The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Buried in the text (the text is that wordy stuff below the headline).

The OECD, which had previously predicted “immediate” uncertainty after a Brexit vote, has today also upgraded to 1.8pc for this year, saying instead that the pain will be felt next year (it predicts 0.9pc growth).

<laugh>
 
Somebody losing 50% of £100 is far more affected than somebody losing 1% of £10 billion
But he wasn't saying we would lose a percentage of our exports he was saying what our exports were to the EU. Are you saying that we will lose ALL our exports to the EU? If not, why are you talking about losing? I'm just pointing out that you have to use percentages that are relevant. Like you have to use facts that are relevant. Remoaners don't seem to do that.
 
What if the person who lost 50% of his £100 is a millionaire?

You have not really thought out your answer have you.

Try again...
It's you who hasn't thought it through. No need to assume anyone has more than the initial sums given. If someone is a millionaire then they clearly don't have only £100
 
But he wasn't saying we would lose a percentage of our exports he was saying what our exports were to the EU. Are you saying that we will lose ALL our exports to the EU? If not, why are you talking about losing? I'm just pointing out that you have to use percentages that are relevant. Like you have to use facts that are relevant. Remoaners don't seem to do that.

I don't think this guy understands risk analysis. It's not what you will lose, it's how much risk those potential loses represent to your business.
The difference between 7% of your business and 44% of your business is very relevant.
 
I don't think this guy understands risk analysis. It's not what you will lose, it's how much risk those potential loses represent to your business.
The difference between 7% of your business and 44% of your business is very relevant.
Don't bother mate. He's a moron who thinks he's a genius. There's a reason why he's a 65 year old book keeper working out of a garage. KPMG never made the call to ask him to become a Partner.
 
I don't think this guy understands risk analysis. It's not what you will lose, it's how much risk those potential loses represent to your business.
The difference between 7% of your business and 44% of your business is very relevant.

He's a simplistic moron mate. He's working on the premise that because in capital terms we import more than we export, that we 'win' under a tariff system.

But can't grasp the simple economic reality of the risk factor, given that the thick end of half of our goods are exported to the EU.

There's also the fact than many of the major EU exporters to the UK have plants in other parts of the World. So they could wait for us to negotiate a free trade agreement with any number of countries and simply move production of all RHD cars for example to that plant and import here directly, thus avoiding any tariff.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: steveninaster1
Status
Not open for further replies.