The EU debate - Part III

So killing 2 people with a baseball bat is not worthy of a life sentence then?.....

 

No problem, mate. It's a forum.

That's exactly my point. There are murders, and then real murdering ****s, like the piece of **** you mentioned....

 

In those circumstances I don't think so, assuming a relatively clean record beforehand.

 

They all but admitted that they had, right after the footage ended, "Of course this all depends on what kind of Brexit.....yada yada....."
So it looks like that is exactly what they have done.

 

As has been said, it's what in France is called a 'crime passionnel'.

If that happened to you, would you want to be lumped into the same category as child rapists and murderers, etc?..

 

The economy will suffer whatever kind of Brexit there eventually is. But, yes, a so called hard Brexit would hit it harder.

They said 'up to' 2.4% off GDP.

 

I think the safest prediction is that it's going to be very expensive as opposed to very profitable.

But a lot of people already knew that.

Our grandchildren will thank us when the Empire has been re-established in 60 years time.

 

No,i'd prefer a 5star hotel.Come the end of the day i've taken 2 lives,i should expect the very worse.

 

The OBR produce forecasts before the budget and Autumn statements every year, the Chancellor has to use forecasts as a base for his strategy.

The stats they came up with are that in 2017 we'll see GDP growth of 1.4% - down from the pre-Brexit vote forecast of 2.2%, but that by 2019 we'll be back at 2.1% growth. In my opinion these figures are very optimistic and would appear to be based on a 'soft Brexit', as even at 1.4% that's still higher than the forecasts for most of Europe and on a par with Germany. So these weren't 'doom mongering' numbers, far from it and my view is shared by Morgan Stanley http://uk.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-brexit-forecasts-autumn-statement-2016-11

 

So you concede your intial claim was false.

If you're scratching at that as an atempt to claim you answered the question posted, rather than the one you tried to invent, it speaks volumes.

This complex you clearly have doesn't help your arguments. Quite the oposite in fact.

 

Then we disagree...

 

I agree, the circumstances need taking into account, as does the likelihood of reoffending or rehabilitation.

 

Seriously, can you ****ing read?

I've answered your question in detail.

It's hardly a surprise that you seemingly can't grasp what I'm saying though, given that you cited the US as a supposed example of a country who had access to the single market. You haven't got a ****ing clue on this subject, and have proved it throughout this entire debate, so engaging with you further on it, is a complete waste of my time.

 

It's a waste of time largely because, as you conceded, you keep trying to rephrase the question and argue views of your own invention.

It's a bad habit of yours and doesn't add much to the forum.

 

That's why there's no point telling anybody about a "plan". As soon as we start negotiating things will be changing all the time. The best we can do is ask for everything and see what we can get.
I agree with you about forecasts though. They have to be done so people understand what effects certain events would have on things but actuals never turn out as planned because there are unlimited variables.

 

Just one in a long list of people I have seen who have said

"We are ****ed, this link says so....."
"We'll be fine.....this link says so....."
"No, because this bank/financial institution/celebrity/reality TV "Star" reckons this......"

This isn't helped by the fact that almost every single so called "Expert" I have seen on the news, lately, talking about literally anything has been a million per cent wrong and made to look a complete melt when events actually transpire.

Oh Tories and Labour will be neck and neck

No way Leave will win.

Trump? Pfft. Clinton has this in the bag.


Also, would these financial institutions be the same ones that plunged the world into a global economic crisis 8 years ago?
Didn't ****ing predict that one did they?

 

You've still not told me what these options are?

It seems that you've forgotten, or haven't got a clue more like

Go bore someone else I'm done with replying to your tedious inanity

 

The OBR could be wrong, things could turn out to be better or far worse, that doesn't alter the simple fact that they produce these forecasts for the Govt before every financial statement.

It's easy to shout, "what the **** do they know" without actually challenging the numbers they've come up with. Why do you think they're doom mongering figures exactly? They're showing a 1.4% growth level at the worst point - that being next year, how's that a doomsday scenario? If they'd have predicted negative growth i.e. a full blown recession, then the numbers would have been frightening, but they didn't.

The reason even these relatively small downgrades in growth have such a dramatic effect on our our borrowings, is largely due to the size of the debt we've already racked up - that the Tories have grown by £600BN in the last 6 years. We're now borrowing at 90% of GDP.

 

This is from the IFS. They have no axes to grind and are usually pretty accurate...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-dreadful-decade-of-wage-stagnation-ifs-says

 

I read a article from Chote, who heads up the OBR, and it was comical in the way he dismisses their forecasting when wrong.
It was along the lines of "we can't be expected to get it right".