Will Brexit really be good for Britain?

Herzlos

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you have a link to Cameron stating what you stated he had?

I'm only seeing 2nd hand quotes:

Cameron, they argue, had repeatedly said during the campaign that article 50 would be triggered immediately if Vote Leave were to win the Brexit referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/26/who-will-dare-pull-trigger-article-50-eu

So either I just can't find it, or it's been misattributed.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Was leaving next November in any event. You'll never know what was said behind closed doors. Far better to have someone in position for the whole duration not part. Fresh face may have it's advantages too.

Would you want to be an EU ambassador when this mess starts?

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Attaching everything to "Brexit" is sheer folly. Keep your eye on the bigger picture.

What part of the bigger picture? Brexit is about as big as we can get, and is going to be a major catalyst for all sorts of things, intended or not.


I've seen suggestions that Farage applied for German citizenship the morning after the referendum, and is looking at fraud charges in Germany as he's used a relatives address to try and imply he's been a resident for 3 years. Apparently it's been confirmed by police sources in Germany, but I've not seen anything in the "mainstream" press about it yet.

wotsthat

House of Commons 22 February 2016

“If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”

Don't know about anyone else but I, and the media I think, took this to mean that article 50 would be triggered in short order following the vote. Didn't pay that much attention because (a) I didn't expect leave to win and (b) it was obvious that Cameron was toast if he lost the vote anyway.

Certainly didn't expect that it would take 9 months (at least) or there would be a disconcerting lack of a cohesive plan at this late stage.

Enterprise_1701C

It has been said that the reason for delaying triggering Article 50 is that it in itself is so unclear.

The EU never thought anyone would want to leave, they thought they would be able to brainwash everyone into believing that their pet project is the only way forward in spite of the fact that it seems to be destroying the very things that it was supposed to create.

I seem to recall hearing something about the EU changing the rules as from some time this year, apparently the other countries get a vote if a country wants to leave! Don't quote me on it, just something I recall hearing. Though admittedly it seems ridiculous, how they could force anyone to stay in I have no idea, surely they could just revoke the law they put in place to join the EU, but it is so ridiculous I could believe it would be a brilliant idea of Tusk's/

mayonnaise

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Can we stop arguing about interpretation now and agree that any forecast made based on the impact of the vote itself was quite obviously wrong.

No.

In the ‘shock’ scenario, a vote to leave would result in a recession, a spike in inflation and a rise in unemployment. After two years, the analysis shows that GDP would be around 3.6% lower in the shock scenario compared with a vote to remain. In this scenario, the fall in the value of the pound would be around 12%, and unemployment would increase by around 500,000, with all regions experiencing a rise in the number of people out of work.

In the ‘severe shock’ scenario, the rise in uncertainty, the effect on financial conditions and the transition effects are larger. The analysis shows that after two years the level of GDP would be 6% lower, the fall in the value of the pound would be 15% and unemployment would increase by around 800,000.

I hope the bolding and font size helps.
What bit of 'after 2 years' don't you understand?

TrickyTree83

mayonnaise wrote: »

No.



I hope the bolding and font size helps.
What bit of 'after 2 years' don't you understand?

I understand the construction of a sentence and it's importance, so when it says:

In the ‘shock’ scenario, a vote to leave would result in a recession, a spike in inflation and a rise in unemployment. After two years, the analysis shows that GDP would be around 3.6% lower in the shock scenario compared with a vote to remain.

That's quite important. You can climb back into your hole now.

TrickyTree83

mayonnaise wrote: »

Its importance.

So...we have a forecast stating 'after 2 years'
After 2 years, wouldn't that be June 2018 or thereabouts?

You still don't see that the first sentence is different to the second?

That the first sentence is talking about what they forecast and what triggers it, and the second is a forecast over time?

Can't help you if you can't read it properly.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You still don't see that the first sentence is different to the second?

That the first sentence is talking about what they forecast and what triggers it, and the second is a forecast over time?

Can't help you if you can't read it properly.

In scenario 1 (shock) there's a prediction of an extra 500,000 unemployed and GDP being 3.6% lower than it otherwise would've been by June 2018

In scenario 2 (severe shock) there's a prediction of an extra 800,000 unemployed and GDP 6.0% lower than it otherwise would've been by June 2018.

Not sure how accurate those claims will prove to be but it seems quite clear the weren't forecasting a 500,000 increase in unemployment by June 24th 2016.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

In scenario 1 (shock) there's a prediction of an extra 500,000 unemployed and GDP being 3.6% lower than it otherwise would've been by June 2018

In scenario 2 (severe shock) there's a prediction of an extra 800,000 unemployed and GDP 6.0% lower than it otherwise would've been by June 2018.

Not sure how accurate those claims will prove to be but it seems quite clear the weren't forecasting a 500,000 increase in unemployment by June 24th 2016.

Except that's not how it's written is it?

If it was written how you've written it then of course we'd agree, but it's not, hence you having to re-write it in order to make the point.

The first sentence quite clearly states after a vote to leave they predicted a recession, a rise in inflation and a rise in unemployment. They then say that two years out it would translate into X, Y and Z over that two year period.

It says nothing about article 50, it says nothing about the predictions only being true after 2 years either. It's quite clear in the first sentence, and quite clear what it's saying in the second and the remainder of the paragraph.

Why won't you guys just take it as it is? Why the need for the interpretation?