Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 145.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GrizzlyDave

    9502

  • Confusion of VIs

    7722

  • thehowler

    5908

  • jonb2

    5801

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I do.   https://twitter.com/housepricemania

1409 pages....you guys should have your own forum !!!

Oh OK. Shame that really, but hey it looks like @IMHAL helped us both out. Nice repost though, thanks ! Any thoughts ?  

Posted Images

 

On ICE/EV, here's a useful graphic. It shows the CO2 cost and shows that the EV costs more to make, but the total CO2 emissions are lower.

The second graphic does something similar, but taking into account the effect of different electricity generation options. 

 

comparison-well-wheel-lifecycle-GHG-vehi

 

ElectricyMixesClimateChange%20(1).png

Comment on first graphic:  it uses US average vehicle fuel consumption.  Granted it also uses the relatively high CO2 US electricity production also.  But it is not using the best-reasonably achievable ICE mpg figure, it is picking on a bad figure, ie that in the US.

Second graphic.  We seem to be comparing a diesel car of 163gCO2/km ("tank to wheel").  My own petrol engined car is rated less than 100gCO2/km, and in the real world will beat 120gCO2/km.  Assuming the well-to-tank figure is in proportion to this, we can reduce 27 by (163/120) to make 20gCO2/km.  That makes my total 120+20 = 140gCO2/km, below the Polish EV and making the savings in other EU countries much less impressive.  I notice there is no column for China or USA also.

Since they have arranged these immediately-noticeable factors in their favour, I have got to wonder where else in their calculations they have done this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

<Sigh>. Once more. 59% of our exports are to or through the EU. In money terms, that's between £350-400 billion. Secondly, the £90 billion is divided up between 27 countries - meaning an average of £3.3 billion each.

 

Hopefully all our fishermen will get to retire, not just him.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/world-news/boris-the-betrayer-has-swindled-us-over-brexit-englands-fishermen-say-39913663.html

Should we have turned down the deal simply because we didn't get all we wanted on fisheries?  Haven't gone into too much detail but isn't their dissatisfaction because we didn't stop them fishing, full stop?  Good luck on them trying to police such a situation with the French, who don't really care about the rule of law when it suits them. This is Michael Gove skewering the SNP on fishing quotas today (say what you like about him but he speaks well).  Minute six but listen to it all - its good:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Comment on first graphic:  it uses US average vehicle fuel consumption.  Granted it also uses the relatively high CO2 US electricity production also.  But it is not using the best-reasonably achievable ICE mpg figure, it is picking on a bad figure, ie that in the US.

Second graphic.  We seem to be comparing a diesel car of 163gCO2/km ("tank to wheel").  My own petrol engined car is rated less than 100gCO2/km, and in the real world will beat 120gCO2/km.  Assuming the well-to-tank figure is in proportion to this, we can reduce 27 by (163/120) to make 20gCO2/km.  That makes my total 120+20 = 140gCO2/km, below the Polish EV and making the savings in other EU countries much less impressive.  I notice there is no column for China or USA also.

Since they have arranged these immediately-noticeable factors in their favour, I have got to wonder where else in their calculations they have done this.

You seem to have forgotten to add the CO2 cost of finding, extracting, refining and distributing the petrol you put in your tank.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

You seem to have forgotten to add the CO2 cost of finding, extracting, refining and distributing the petrol you put in your tank.  

 

I think that is the well-to-tank figure, given as 27 gCO2/km.  I explicitly re-calculated this in proportion to the actual fuel consumption and included it in the total.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Should we have turned down the deal simply because we didn't get all we wanted on fisheries?  Haven't gone into too much detail but isn't their dissatisfaction because we didn't stop them fishing, full stop?  Good luck on them trying to police such a situation with the French, who don't really care about the rule of law when it suits them. This is Michael Gove skewering the SNP on fishing quotas today (say what you like about him but he speaks well).  Minute six but listen to it all - its good:

 

LOL What a comedian Michael Gove is. Thanks for posting it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Feel free to correct me?

But don't add in services! Nor exports sent via rotter dam! 

I got 175bn exports  275  imports  for goods ( I rounded it: It's 97 net). 

What figure for goods with EU have you got?

You may not be wrong with numbers, but you badly miscalculated the impact of the disbalance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Comment on first graphic:  it uses US average vehicle fuel consumption.  Granted it also uses the relatively high CO2 US electricity production also.  But it is not using the best-reasonably achievable ICE mpg figure, it is picking on a bad figure, ie that in the US.

It's for the USA market, hence I also included the first one I saw for the EU as well for comparison. 

 

 

I can see if I can find figures for different market segments and engine sizes. It's still a saving for most parts of the EU, though, which is good. Thanks for crunching the numbers while I was painting the living room :). 

 

Since they have arranged these immediately-noticeable factors in their favour, I have got to wonder where else in their calculations they have done this.

They are literally the first graphics I found. I can find more, but they'll have broadly the same conclusion, especially given at least one is from 2015.

However, it does directly answer the question about construction footprint to fuel usage for ICE: construction is only a relatively small fraction of total cost. The graphics were actually in response to just that one single point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

 

It's for the USA market, hence I also included the first one I saw for the EU as well for comparison. 

I can see if I can find figures for different market segments and engine sizes. It's still a saving for most parts of the EU, though, which is good. Thanks for crunching the numbers while I was painting the living room :). 

They are literally the first graphics I found. I can find more, but they'll have broadly the same conclusion, especially given at least one is from 2015.

However, it does directly answer the question about construction footprint to fuel usage for ICE: construction is only a relatively small fraction of total cost. The graphics were actually in response to just that one single point. 

P. S. Gas guzzlers tend to also be bigger with higher construction footprint, but much the same relationship of construction footprint to lifetime footprint. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

 

No, I don't at all. It's just that too often people who don't have expertise opine. I'm guilty of that too, but I have been trained to sift data as I have worked as a scientist. It's no magic bullet, but it's a start. But scientists also get things wrong. Should I mention Pauling? 

You could, I suppose mention Pauling... but, like most capable Scientists... whose work provided genuine and verifiable scientific insight... he's been dead for some time.

My personal infuriation is when material is presented as "Science" when it is anything but scientific.  The scientific method de-throned the Church... humiliating the clergy with insights into the natural empirical world that defied divine insight from the 17th Century onwards.  The only problem with it (in my opinion) is that just as the founding principles of the Church were laudable and powerful... but fell victim to the presumptive arrogance of its authority figures... I think the same has happened (or is happening) with the newer authority of "Science".  Those who turn to "Science" for the answers are prone to dramatic over-reach and to present as "Science" ideas that are anything but scientific in nature.  In this sense, I see "Science" (quoted just-like-that) as a pervasive, secular, alternative to divinity.

 

Explain?

It was a straightforward gybe at the "scientific genius" of the likes of Nial Furguson and his SAGE-connected acolytes who will publish any pisch data as a graph and claim the full authority of "Science" because they sit on a committee and have some connection to Liz.
 

 

Can't stand him! He overstates his case and argues by assertion too often. He's not alone and I could start a list with Chomsky up near the top. 

I think there's a lot he asserts which had shown to be correct, but through evidence not assertion. The language he tries to use to communicate is often misleading IMHO. 

I find that disturbing.

I applaud your good taste with respect to at least one popular author.  I don't agree that Dawkins' assertions have been shown correct... I think this because his assertions are not framed as science - but, rather - as a fundamentalist atheist doctrine.  Sometimes his writing is interesting because it touches, tangentially, on genuine material... but such trifling details never seem to be the thrust of the message being promoted.

I find Chomsky far less insulting.  I respect Chomsky immensely for having the intelligence to determine that he should describe himself as a linguist rather than as computer scientist in order to get "girl-reaction".  While I find it hard to disagree coherently with much of his political message, I do not feel I am aligned with its general tone... and suspect that I have distinct, fundamental, abstract beliefs.

 

I don't think so. 

That's a show stopper opinion...  In what sense do you think that (in the West, at least) organised religion (and the Christian Chruch in particular) is flourishing and gaining authority?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

As noted, on that basis, knitting, cars, guitars, and Justin Bieber's music are just as polluting.

Rapprochement!  Perfect conclusion!

Bonus points for insulting Canada with the Justin reference.

Corollary: You tell me what you would like to be true and I'll come up with some justification for it being true.  I will use statistics and numbers and generally accepted accounting principles and accurate arithmetic and... and... .  Of course, there's absolutely no need for what you'd like to be true to actually be true - I'm sure I could give you a justification that seems to be "the business" either way.  (N.B. I suspect that people with this skill set are already engaged by those in positions of considerable authority.)
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

LOL What a comedian Michael Gove is. Thanks for posting it.

Whenever I see photos or video footage of him, I can't help but think his face has been digitally manipulated to make him look more ridiculous.

I wonder if his facial features are hereditary... Who is Michael Gove's Dad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always see a [email protected]@rd (of John Major's kind).

Edited by DarkHorseWaits-NoMore
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Thus potentially annoying the 2 out of 3 Labour voters that voted remain and Lib Dems, etc., that might have voted tactically for Labour next time round. It's a gamble.

Yes, it's a gamble. But the facts are that we have left and there is a very real risk of cries of betrayal form Labour voters too if they vote against. I should think that most remainers would settle for a closer or much closer relationship with the EU than the current deal or May's almost identical deal.

Initially, after the ref, I was for BRINO, but that was taken off the table by May. If the plan is to get us to a near BRINO deal then I am on board. The only other hope was that a no-deal would happen to let people see the effects of Brexit first hand...that did not come to pass. So an insider job is the only route left.

Look at it from the EU's perspective. The framework allows them the luxury to be kind to the government of their choosing...to play good cop and offer rewards with a sympathetic one and play hard ball with one that is anti-EU. It's a deal taylor made to take advantage of our divisions and electoral system....to get us closer. Starmer will see the possibilities and hopefully avoid being branded anti Brexit whilst keeping remianers on side.

Edited by IMHAL
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Brexit Deal Is Too Little, Too Late for U.K.’s Car Industry

  • Honda plant will close; Nissan called off plans for new models
  • Details of accord will determine whether more damage is done

 

This is still a thin deal with major implications and costs for automotive,” said David Bailey, a business economics professor at Birmingham Business School in England. “Much will depend on the degree of flexibility allowed and the degree of phasing in.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-29/brexit-deal-may-be-too-little-too-late-for-u-k-s-car-industry

Look on the bright side, this gives many opportunities for a Honda Accord joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Yes, it's a gamble. But the facts are that we have left and there is a very real risk of cries of betrayal form Labour voters too if they vote against. I should think that most remainers would settle for a closer or much closer relationship with the EU than the current deal or May's almost identical deal.

Initially, after the ref, I was for BRINO, but that was taken off the table by May. If the plan is to get us to a near BRINO deal then I am on board. The only other hope was that a no-deal would happen to let people see the effects of Brexit first hand...that did not come to pass. So an insider job is the only route left.

Look at it from the EU's perspective. The framework allows them the luxury to be kind to the government of their choosing...to play good cop and offer rewards with a sympathetic one and play hard ball with one that is anti-EU. It's a deal taylor made to take advantage of our divisions and electoral system....to get us closer. Starmer will see the possibilities and hopefully avoid being branded anti Brexit whilst keeping remianers on side.

There was no plan for leave, there never was. Labour's plans - if there were any - have come to nothing and Starmer just gave a Gruniad interview where he said he doesn't want to touch the deal at the next GE. In fact, he said he will try "to make this deal work."

Maybe we should start taking him at face value instead of projecting desired subjective outcomes.

The "framework" of the deal allows both sides to negotiate on future choices, towards a closer or more diverged relationship There's no subtle, hidden mechanism to coax us back in. There are just very overt costs, tariff threats and more hassles (around energy access for example) if we decide to diverge further, and that was the price that the UK govt were willing to accept for this bare bones deal.

Trade and business will evolve to make the best of it - already is, see the Aldi announcement tonight - and time will tell if a political group can gain ground on a declared pro-EU agenda. But that's not the message from Labour tonight.

ref only...

Aldi is boosting its support for British suppliers by announcing it aims to spend £3.5bn more on UK-produced food and drink annually within the next five years.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/30/aldi-spend-uk-produced-food-drink

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

There was no plan for leave, there never was. Labour's plans - if there were any - have come to nothing and Starmer just gave a Gruniad interview where he said he doesn't want to touch the deal at the next GE. In fact, he said he will try "to make this deal work."

Maybe we should start taking him at face value instead of projecting desired subjective outcomes.

The "framework" of the deal allows both sides to negotiate on future choices, towards a closer or more diverged relationship There's no subtle, hidden mechanism to coax us back in. There are just very overt costs, tariff threats and more hassles (around energy access for example) if we decide to diverge further, and that was the price that the UK govt were willing to accept for this bare bones deal.

Trade and business will evolve to make the best of it - already is, see the Aldi announcement tonight - and time will tell if a political group can gain ground on a declared pro-EU agenda. But that's not the message from Labour tonight.

ref only...

Aldi is boosting its support for British suppliers by announcing it aims to spend £3.5bn more on UK-produced food and drink annually within the next five years.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/30/aldi-spend-uk-produced-food-drink

 

First of all, we need to let this framework settle down first.  People are expecting things to carry on as before.  Let's see how this argument fares in six months time...

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

There was no plan for leave, there never was. Labour's plans - if there were any - have come to nothing and Starmer just gave a Gruniad interview where he said he doesn't want to touch the deal at the next GE. In fact, he said he will try "to make this deal work."

Maybe we should start taking him at face value instead of projecting desired subjective outcomes.

The "framework" of the deal allows both sides to negotiate on future choices, towards a closer or more diverged relationship There's no subtle, hidden mechanism to coax us back in. There are just very overt costs, tariff threats and more hassles (around energy access for example) if we decide to diverge further, and that was the price that the UK govt were willing to accept for this bare bones deal.

Trade and business will evolve to make the best of it - already is, see the Aldi announcement tonight - and time will tell if a political group can gain ground on a declared pro-EU agenda. But that's not the message from Labour tonight.

ref only...

Aldi is boosting its support for British suppliers by announcing it aims to spend £3.5bn more on UK-produced food and drink annually within the next five years.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/30/aldi-spend-uk-produced-food-drink

 

The Germans have been taking market share from the UK Big Four for years. They announced another huge expansion program earlier this year. Supplying those stores with local produce wherever possible has to be cheaper than flying it in from the continent. Nothing to do with Brexit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.