UK Quarter 3 2016 GDP +0.5%

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But anyway.... .

Good grief....

So now they've given this assurance on tariffs to the whole of the car industry???:eek:

No wonder Theresa May had to refuse a single extra penny to the NHS despite the Brexiteers promises of vast extra funding - there'll be nothing left after she reimburses British Business for their losses after Brexit!

A_Medium_Size_Jock

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Good grief....

So now they've given this assurance on tariffs to the whole of the car industry???:eek:

No wonder Theresa May had to refuse a single extra penny to the NHS despite the Brexiteers promises of vast extra funding - there'll be nothing left after she reimburses British Business for their losses after Brexit!

Oh nice try with the "spin" there Hamish ................. but WRONG!
Colin Lawther very clearly says "No, there is no offer of exchange".
Listen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37790770


That's not to say there may not be "incentives" for Nissan here - but does anyone honestly believe that ANY country would not do likewise?
Because if you think that, you are deluded.

Conrad

Masomnia wrote: »

I think the UK government is taking a calculated risk that there won't be tariffs on cars in and out of the country,

.

Exactly.


The day one argument Leavers gave. Can you imagine the uproar amongst citizens if deliberate harm is done to trade - citizens wont give 2 figs about the demands of Brussels technocrats, they care about real people with real jobs, not some lofty abstract political project

Thrugelmir

worldtraveller wrote: »

We were still in the EU when Carney, like Osborne, made his earlier, incorrect predictions about the UK economy post 'Brexit', including the BOE economists who got it so wrong about Q3 growth.

Why would Q3 growth be affected so suddenly. Not the way the world works. The real challenges lie ahead.

The_Last_Username

To all you mongers of doom I apologise now.
Because here is some more good news:

"Oct 27 British retail sales rebounded in October to grow at their fastest rate in over a year, after an end to unseasonably warm weather boosted demand for autumn clothing, an industry survey showed on Thursday.
The Confederation of British Industry's retail sales balance
surged to +21 from September's reading of -8, far outstripping economists' forecasts of a pick-up to -2."
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-economy-retail-idUKKCN12R15D


Despite the predictions of a generally gloomy nature, it seems that the great British public have not been scared into not spending their money.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Good grief....

So now they've given this assurance on tariffs to the whole of the car industry???:eek:

No wonder Theresa May had to refuse a single extra penny to the NHS despite the Brexiteers promises of vast extra funding - there'll be nothing left after she reimburses British Business for their losses after Brexit!

You are lurching from extreme to extreme. First relying on reports which aren't the full truth to twist issues, and then, when confronted with the truth, going into kindergarten meltdown.

It's extraordinary to see possibly one of the most optimistic on the board over the years look for any shred of material which fits your view to downplay the UK. But it's poor to see you throw everything you have ever said out of the window and now state the complete opposite, based on your dislike of the referendum result.

Who'd have thunk a year back that you would be selectively quoting guardian material?! Selectively quoting guardian material to make it sound more extreme, and using that to back up the case you put forward.

Worried about the plight of the people on lower wages. Worried about their living standards. Worried they may not be able to afford food....this, from the person supporting every benefit cut thats ever been mentioned!!

Extraordinary turnaround.

worldtraveller

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why would Q3 growth be affected so suddenly. Not the way the world works. The real challenges lie ahead.

IMHO, Fraser Nelson sums that up well HERE in the The Spectator today and points a finger, as I often do, at the out of touch, ivory-towered, pointless, economist & analyst clowns, who get it so completely wrong, pretty much all the time, and have done so for years.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

worldtraveller wrote: »

IMHO, Fraser Nelson sums that up well

Och away...

The nonsense you lot spout to rationalise your temporary reprieve from the dire consequences of your actions is little short of delusional sometimes.

The Treasury study he references assumed that, as announced by Cameron before the referendum, article 50 would be implemented immediately.

It also was a baseline that assumed no cuts to interest rates to stimulate a sugar rush of consumer spending or £100bn+ in additional QE.

But as article 50 hasn't been triggered, and consumer spending got a jolt that would make a toddler on a red bull IV drip look sedate, from slashed interest rates and printy printy - it's a surprise to precisely nobody with a brain that the forecast hasn't (yet) come to pass.

If May triggers article 50 and negotiates to stay in the single market then problem solved - the forecast will be invalid because nothing will have changed - if she triggers Article 50 and takes us out of the single market then the economy will tank quicker than UKIP's last leader lasted in office.:cool:

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Och away...

The nonsense you lot spout to rationalise your temporary reprieve from the dire consequences of your actions is little short of delusional sometimes.

The Treasury study he references assumed that, as announced by Cameron before the referendum, article 50 would be implemented immediately.

It also was a baseline that assumed no cuts to interest rates to stimulate a sugar rush of consumer spending or £100bn+ in additional QE.

But as article 50 hasn't been triggered, and consumer spending got a jolt that would make a toddler on a red bull IV drip look sedate, from slashed interest rates and printy printy - it's a surprise to precisely nobody with a brain that the forecast hasn't (yet) come to pass.

If May triggers article 50 and negotiates to stay in the single market then problem solved - the forecast will be invalid because nothing will have changed - if she triggers Article 50 and takes us out of the single market then the economy will tank quicker than UKIP's last leader lasted in office.:cool:

Who do you suggest they listen to?

Would it be you, or whoever inspired you to make that audacious prediction of 1.7m repossessions and a crash worse than the 2008 global financial crisis?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Och away...

The nonsense you lot spout to rationalise your temporary reprieve from the dire consequences of your actions is little short of delusional sometimes.

The Treasury study he references assumed that, as announced by Cameron before the referendum, article 50 would be implemented immediately.

It also was a baseline that assumed no cuts to interest rates to stimulate a sugar rush of consumer spending or £100bn+ in additional QE.

But as article 50 hasn't been triggered, and consumer spending got a jolt that would make a toddler on a red bull IV drip look sedate, from slashed interest rates and printy printy - it's a surprise to precisely nobody with a brain that the forecast hasn't (yet) come to pass.

If May triggers article 50 and negotiates to stay in the single market then problem solved - the forecast will be invalid because nothing will have changed - if she triggers Article 50 and takes us out of the single market then the economy will tank quicker than UKIP's last leader lasted in office.:cool:

Errr

Just a point, but Cameron could have implemented Article 50 straight away. The treasury were simply pedaling scare tactics.

It was never going to be the case that Cameron would have immediately invoked article 50 as that would have been absolutely ridiculous.

Second point...the treasury, like the rest of us, would have known that the BOE would likely reduce interest rates. They stated so! Can hardly state the treasury didn't know when the BOE stated publically it was a high possibility!

What we should be looking at here is the abuse of the treasury, used as a springboard to spread panic...as many of us stated, but some seemed to be hoodwinked by.