Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About apelike

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Methinks you have misunderstood the post... Not mistaken anything at all as production of parts and/or cars both here and elsewhere both go hand in hand in creating wealth at the expense of one of the major causes of pollution as my post clearly states. Anything that reduces car production, its consumption and subsequent pollution here or in the rest of the world to me is a good thing. Didn't you recently buy a car.. what make and model was it again? Quote me where I have stated that, oh yes its just your opinion so you wont be able to. What? If you say so dear!
  2. I think she was being flippant as none of those have come into play.
  3. Because we already have too many diesel and petrol vehicles on the roads which is the major source of pollutants in our towns and cities, not forgetting the CO2 emissions. Now, I would think differently if diesel and petrol were replaced by electric but as that is still a fair way off the less polluting transport we have the better. BTW I did state "..in this country and also in the EU.." I will, perhaps you could remind me then!
  4. Of course its not, its just wishful thinking for the remainers. I for one am happy that the car industry in this country and also in the EU is starting to slow down and I notice it also states "With the Brexit paralysis and a slowing global economy taking its toll, we doubt GDP will grow by much more than 1.5%." So no disaster there! And BTW you are welcome.
  5. Are you on Vodafone by any chance?
  6. And so is the German and the Eurozone economy so its not just the UK. No, the economy may be in trouble in the future but so far its not in serious trouble.
  7. Quite, he did what many do on here and misused statistics to make a point.
  8. I presume that will be after a no-deal brexit as he cant abolish it otherwise.
  9. Boris Johnson claim throw out, not much of a surprise is it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48554853
  10. 2003!!! I think you are right with that as it was probably originally designed to run in a much lower resolution. With a quick google it seem that a few others are having the same problem but there doesn't seem to be a fix.
  11. What screen resolution are you using as it could be down to the DPI settings as it a know bug/glitch in windows 10 if its over 1080p. If that is your problem then right click on the Word shortcut > properties > Compatibility > Change high DPI settings and click Override high DPI scaling behaviour to Application.
  12. I agree the UK does lag behind and have admitted such in post 3383 where I have stated the EU as a whole is around 0.48% higher, and therefor disputed El Cid when he claimed it was 3.1% higher. If you now compare my figure with the data at fulfact org mine is 0.48% and theirs is 0.4% so not much in it, bearing in mind theirs its not up to data as 2018-2019 is not exact and only a forecast. Actually the Eurozone does include some newer economies as not all opted out of the Euro. Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia are all new-ish members (2004) and also use the Euro.
  13. Oh dear nothing like a sore looser.. If you don't take an average of the GDP over the time frame you do not get a relative result. You could of course do it on a country to country quarterly basis and then compare the figures but that is not what you have done. My way of doing it would be fairy standard as you don't just add them up and take one away from the other and hope for a result! As you can clearly see I'm not denying that some countries have done much better than us. The countries that have done better though are mainly the countries that have plenty of money pumped into them to improve their infrastructure and economic progression, which as I have said is to be expected. Those countries then skew the results if taken as part of the whole EU GDP and one of the reasons you should not take the whole of the EU 27 GDP and compare it with the UK. To be honest and as said before a fairer measure would actually to be to compare the GDP per capita. Now look at the main players in the EU, you will see that Germany is at 1.86, France is 1.72 which is not much higher than the UK with Spain doing better than them at 2.81.
  14. But did you do it as an average in order not to cherry-pick it by quarter? What you seem to be comparing is the EU collective growth vs UK growth. Here is a list by me compiled from the same source on the average growth rate in each of the member countries over the same period of 2016-1019: Austria 2.35 Belgium 1.51 Bulgaria 3.63* Croatia 3.08* Cyprus 4.32* Czech Republic 3.18* Denmark 2.14 Estonia 4.12* Finland 2.4 France 1.72 Germany 1.86 Greece 1.21? Hungary 4.10* Ireland 6.34 Italy 1.12 Latvia 3.85* Lithuania 3.48* Luxembourg 2.2 Malta 6.31* Netherlands 2.52 Poland 4.5* Portugal 2.33 Romania 5.32* Slovakia 3.64* Slovenia 4.19* Spain 2.81 Sweden 2.30 UK 1.65 See how much it varies by country? You will also notice that the newest members since 2004 * are the ones who are experiencing a greater GDP rate than most of the others, excluding Ireland, which is to be expected. Unfortunately the above is also a bit skewed as to gain a better idea it really should be GDP per capita.
  15. Sorry, just seen the link. But the problem is that is the added figures, what you need to do is average it out over the same period which makes the EU an average of 0.48 higher and that is for the UK against the whole of the EU which skews the result as you are also comparing one country with 27 or maybe 28 in fact, as the EU collective growth rate would also include the UK. Now compare the same on a country to country basis and you will find it will be a lot different.
  • 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.