Will Brexit really be good for Britain?

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

I find it hard to believe that if someone is predicting an immediate increase in, say, unemployment they wouldn't be more explicit.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

Oh I agree with that. My interpretation is that the prediction is based on the time from the the vote. However, when that prediction was made a shorter time lag between vote and triggering was probably expected.

CLAPTON

presumably we will be able gauge the EU view of the UKs prospects by what happens to EU migration.
If the europeans see the UK as a better bet than the EU27 then immigration will continue round the levels of the last few years (600,000 gross).
what happens on the ground is a better weather vane than acedemic arguments about the difference between two predictions

Herzlos

Since the assumption is that it'll be a lot easier for a foreigner to leave the UK after we put up the fence, than it will be to get in, the immigration figures will be somewhat skewed upwards. If you were going to hedge your bets, you'd want to be on the inside when we leave.

TrickyTree83

wotsthat wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that if someone is predicting an immediate increase in, say, unemployment they wouldn't be more explicit.



Oh I agree with that. My interpretation is that the prediction is based on the time from the the vote. However, when that prediction was made a shorter time lag between vote and triggering was probably expected.

I read it as they're predicting job losses straight after the vote, they've not suggested the gravity of those job losses, just that they will happen. Then 2 years out they've suggested what they think the gravity of the losses might be.

The point I'm trying to make it that HM Treasury (amongst others) were clearly wrong about the immediate aftermath of the vote. Quite obviously I'll agree with everyone that we cannot see whether the forecasts for 2 years + are correct or not.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumably we will be able gauge the EU view of the UKs prospects by what happens to EU migration.
If the europeans see the UK as a better bet than the EU27 then immigration will continue round the levels of the last few years (600,000 gross).
what happens on the ground is a better weather vane than acedemic arguments about the difference between two predictions

Your test is gauging whether the UK's economic performance will continue to outperform that of Europe for the next few years. That's what's drawing people from Europe looking for work.

What we should be trying to gauge is whether leaving the EU is better than staying.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Your test is gauging whether the UK's economic performance will continue to outperform that of Europe for the next few years. That's what's drawing people from Europe looking for work.

What we should be trying to gauge is whether leaving the EU is better than staying.

one is unknowable and the other measurable

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I read it as they're predicting job losses straight after the vote, they've not suggested the gravity of those job losses, just that they will happen. Then 2 years out they've suggested what they think the gravity of the losses might be.

The point I'm trying to make it that HM Treasury (amongst others) were clearly wrong about the immediate aftermath of the vote. Quite obviously I'll agree with everyone that we cannot see whether the forecasts for 2 years + are correct or not.

But there have been job losses more or less straight after the vote (for an unspecified value of "straight after" and "number of job losses"). So even taking their vague statement to mean what you think it meant, it wasn't actually wrong.

Can we stick to judging them on the clear prediction that they actually made with quantifiable data?

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

one is unknowable and the other measurable

Measuring something because it's measurable won't make the unknowable knowable.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

But there have been job losses more or less straight after the vote (for an unspecified value of "straight after" and "number of job losses"). So even taking their vague statement to mean what you think it meant, it wasn't actually wrong.

Can we stick to judging them on the clear prediction that they actually made with quantifiable data?

a vote to leave would result in a recession, a spike in inflation and a rise in unemployment

A rise in unemployment sorry, even if you counted job losses they're still wrong on the other two counts. There is no recession and there is no "spike" in inflation.

It seems to me that the HM Treasury report was there just to scare people, it was written in such a way that it implies the mere act of voting to leave would cause these issues, which is just not true.

Herzlos

If you believe that this was made up as a scare tactic, why do you believe the governments unemployment figures are valid? They've got plenty of form for massaging them to make themselves look better.

It's definitely not as doom and gloom as we expected. I'm sure we can agree on that.
We also haven't actually left yet. I'm sure we can also agree on that.

Will it get better or worse? Who knows?