Will Brexit really be good for Britain?

mayonnaise

Ok, you're right Tricky.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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?

Don't really see any other way of interpreting it.

It's an odder interpretation to imply it's saying there will be an immediate uptick in unemployment and downturn in the economy and then only give predictions for two years out.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

Don't really see any other way of interpreting it.

It's an odder interpretation to imply it's saying there will be an immediate uptick in unemployment and downturn in the economy and then only give predictions for two years out.

Immediate effects culminating in the latter predictions after 2 years is how it reads. You can interpret it differently of course but it wouldn't be what it says.

mrginge

It's not really that important really.

What we should be doing is preparing for the untold misery of an economy that erm... continues to grow.

How will we cope?

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Immediate effects culminating in the latter predictions after 2 years is how it reads. You can interpret it differently of course but it wouldn't be what it says.

I don't see the words immediate and culminating in the quoted article.

You're accusing people of applying their own interpretation and doing the same thing yourself.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't see the words immediate and culminating in the quoted article.

You're accusing people of applying their own interpretation and doing the same thing yourself.

The first sentence indicates what they think will happen and what the trigger will be - immediate prediction of what they believe will happen after a vote to leave. They couldn't be much clearer.

The second indicates where they believe the result of that prediction will be after a 2 year period.

That is all it says. Nothing about A50, nothing.

I'm not interpreting it, I'm describing the same thing differently in the hope you understand it. Claiming they meant after A50 is clearly an interpretation.

Herzlos

The fact we're still debating the wording indicates it's not clear.

In any case, the clear prediction is bad in the 2-year term. Is that invalid because the unclear claim hasn't happened yet?

Do you actually think Brexit will yield no increase in unemployment?

Matt_L

Herzlos wrote: »

The fact we're still debating the wording indicates it's not clear.

In any case, the clear prediction is bad in the 2-year term. Is that invalid because the unclear claim hasn't happened yet?

Do you actually think Brexit will yield no increase in unemployment?

Until the 2 year period passes and all is good or better and then the remoaners will claim they meant 5 years:cool:

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

The fact we're still debating the wording indicates it's not clear.

The only debate I can see is between whether to interpret what was written or not.

Given that pretty much all of the international bodies of experts have since revised their forecasts for the UK, why would people try to defend an interpretation that goes against the grain of everything that's now being said by these international bodies of experts where previously they were the undisputed savants of economic forecasting?

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The only debate I can see is between whether to interpret what was written or not.

You mean whether your interpretation of what was written was the correct one.

Given that pretty much all of the international bodies of experts have since revised their forecasts for the UK, why would people try to defend an interpretation that goes against the grain of everything that's now being said by these international bodies of experts where previously they were the undisputed savants of economic forecasting?

True, so that entire report is now proved invalid and we can stop arguing about what it might or might not say?

We're hurtling towards a period of unprecedented prosperity and the naysayers should just shut up?

Can we continue postulating as to what might happen after some secret discussions happen?