Maybe you should stick to the subject or start your own exchange rate thread?
No, don't bother because you are wrong
Last edited:
UK Energy policy lurches from incompetent to disastrous
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
No, don't bother because you are wrong
Sponsored Links
So when it is Brexit they are executing their responsibilities?
I'm not claiming that either set of claims is the absolute truth - I was pointing out that there is disagreement over the claim that nuclear is low carbon, and that that claim might not be as true as it appears.
Hence why I wrote "Hmmm" rather than "No it isn't".
Thank you for you clarification.
There are times when differing views can be looked at equally (or close to), and debate is a great way of exchanging info on a subject to help judge which would be closest to the truth.
However, there are times when differing views vary in their reliability. So for example, an extreme example would be the difference in trust that we place scientist specialising in evolution, compared with a creationist.
Or a climate scientist compared with Nigel Lawson. Who would you choose to provide reliable info on climate?
So with nuclear power, we look at multiple sources for carbon footprint, and find places such as IPCC or an expert in carbon footprints show a low carbon footprint for nuclear, while ideologically driven sources concentrate on studies that show a high carbon footprint. Leeuwan in your link is a prime example of this.
Sponsored Links
Not only is Brexit bad for the country in its own right (economy/security/world standing etc), but it is a drain on the resources of other parts of Government, so we have less time to work on things that matter. So its a double whammy.So when it is Brexit they are executing their responsibilities?
I'm sure there's a benefit somewhere from Brexit, we just haven't seen it yet. After over 2 years.
D
durhamplumber
Do not understand the point about evolution/creationism...1 is v scientifically evidence based,,the other is complete tosh.Which bus are you on?
D
durhamplumber
Better than EU rot.
Are you being ironic or moronic?
In you previous post you mention trusting sources and believing information based on their expertise, background and their agenda.
And then you hit is with this little gem. So going by your own criteria, you are either an expert and we can believe you, or you are not an expert and you have an agenda so we shouldn't believe you. Which is it?
D
durhamplumber
That remoaner crystal ball is doing some serious overtime.
Brexit is bad for the country in just about every measure.
You can go by a whole array of different sources to show this. Economic impacts have been assessed by:
OECD,
Ottaviano et al. (2016) LSE
Roja-Romagosa (2016), NL Central Planning Bureau
Aichele/Felberma yr (2015) IFO
Lawless & Morgenroth (2016) ESRI
UK Treasury (2016)
These are published studies from different sources, and there are others of course. These are done by experts.
Lets not forget that the only report published about Brexit that claimed it would be positive was by Minford. This has been debunked, but let's remind ourselves that even this assumed that UK manufacturing would be just about wiped out long term, and corporation tax would have to plummet. So basically, even the most optimistic versions hardly look good.
So we are not going by one biased source on Brexit.
D
durhamplumber
You can go by a whole array of different sources to show this. Economic impacts have been assessed by:
OECD,
Ottaviano et al. (2016) LSE
Roja-Romagosa (2016), NL Central Planning Bureau
Aichele/Felberma yr (2015) IFO
Lawless & Morgenroth (2016) ESRI
UK Treasury (2016)
These are published studies from different sources, and there are others of course. These are done by experts.
Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/...ent-to-disastrous.516478/page-4#ixzz5dFK7Mq67
ROFL...EXPERTS,,,,,FEK ME.everyone is an expert at crystal ball gazing when they cannot predict the stock exchange for the end of the day!!!!..
OECD,
Ottaviano et al. (2016) LSE
Roja-Romagosa (2016), NL Central Planning Bureau
Aichele/Felberma yr (2015) IFO
Lawless & Morgenroth (2016) ESRI
UK Treasury (2016)
These are published studies from different sources, and there are others of course. These are done by experts.
Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/...ent-to-disastrous.516478/page-4#ixzz5dFK7Mq67
ROFL...EXPERTS,,,,,FEK ME.everyone is an expert at crystal ball gazing when they cannot predict the stock exchange for the end of the day!!!!..
I hope you never go to the doctor, or the dentist, etc, as a matter of principle, and that you do your damnedest to prevent your family from ever going as well.
D
durhamplumber
Brexit costs the Netherlands billions through reduced trade
Press release
If the United Kingdom (UK) withdraws from the European Union it will affect the Netherlands more severely than other EU countries because of the strong trade relations between the Netherlands and the UK. A reduction in trade could amount to a GDP loss for the Netherlands of 1.2%, or 10 billion euros, by 2030. Less trade may also induce less innovation, which could amplify the GDP loss of 10 billion euros by another 65%. This is one of the conclusions of CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis in their study on the costs of Brexit.
If the UK were to withdraw from the EU, this would be followed by a period of uncertainty which would lead to direct economic losses. However, the more substantial losses for both the UK and the EU occur in the long term, because their economies will gradually have to adapt to changing trade patterns. First of all, trade costs will increase due to import tariffs. Next, trade barriers will arise from differences in technical specifications or the environmental standards goods have to comply with before being allowed to be sold either within the EU or the UK.
Brexit-related costs will be sector specific. For the Netherlands, the ‘other transport’ and ‘transport equipment’ sectors will hardly be affected, as the connection through trade with the UK in these sectors is only limited. However, this does not apply to certain other sectors, such as ‘chemicals, plastics and rubber’, ‘electronic equipment’, ‘motor vehicles and parts’, ‘the food processing industry’ and ‘metals and minerals’, which together account for 12% of Dutch GDP. These sectors will suffer production losses of around 5%.
If the EU succeeds in agreeing a new free trade agreement with the UK, this will substantially reduce GDP losses. For the Netherlands, the GDP losses could be reduced by around 20%. Such an agreement would circumvent trade tariffs and set standards and regulations with which both the UK and the EU would need to comply, although this will not fully restore access to the internal market.
NETHERLANDS FROM 2016...Quoted above..Count how many "ifs" "coulds" and "maybes"..!...and was written in 2016
D
durhamplumber
"Followed by a period of uncertainty"..yes,these economic dudes really have their finger on the pulse!!!!
Sponsored Links
