Political science, social science, economic science. None are pure sciences in that they cannot seek to assess physical exactitudes.

While it is possible to identify patterns, individual humans behave in a vast permutation of ways. Take a simple example. Throw a brick at a man. Will he duck, move to the left, to the right, or take it head on? Who knows? He doesn't know. And if you throw more than one, likely a different reaction each time.

Collectively, even if all those individuals behaved as predictable automatons, they don't behave identially to the next individual. There are simply far too many of them to make any accurate empiracle judgement on likely behaviour.

And even if we were a collection of identical clones, behaviour is shaped by external environmental factors which, themselves are unbelievably complex, unpredictable and so inter-related as to undermine the voractiy of most long term predictions.

That said, is it a waste of time? I would say no. Take the meteoroligal example. In this country we have no fewer than 5 major weather systems impacting the weather of our little island. No wonder prediction beyond this afternoon is plagued with uncertainty. Yet the science continues to evolve and improve and the % accuracy increases with time. Likewise, economnic predicters will improve with time, albeit, in % terms, increasing from a low base of very little to not very much.

Still, better than nothing; and certainly better than basing policy on complete guesswork or political dogma.

the EU has not submitted any audited books , ever.

a totally bunk organisation that would make an economist weep.

having said that, if the EU employed an economist to say that 2+2=7 he would probably be very accommodating.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford