Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

gfplux

always_sunny wrote: »

No, but there is evidence that a transitional deal is sought by the UK.
So it is something that will be discussed at some stage unless you believe it was announced just to confuse the EU?

The number of British talking heads that have mentioned a transition period is just too many to mention.
This unilateral talking is bizarre. Who is Britains negotiated, David Davis of Uncle Tom Cobley and his mates.
And.... to deny that a transition period has not been slapped on the imaginary negotiating table like a wet kipper is laughable.

Sorry to go but I am off to the beach.

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Just because you refuse to accept a complete and honest answer does not mean this answer has not been given.

If you will not accept that reply perhaps, say, because your pro-EU bias contains a refusal that alternative viable "citations" exist, then that may be a better answer than trying to pretend that the answer has not been given.

OK. I'll accept your answer.

Simply, I have nowhere said that one PwC example is to be heeded and another ignored.
Show me where I say this?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72883114&postcount=1767

Where you're trying to imply the view of Andrew Sentence doesn't count because he's not longer part of a committee.

You've also slagged them off several times (I've not got the patience to go back that far), it's been alluded to in this last few pages.

But when they say something that fits your view you're happy to claim that they know more than most. Again, I've no interest in going back that far, you know what you said.


Now, I know you'll say "See! I didn't say that some sources are good and others bad! I was right!" but we know what your meaning was.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

OK. I'll accept your answer.



http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72883114&postcount=1767

Where you're trying to imply the view of Andrew Sentence doesn't count because he's not longer part of a committee.

You've also slagged them off several times (I've not got the patience to go back that far), it's been alluded to in this last few pages.

But when they say something that fits your view you're happy to claim that they know more than most. Again, I've no interest in going back that far, you know what you said.


Now, I know you'll say "See! I didn't say that some sources are good and others bad! I was right!" but we know what your meaning was.

Wrong.
On multiple counts, too:

*""Where you're trying to imply the view of Andrew Sentence doesn't count because he's not longer part of a committee.
No.
Rather from that post, that his opinion may be unreliable.
The link showed that his opinion was not in that instance relied-upon by those at the BoE: "... again failed to win backing for an increase".

* "You've also slagged them off several times (I've not got the patience to go back that far), it's been alluded to in this last few pages. "
No.
I have previously suggested that any forecast is just that, a forecast. As such until evidence proves or disproves such forecasts they remain just that; a forecast. A guide only; a possibility.
Nowhere have I "slagged them off" - if I had I am sure someone would have gleefully posted the evidence.

*"But when they say something that fits your view you're happy to claim that they know more than most."
No.
You are deliberately misinterpreting what has previously been posted which was that I would rather trust and/or believe the forecast of an acknowledged source that that of a faceless internet forum poster.

*"Now, I know you'll say "See! I didn't say that some sources are good and others bad! I was right!" but we know what your meaning was."
No, wrong as shown above.
As I repeat, firstly no source can always be right or always be wrong.
Secondly there is almost always a variety of differing information from differing sources.
If we are talking about forecasts, there can be no right and wrong or good and bad until evidence relating to such forecasts comes to light.
Forecasts may be far-fetched or improbable; they may be likely or probable but none can be proven until or unless evidence via hard fact supports their claims.

Until the difference between forecast and fact is understood there can be no wonder that my intent is misinterpreted.
Judging by the appreciation given to your misinterpretations you are not alone in your misunderstanding.

Herzlos

Yeah I give up

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Herzlos wrote: »

Yeah I give up

So you should when you cannot substantiate your claims.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I have nowhere said that one PwC example is to be heeded and another ignored.
Show me where I say this?

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

Trumps approval rating slips further down.
Which has as much to do with Brexit as Macrons position in the polls. Let's not even bother to talk about how popular the Prime Minister of Britain is!

Obama promised much reform yet failed to deliver.

If politicians had to be liked on a daily basis to remain in post. There wouldn't be any left.

Fortunately they are made of sterner stuff than many people.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If politicians had to be liked on a daily basis to remain in post. There wouldn't be any left.

There's not being liked and there's the lowest approval rating of any modern president in history. 39%!

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

There's not being liked and there's the lowest approval rating of any modern president in history. 39%!

My point still stands. Not living in or being a citizen of the US I have no interest either.

Rinoa

mayonnaise wrote: »

UK households face sharpest squeeze in three years

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-consumers-idUKKBN1A900W

On a positive note, UK GDP growth is expected to soar by 50% in Q2 compared to Q1....

...from 0.2% to 0.3%.

IMF 2017 forecasts

Germany 1.8%
UK 1.7%
France 1.5%
Italy 1.3%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40697473

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

There's not being liked and there's the lowest approval rating of any modern president in history. 39%!

An US president with domestic problems is in more need of a positive projection abroad, IMO.

In a way, if Trump delivers on trade, perhaps even taking advantage of the UK needs, then he can sell this back home.

Who really knows how it will all pan out. It does feel like things change at an increasing rate nowadays though.