maybe Goldman aren’t so bad. The following is taken from the same report… “The strength of the UK economy free of EU regulations is only now starting to show with the economy outperforming that of Germany and Italy” So Goldman basically confirming the very clear message regarding Brexit. Yes, it will have a negative initial effect. But it will get better. IIRC, speculation was that recovery could take five to ten years. So ahead of the curve it would seem. It appears that the Goldman report is simply recognising that happening. Perhaps it is just the usual remoaner media misrepresenting the overall report, rather than Goldman themselves. The spin is around the “5% better off” guff. That is not 5% of growth, but 5% of the improvement, in comparison to other EU countries, some of whom we are out-performing, which, statistically is insignificant. Like 5% of 5% (0.25%, which is three Australia deals). So it’s another fuss about very little.
Britain is in recession. Don't worry, folks, it's only a technical recession. The party of growth is on top of things. But, hey, we're better than Germany and, checks notes, Italy, a country that endured 20 years of Berlusconi and is effectively two different countries economically (the relatively prosperous north and the much poorer south). This whole, 'yes, but Europe' argument just suggests to me the people who use it haven't travelled round much of Europe lately. From my recent experience of towns, cities and rural areas in Belgium, France, Italy, even Spain, they are in much, much better nick than Britain. Yes, there are issues, but Britain is now both expensive and poor. I wandered round St Albans earlier this week, one of the wealthiest cities in Britain, with my eyes wide open. Bits of it have just evaporated. Empty shops just left. No sign of anything new coming to replace them. We've become immune to erosion that's going on all around us. But, hey, someone will be along shortly to compare St Albans to the banlieue of Marseille and say they're both the same. Edit: Germany is the third largest economy in the world by GDP. The average German is 20% better off than the average Brit.
If you think bits of St Albans are disappearing you should try Halesowen or Cradley Heath. Getting by on a shoestring. But hey, sOvReIgNtY.
You are making Brexit the issue. It is amazing then that you say a 'but Europe', or more specifically 'but EU', argument, based on their own EU data, being applied in response is something that confuses you. Should we be citing conditions in down town San Francisco? I travel around Britain, and I am not hearing anyone complain about Brexit, nor am I seeing any greater demise in our cities than in anywhere else (though that, I suspect, is more to do with councils refusing to repurpose the high streets in the face of the internet). A relative of mine has been working in Paris recently, and where he stayed there was a burned out car sitting around and the landscape appeared post apocalyptic. Give me a gew more stories and I am sure I will find parallels. If pepple are going to make a pro-EU argument (to which I have not problem) then it is only fair that they expect, rather than complain about, the fact that there is more than one side to the story. Fair's fair.
You need to have a look at GDP per capita. Really grim reading. Lower than 2019 (while EU +3%, USA +6%)
Don’t muddy the waters with yer pesky facts. There was a burnt out car in Paris. That’s all you need to know.
Are you sure that quote is from the Goldman Sachs report? The only thing I can find that matches that quote is this... Critics say the Goldman Sachs analysis fails to properly assess the extent to which Britain’s economy has been affected by both the pandemic and the energy crisis following Russia’s invasion on Ukraine. They say the strength of the UK economy freed from EU regulations is only latterly starting to show with the economy outperforming that of Germany and Italy. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...trade-and-investment-since-brexit/ar-BB1iazhS I hope you are not misrepresenting the overall report like that pesky remoaner media.
Well, that is pretty cheeky given you are misrepresenting your own source! You are quoting commentary about the report, so neither a quote from the original, nor the report itself, but an opininion in a potentially biased publication. So no surprise really that you couldn't find the quote. IF the article you are quoting has any bias in it, it obviously will not make the positive reference. My quote is from a pro EU article, in an Irish publication that was otherwise berating Brexit. It was in the very last paragraph and it claimed to be a direct quote from the report. A last vestige of balanced journalism perhaps? https://businessplus.ie/economy-2/uks-economy-worse-off/ Ask yourself if others are trying to misinform you. People are quick to suggest that of me, even when the deceit is staring them in the face. Note also that the op quote on this subject ends its quotation marks before blaming Brexit, making it pretty clear that such was an editorial opinion and not the sole conclusion of the original report. You can tell a lot about media lies based on their use of quotation marks. Thankfully there is still the possibility of repercussions if you misrepresent what another party says. Ignore them at your own peril. You should, perhaps, learn to spot them before pointing a finger at others. Don’t accept what you are told without critical analysis! That goes for all of us.
Thanks for replying. Every other article I have read either attributes that quote to critics of the report or doesn't mention it at all. Anyway, no point arguing over secondary sources. Show me where that quote is in the original report and I will happily concede the point. I am always happy to admit I was wrong.
Show me where all the rest of it is IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT and I will happily show you my quote. Remember too that you were quoting an opinion, wheras I provided an article that attributed the quote to the original report, as well as commenting on the same quotes that people on here damned Brexit with. I am always happy to admit I was right.
Sorry, my reply seems to have been lost while trying to quote. Here it is. It is you that made the claim, not me. I couldn't care less what the Goldman Sachs report says. My only concern was your claim. I replied to your original post asking if you were sure that quote was from the report. You made the claim, I challenged the claim. It is up to you to provide evidence to support your claim. This sounds awfully like deflection to be honest. Thanks for your helpful advice about the use of quotation marks in news articles. I was aware of this. In fact it is what first alerted me to the fact that your claim that "the following was taken from the same report" may not be true. These quotes are from the article you provided to support your claim. Note the quotation marks. "The evidence points to a significant long-run output cost of Brexit," they wrote. "The UK has significantly underperformed other advanced economies since the 2016 EU referendum." It warned that the post-Brexit change in migration "has reduced the elasticity of labour supply in the UK, contributing to the post-pandemic surge in inflation". "As other studies have noted, the UK's goods trade with the rest of the world may also have suffered from spillover effects related to changing supply chains." However, when we get to your claim the quotation marks are omitted. Critics say the Goldman Sachs analysis fails to properly assess the extent to which the UK economy has been affected by the pandemic and the energy crisis following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The strength of the UK economy free of EU regulations is only now starting to show with the economy outperforming that of Germany and Italy, the report says. New government trade deals may help mitigate the costs of Brexit, the report says. But it adds that estimates suggest the benefits from the new deals are likely to be small. Again, I have made no claim about the Goldman Sachs report. I have little to no faith in what an investment bank says anyway and I am not interested in defending any claims they may or may not have made. Other people can do that if they wish. Let's try and stay focused. I'm only interested in what you said. You know, you could have put this to bed by just supporting your claim and showing me the quote in the original report. I would have apologised and admitted I was wrong. Instead, what we have now is you asking me to "show me where all the rest of it is IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT and I will happily show you my quote". There is no burden of proof on me here as I haven't made a claim, I simply queried your assertion that the quote you used was "taken from the same report" As I said previously, this is just a deflection technique. I'm sure that 'you are always happy to admit you were right', It seems to be the opposite which is problematic.
There may have been a redefinition of the terms ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ involved here which you have clearly missed.
Was to be expected. Only you guys were predicting 5-10% behind the EU. Brexit, by the same measure, was worse for Germany though. Are the figures you are quoting the ones positively upgraded after it turned out the First three years reported were BS? You made the same argument, I believe, about a year ago. I am not sure if clinging to failed talking points is a Good look for the remain argument.
It would have been a lot easier for you to just say, 'Oh, did they say that as well? I still don't think it justifies leaving the EU." Which I would have considered an excellent and fair response, even though I do not agree with it. UEA will tell you that I may have even given you a like for disagreeing with me in a civil manmer. I am sorry, but I think the misunderstanding is yours. I am talking about bias, and have not questioned the quotations being made by all the pubications, only that they were being made selectively, and appeared to deminstrate bias in their opinions. You, rather ingenuously I thought, asked me to quote directly from the report, whilst continuing to rely on, firstly, opinions of potentially biased editorials, and secondly, from exactly the same type of quote you seem to imply is unacceptable if I use it. You came into this conversation questioning the veracity of my quote, qoting editorial opinion as your cause for concern. Please do not now change what uou meant to mean something else. I ask you to read your OP on the subject of my quote, and then see if what you posted above has been more closely adhered to by yourself or myself. Personally, I believe I have made a consistant argument on the subject, whilst I feel that you have gone from asking for some verification of my quote (which I gave you to a standard above that which you originally used to question it) to now saying attacking the fact yhat I did it, whilst refusing to accept my qupte as of a standard fit to equal yours, even though you are now quoting from the same source as me!!
My reply to your post was..."Are you sure that quote is from the Goldman Sachs report?" Whereas you would have preferred "Oh, did they say that as well?" Er, ok. Not sure why I should have said the second part. I was simply asking "Are you sure that quote is from the Goldman Sachs report?" Oops, sorry "Oh, did they say that as well?" Maybe you can see my confusion, when you said "The following is taken from the same report" I thought you meant that the following was taken from the same report. Silly me. As I said before it really is very simple, forget secondary sources. (I'm sure you would agree that media is not to be trusted anyway.) You used that quote, which you claim is from the same report, to conclude this. This is why I asked you "Are you sure that quote is from the Goldman Sachs report?" Dang, did it again, sorry. "Oh, did they say that as well" On the whole 'wouldn't it have been easier' vibe, wouldn't it just have been easier to answer the original question? Are you sure that quote is from the Goldman Sachs report? (Sorry, but I prefer the question that way) As far as I can recall, I have never posted in the politics section before. I think I am beginning to realise why. I mainly come here for the football and sometimes browse the other sections. I occasionally like other people's posts, but that is as far as my engagement goes. If I could have voted in the referendum, I would have voted remain and I still would. I tend not to engage with arguments about Brexit because I really struggle with the loss of friendships and division in my family about it. My reasons for wishing to vote remain were pretty personal, you could say selfish perhaps, so I don't expect them to be at all persuasive when talking to people who voted the other way. It has negatively affected my family, my business and my finances but I'm 'sucking it up'. BTW, please stop using the word 'remoaner' it just encourages further division and adds nothing to the discussion. I know you'll come back with remainers do the same, and you'd be right, I don't like it either, but I'm writing to you atm. I do enjoy listening to the other side of the arguments so, while I disagree with pretty much everything you say, I'm glad you're here making the arguments. I'm going to leave it there and not post here again. We are apparently in the middle of a relegation scrap so I'll direct my energies there. I will return to my lurking shadows. Feel free to have the last word and have a nice day.
I see you've run into our resident troll. Just put him on ignore and I assure you, this section is a lot more pleasant. I hope you don't let one person dissuade you.
I think you are being unnecessarily absurd in challenging my quote, which is an actual quote, when you are using editorial opinion as your evidence against me. Again. I have not challenged the information you have quoted to me, certainly not the contents quoted frpm the report, so I don't know why you keep quoting them at me. I am only highlighting what I see as editorial bias and selective useage. Which you appear to accentuate every time you quote them. The silliest bit is that you are quoting quotes and opinions at me, and then complaining that me quoting a quote at you is not good enough. I think that and reasonable person can see where, I believe, you are getting it wrong.
OBR confirm what we can all feel. Brexit is making us all worse off and there is no end to it... https://twitter.com/OBR_UK/status/1765378763406156193?t=1xOc4RibUd-Shbg2wnb7fw&s=19
Labour continuing to make it as clear as they can - rightly in my view, to avoid being sucked into a no-win debate on friendly Tory turf - that rejoining the EU isn't on the agenda any time soon. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-dismisses-prospect-of-uk-rejoining-eu-labour
Why bother with a referendum? Surely we have a "sovereign parliament"? No point in giving the spivs, charlatans, right wing media barons, et al (not to mention the Russians & Chinese), the chance to corrupt our democratic process (again). Sure they will all squeal, but is there a region, age cohort or industry sector, that doesn't realise that Brexit was a total con?
There probably isn’t, but a sizeable proportion of the population feels attachment to their vote for it, to the point of religious fervour. The last thing we need is to give them a rallying call and breathe new life into it. Let Brexit die by a thousand blows.
I’ve no idea which way all these people voted on Brexit but it’s curious they’re all in the same age bracket, all unaware of the change around passport validity in the EU and all whining about how unfair it is and must be someone else’s fault: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68677938
So an “age bracket” spans from 57 to 79? Mrs K was nearly caught by this and I would defy you to find a more ardent Remainer.
Oh man. I had countless conversations with people of a certain age who were absolutely convinced stuff like this wouldn't happen. For example, they were convinced that it would remain as cheap and easy to send gifts in and out of the EU – only in one case finding that sending stuff to their nephew in Europe now costs a fortune and they've been asked not to bother because the collection charges are too high. When I pointed out ages ago our business has seen EU sales drop by 100% to nil because the juice is no longer worth the squeeze they refused to think why it might be. They also fail to understand that selling stuff to customers abroad is good for the UK. If every SME just stops that's a heck of a lot of money no longer coming into the country. Now they're experiencing the cost and inconvenience when it comes to their holidays, holiday insurance, cost of hiring a car abroad etc, they still try to deny it's an issue. Then they're mystified that their phone stops working properly and they can't use the map anymore without paying more money. That's right, Brian and Sheila, roaming costs were a pain in the behind weren't they! And, of course, this demographic is the first one to yell that when they were young foreign travel was a luxury or that people should be able to get through a fortnight's holiday without needing their phones. Oh well, all these things are trivial and will be dismissed by the usual suspects who have no clue, or real world experience, of how they are they tip of a very costly iceberg. Still, we got our freedom back – to pollute rivers, elevate party donors to the unelected House of Lords etc etc etc. None so foolish as those who do not see. Britain is now an expensive, insular, poor country. It's happened incredibly quickly, really. (Someone will be along to say that food prices in Germany are very high and that they saw some graffiti in France in a minute, or to point out that overseas trade is up, which it may be in purely monetary terms but that means nothing when it is being outstripped so rampantly by inflation. Ho hum).
What's that got to do with the price of fish? The demographic that voted for Brexit is very clear. I am (just about) in it too but I manage to not jerk my knee every time someone suggests it was my age group that voted for it.
