Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit Referendum Superthread

Options
1…137138140142143…330

Comments

  • Options
    #4172
    Vivian Little Cheddar
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Vivian Little Cheddar


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    In what way?
    Unemployment?
    GDP/GNP?

    These are useful indicators over a 2 week timeframe of what exactly?


  • Options
    #4173
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    No, they can't.... They lack expeditionary capability.

    But then it's posture is one of defence & only then in it's immediate vicinity.

    Which was ok as they have Uncle Sam and a more powerful Polish army next door.... but if they really want the 'JunkerArmee' that may have to change.

    Nominally, a pan-continental defence policy would have to be more comprehensive than what Germany wan'ts in isolation.

    The uk has already stated that its continuation in various European defence cooperation activities will continue , few of which are under any formal EU auspices anyway

    As for expeditionary capability , the UK has virtually none anyway


  • Options
    #4174
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Deleted User wrote: »
    These are useful indicators over a 2 week timeframe of what exactly?

    Exactly....

    To say that the UK has taken an economic hit is far too premature.


  • Options
    #4175
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    What is German defence policy anyway? Isn't it just to call the White House asap?

    Since WWII, German defence policy has been to wait for Russian tanks to roll in, and then get nuked by the USA.


  • Options
    #4176
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Exactly....

    To say that the UK has taken an economic hit is far too premature.

    Indeed , we have to see if there is going to be A UK first.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4177
    Vivian Little Cheddar
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Vivian Little Cheddar


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Exactly....

    To say that the UK has taken an economic hit is far too premature.

    Is it?

    Or are the metrics you offered just awful ways to check?

    How about the massive difference in job opportunities advertised http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-job-vacancies-fall-700000-in-the-week-after-brexit-data-shows-a7124686.html

    The retail footfall and sales details http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fi4GOJsQQhEJ:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88cd6ee4-42bd-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    The survey of the Institute of Directors http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mgJcfU6tD90J:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86d771b6-3bb0-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    Perhaps these more telling details can give us decent indications...


  • Options
    #4178
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Sure Germany is not Ireland and has decent military capacity. The part in bold is very doubtful though. Given the population and its GDP per capita, spendings are quite low (you cannot only look at gross military spendings as the cost of paying soldiers and maintaining equipment will vary depending on local wages). Again, 1.18% is well below NATO targets and even if they were to increase it significantly, it would take years to recover the operational capabilities they have lost over time (and as you can see in my link France and the UK are spending much more).

    France and (maybe to a lesser extend) the UK have no problem running a large scale operation in a remote area on their own, and especially France has demonstrated it on multiple occasions in the past few years. It is doubtful Germany can do it.

    Edit: end depending on the methodology Germany can be ranked quite lower than the list you quoted while France is always amongst the top players.
    Germany's military capabilities is far more than "decent", it's very significant and one of the world's strongest. Likewise, military spending as a proportion of GDP is not necessarily an accurate gauge on military prowess. For example, South Sudan spends 10% on its military and doubtless few would see it as a formidable military power.
    Germany spends 1.3% of its GDP on military hardware. This still amounts to tens of billions of euros. It also maintains a highly professional ethos.

    The report the Journal relies on is by a financial services company rather than a body related to military affairs or strategic studies. As such, it relies on nominal strength (with 50% of a nation's military strength on aircraft carriers and submarines) and does not take account of quality (this is a very significant factor. For example, Jordan is one of the most professional militaries in the Middle East while the extremely well funded Saudi military is notably ineffective). This is especially notable in the CS report where Egypt is given a strong weight due to its size despite it's notoriously poor military performance.
    Likewise, as the report notes
    Germany ranks considerably lower than might otherwise be expected by conventional wisdom due to its relatively smaller fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines capabilities which command higher weights in our index

    Unsurprisingly, the report has come under criticism
    This rating can be considered very sketchy, said a member of the Association of Military Political analyst Alexander Perendzhiev. "Evaluate the military force only on the number of tanks, planes and aircraft carriers, I think a little bit incorrect. Because, firstly, there are still nuclear weapons, and secondly, we probably have more to say about the quality of personnel, his professionalism, and of the concept of military force included not only material but also non-material means. What is meant by them: First, it is the people's spirit, morale, readiness to sacrifice their lives - these moments are also present."


  • Options
    #4179
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Germany spends 1.3% of its GDP on military hardware.

    Would you have a source for this? What I have seen is 1.18% of GDP for all military spendings (not only hardware) but there might be other evaluations.


  • Options
    #4180
    grogi
    Registered Users Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭grogi


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Would you have a source for this? What I have seen is 1.18% of GDP for all military spendings (not only hardware) but there might be other evaluations.

    According to The World Bank it was 1.2% in 2015. Still puts them in 9th place in the worlds (http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf)


  • Options
    #4181
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Germany spends 1.3% of its GDP on military hardware
    You are getting this all wrong!

    NATO official reports (page 9) show that in 2015 German equipment expenditure was just 13% of it's total defence expenditure.... which was 1.2% of GDP.
    It also maintains a highly professional ethos
    Worlds fattest soldiers, who wouldn't leave their Afghanistan base on patrol unless US ground units accompanied them..... and legendarily the army of painting a broom handle black to replace a non-existent .50cal!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4182
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    grogi wrote: »
    According to The World Bank it was 1.2% in 2015. Still puts them in 9th place in the worlds (http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1604.pdf)

    But that is overall spendings, not just equipment.

    See the figures from NATO: http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160129_160128-pr-2016-11-eng.pdf#page=2

    It says it was 1.18% of GDP in 2015 and 13.3% of this is in equipment (as expected most of the cost is with military personnel which is higher per solider in Germany than in many other countries, which is why I mentioned the gross budget is not very relevant - hence I would be careful about the number 9 ranking you are quoting which is accurate purely from a financial perspective but in practical terms for the same gross budget other countries could have similar or better equipment and more personnel).


  • Options
    #4183
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is it?

    We await the spike in unemployment next month!


  • Options
    #4184
    Vivian Little Cheddar
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Vivian Little Cheddar


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    We await the spike in unemployment next month!

    There won't be one though. :confused:

    That doesn't mean that the economy hasn't been derailed from a better course than it currently is set for.

    You of course know this though.


  • Options
    #4185
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You of course know this though.

    Not really buddy!

    When you post a link saying that 700,000 vacancies have suddenly disappeared (essentially nearly a full years worth of job creation, as implausible as that sounds!), then this will also surely be reflected by those also already in work?

    Imagine a similar collapse on Irish job sites.... such a thing would only be comparable to the worst of the crash in 2008.

    It couldn't happen in a vacuum, there would surely be a knock on in existing employment?!


  • Options
    #4186
    Vivian Little Cheddar
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Vivian Little Cheddar


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Not really buddy!

    When you post a link saying that 700,000 vacancies have suddenly disappeared (essentially nearly a full years worth of job creation, as implausible as that sounds!), then this will also surely be reflected by those also already in work?

    Imagine a similar collapse on Irish job sites.... such a thing would only be comparable to the worst of the crash in 2008.

    It couldn't happen in a vacuum, there would surely be a knock on in existing employment?!

    Let's start for a moment that some portion of the jobs that 'never were' are simply expansions and investments that no longer take place.

    What effect would that have on the current job market? If jobs that otherwise would have been advertised no longer exist.

    What impacts does that cause?


  • Options
    #4187
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Not really buddy!

    When you post a link saying that 700,000 vacancies have suddenly disappeared (essentially nearly a full years worth of job creation, as implausible as that sounds!), then this will also surely be reflected by those also already in work?

    Imagine a similar collapse on Irish job sites.... such a thing would only be comparable to the worst of the crash in 2008.

    It couldn't happen in a vacuum, there would surely be a knock on in existing employment?!
    Investment in staff is a sign of confidence in the future. Not investing is a sign of lack of confidence, not a sign of decreasing business as you seem to be suggesting.

    In three weeks, you'd hardly expect to see job losses, that would be something that could take as much as a year to manifest and the first place would be in the retail sector.


  • Options
    #4188
    Lockstep
    Registered Users Posts: 9,030 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Would you have a source for this? What I have seen is 1.18% of GDP for all military spendings (not only hardware) but there might be other evaluations.

    Actually, you're right. "Military hardware" was the wrong phrase to use. "military spending" is far more accurate. Likewise, total expenditure is 1.2% (1.3 was a typo on my part)
    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    You are getting this all wrong!

    NATO official reports (page 9) show that in 2015 German equipment expenditure was just 13% of it's total defence expenditure.... which was 1.2% of GDP.
    See above.
    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Worlds fattest soldiers, who wouldn't leave their Afghanistan base on patrol unless US ground units accompanied them..... and legendarily the army of painting a broom handle black to replace a non-existent .50cal!
    "World's fattest soldiers?" Where are you getting that conclusion from? The proportion is even higher in the
    US and UK . Does this make them unprofessional militaries? Especially as both of these reports are far more recent than the 8 year old report you're referring to, which took place when the German military was still conscript based.

    As highlighted by the International Peace Institute "The Bundeswehr is a highlytrained and thoroughly modern armed force", and it has an extremely long involvement with multilateral operations, particularly since the 90s when it took increasingly large part in combat operations and has become a volunteer military.


  • Options
    #4189
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,714 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    Investment in staff is a sign of confidence in the future. Not investing is a sign of lack of confidence, not a sign of decreasing business as you seem to be suggesting.

    In three weeks, you'd hardly expect to see job losses, that would be something that could take as much as a year to manifest and the first place would be in the retail sector.

    I would have thought that the first thing to happen in postpone or cancel future investment. Those jobs just do not happen because the investment will not happen. What is going on with Tata and the steel jobs?

    Leaving the EU will save the UK Gov about 1% or so of its spending if it replaces the EU payments to farmers, fishermen, and regional supports. Of course, they might not bother supporting the regions much so they might save something there. A drop in GDP will not have to be much to cancel out any savings.

    Imports of German high value cars is not going to suffer from tariffs but exports of Nissans from Sunderland might.

    We will see.


  • Options
    #4190
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Let's start for a moment that some portion of the jobs that 'never were' are simply expansions and investments that no longer take place

    But if your stats are right, this is far far more than simply a factory holding fast for a year or so.... this is something much much greater.

    The ONS state that the amount of vacancies in the labour market was 749k for the end of May.

    This translated (as per your article) into 1.82 million job adds.... assuming duplicated ads in different websites etc.

    Now, a collapse of 700k amounts to a drop of 38% in adverts...
    So, if we logically assume that this applies to real vacancies this would mean that there would be now a mere 465k vacancies in the UK labour market.... all this in a week!

    To contextualise this.... this 'sky is falling in' event is of a far greater rate than experienced during the financial crisis & leaves vacancies at the same level they were in 2009...

    So, if this is actually true, it couldn't but impact on existing jobs


  • Options
    #4191
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    It couldn't happen in a vacuum, there would surely be a knock on in existing employment?!

    Vacancies could vanish simply because of the uncertainty - companies pull recruitment for a quarter while things settle.

    This does not mean anyone gets fired or any companies close, so unemployment would only climb relatively slowly as folks who lose jobs in the normal way find it harder to get work. People are also be less likely to quit in uncertain times, so fewer people unemployed between jobs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4192
    Vivian Little Cheddar
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Vivian Little Cheddar


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    But if your stats are right, this is far far more than simply a factory holding fast for a year or so.... this is something much much greater.

    The ONS state that the amount of vacancies in the labour market was 749k for the end of May.

    This translated (as per your article) into 1.82 million job adds.... assuming duplicated ads in different websites etc.

    Now, a collapse of 700k amounts to a drop of 38% in adverts...
    So, if we logically assume that this applies to real vacancies this would mean that there would be now a mere 465k vacancies in the UK labour market.... all this in a week!

    To contextualise this.... this 'sky is falling in' event is of a far greater rate than experienced during the financial crisis & leaves vacancies at the same level they were in 2009...

    So, if this is actually true, it couldn't but impact on existing jobs
    well no. Exactly not this. It wouldn't mean that at all.

    If a company 'would have created X positions if not for Y' that does not mean that X people must be unemployed within the week as a result.

    It means that the opportunity cost of X positions has been lost. The difference in job advertisements is an attempt at a measure of that opportunity cost. It is an indicator, not a direct metric.

    Once again, you know all this.


  • Options
    #4193
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    In other news, Theresa May has reversed the Department of Energy and Climate Change into the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

    So it's official now. Climate change is not a thing. Rejoice everyone. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #4194
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,762 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Not really buddy!

    When you post a link saying that 700,000 vacancies have suddenly disappeared (essentially nearly a full years worth of job creation, as implausible as that sounds!), then this will also surely be reflected by those also already in work?

    Imagine a similar collapse on Irish job sites.... such a thing would only be comparable to the worst of the crash in 2008.

    It couldn't happen in a vacuum, there would surely be a knock on in existing employment?!

    Less vacancies <> less employment.

    Less employment = less employment.

    You are comparing 2 different things and equating them. And it's a little silly if I'm honest.

    And do you not consider the drop in the FTSE 250 and the massive drop in the value of Sterling as strong indicators of a worsened economic situation? Or are these things irrelevant in your part of the world?

    EDIT: On the vacancies bit, I'm assuming you read the linked article that said there were still 820,000 advertised vacancies, right?


  • Options
    #4195
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,424 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    In other news, Theresa May has reversed the Department of Energy and Climate Change into the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

    So it's official now. Climate change is not a thing. Rejoice everyone. :rolleyes:

    Utterly depressing

    These 'conservatives' are dooming their grandchildren to a bleak future if Climate change is not addressed as a matter of supreme urgency.

    If Trump somehow gets elected in November, we'll have utter stagnation in international efforts to curb greenhouse emissions


  • Options
    #4196
    embraer170
    Registered Users Posts: 2,433 ✭✭✭embraer170


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/theresa-may-flies-to-edinburgh-to-tell-scots-that-she-believes-w/
    In a sign that the new Prime Minister is committed to keeping the Union intact, she said she will not trigger Article 50 – the formal process for withdrawing from the EU – until all the devolved nations in the country agree.

    So how long will the EU 27 be left waiting...


  • Options
    #4197
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    People talk about investments, tell that to the people of Nice today.

    Britain is a safer place moving away from the position craved by the loony left. Europe is going nowhere fast.


  • Options
    #4198
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    embraer170 wrote: »
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/15/theresa-may-flies-to-edinburgh-to-tell-scots-that-she-believes-w/



    So how long will the EU 27 be left waiting...

    We can surely take this as Brexit being off? I couldn't see Scotland agreeing to Brexit under any circumstances that would be palatable to the English electorate.


  • Options
    #4199
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,202 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Rightwing wrote: »
    People talk about investments, tell that to the people of Nice today.

    Britain is a safer place moving away from the position craved by the loony left. Europe is going nowhere fast.

    How is leaving the EU making Britain safer?


  • Options
    #4200
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    How is leaving the EU making Britain safer?

    It seems a lot of people don't understand this simple but important point.

    The EU are on a crusade to home millions of these 'migrants' from N Africa and the M East. Many of these are threats of the highest order.

    By being out of the EU, Britain will not have to accept them in.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4201
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,202 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Rightwing wrote: »
    It seems a lot of people don't understand this simple but important point.

    The EU are on a crusade to home millions of these 'migrants' from N Africa and the M East. Many of these are threats of the highest order.

    By being out of the EU, Britain will not have to accept them in.

    Seems you do not understand, the terrorist last night was French Tunisian, nothing do do with the EU

    Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay, Hasib Hussain, Michael Adebolajo & Michael Adebowale had nothing to do with the EU


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement