Thommo wrote:
All of this is subject to political assumptions (as well as economic modeling) that do not hold guarantees though. The current mood in the EU, led by Juncker and Macron won't last forever, and if weak ties are all that is possible after Brexit there's no guarantee that that remains the case over 10 or 20 years, when those posts are occupied by new individuals without the same baggage and views. All of that also excludes unlikely but not inconceivable possibilities like the collapse of the EU, or fundamental reform on areas like immigration and federalism, which the EU is facing increasing pressure over. Those kinds of changes would fundamentally alter the playing field, and indeed the counterfactual economic model that's being used as a baseline for "better" or "worse" off.

I agree. As much as the EU is a rules based system, the rules can change should the political landscape and mood require it. The world will obviously be a different place in five or 10 years time, although how it will be different remains to be seen. Right now the EU works within its rules because it suits the EU to do that, a decade from now the EU might decide different rules are needed to serve its best interests.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Here’s what a no deal Brexit would mean for the British economy

That's actually a very balanced and qualified analysis. I like this Vicky Redwood.

Writing this week, Vicky Redwood, global economist at Capital Economics, argued that while “more extreme” warnings about the economic hit of no deal are being “overblown,” a significant impact negative impact could still be expected.

“Although the more extreme warnings about the short-term impact of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit on the economy are overdone, there is little doubt that it could deal a reasonable blow to GDP growth next year,” Redwood wrote to clients.

In the longer run, Redwood said, it is very difficult to predict what the economic impact would be, but there would be significant negatives in the short tem.

“Whether a no-deal scenario had a good, bad, or little impact on the economy in the long run would depend on many things, including how successful the UK was at striking new trade deals and whether there was an exodus of financial institutions from the UK. But the short-run effect would surely be bad,” she told clients.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:And which part of the correct use of parentheses requires that an attribution made in part of a sentence (in parentheses) must be an attribution of the entire sentence? Is it nothing is attributed until everything is attributed?

Did you actually read the links? The clause in parentheses must read (and does read) as part of the sentence.

That's literally how they work.

FFS!
You are impossible and jump to the worst possible interpretation of posts in denial of any alternatives. Of course the text in parentheses is part of the sentence. I the case in point the part it plays is timescale. You chose to include attribution of "ruin" as well. You can do that, but you don't have to do that.

You didn't answer my question so I'll assume the worst interpretation of your post and take it that you do think that an attribution made in part of a sentence must be an attribution os the entire sentence.


So the sentence: "Swallows fly south for the winter (John says it takes about six weeks )."

Does not attribute "Swallows fly south for the winter" as something John said, no matter how many times you requote it.


But presumably you do think it does just that, and if you know that John didn't say those words you'll fight to the death over it.
Why?

Sendraks wrote:

Thommo wrote:
All of this is subject to political assumptions (as well as economic modeling) that do not hold guarantees though. The current mood in the EU, led by Juncker and Macron won't last forever, and if weak ties are all that is possible after Brexit there's no guarantee that that remains the case over 10 or 20 years, when those posts are occupied by new individuals without the same baggage and views. All of that also excludes unlikely but not inconceivable possibilities like the collapse of the EU, or fundamental reform on areas like immigration and federalism, which the EU is facing increasing pressure over. Those kinds of changes would fundamentally alter the playing field, and indeed the counterfactual economic model that's being used as a baseline for "better" or "worse" off.

I agree. As much as the EU is a rules based system, the rules can change should the political landscape and mood require it. The world will obviously be a different place in five or 10 years time, although how it will be different remains to be seen. Right now the EU works within its rules because it suits the EU to do that, a decade from now the EU might decide different rules are needed to serve its best interests.

Don't get me wrong though, if (as many people fear) that means you get 10 or 20 years of poor performance (albeit, maybe not quite ruinously poor) that does have real consequences for people's lives and wellbeing, and those could still fail to be offset by better performance after the fact even on a changed playing field.

I find it very difficult to find any certainties in all of this. I often feel like I'm the only one though, as many people seem to be... emphatically sure of what will happen, even as they violently disagree with one another about what that will be.

Any facts to back this up? I cant find any EU policies directly related to where the EU will be in 10 years time so it is pure speculation. Talking about the collapse of the EU is THE Brexiteers wet dream.

The wet dream:
The EU is at clear risk of collapse – and the ‘remainiacs’ just don’t see it. Gwythian Prins

GrahamH wrote:

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:And which part of the correct use of parentheses requires that an attribution made in part of a sentence (in parentheses) must be an attribution of the entire sentence? Is it nothing is attributed until everything is attributed?

Did you actually read the links? The clause in parentheses must read (and does read) as part of the sentence.

That's literally how they work.

FFS!
You are impossible and jump to the worst possible interpretation of posts in denial of any alternatives. Of course the text in parentheses is part of the sentence. I the case in point the part it plays is timescale. You chose to include attribution of "ruin" as well. You can do that, but you don't have to do that.

You didn't answer my question so I'll assume the worst interpretation of your post and take it that you do think that an attribution made in part of a sentence must be an attribution os the entire sentence.


So the sentence: "Swallows fly south for the winter (John says it takes about six weeks )."

Does not attribute "Swallows fly south for the winter" as something John said, no matter how many times you requote it.


But presumably you do think it does just that, and if you know that John didn't say those words you'll fight to the death over it.
Why?

What the parenthetical clause in your example sentence means is "John says it takes about six weeks for swallows to fly south for the winter". The sentence must read as a whole, and therefore the referrent for the parenthetical clause is taken from the text outside the brackets.

This is how English works, I've provided several links that will walk you through that process.

Had John actually said "We won't know for about six weeks whether swallows fly south for the winter", and you'd written "Swallows fly south for the winter (John says it takes about six weeks )." then you'd be wrong, and yes, that would be worth the four words "John didn't say that".

Nicko wrote:

That sums it up perfectly Nicko. The good old stiff upper lip; never fails.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Any facts to back this up? I cant find any EU policies directly related to where the EU will be in 10 years time so it is pure speculation. Talking about the collapse of the EU is THE Brexiteers wet dream.

The wet dream:
The EU is at clear risk of collapse – and the ‘remainiacs’ just don’t see it. Gwythian Prins

I think there is a possibility of EU collapse, and I think that would be catastrophic for the UK and beyond. The people eager for that chaos are crazy IMHO. It would be good for Russia and others that would be able to pick over the spoils.

Think about what this implies for the logic of Brexiteers: “to the extent that collapse is due to declining marginal returns on investment in complexity, it is an economizing process,” the archaeologist writes. So on Tainter’s analysis, we see that far from being a failure to adapt to the progressive advance of history by ignorant or stupid or culturally primitive racists “driven by nostalgia”, as Sir Vince Cable has just informed us from his taxi-cab sized political base, the decision to leave an EU that on political, economic and cultural indicators is squarely within the zone of risk of collapse, may be – actually is – the most appropriate and prudent response.

This is equivalent to the dinosaurs deliberately precipitating a mass extinction event because, on geological timescales, it will be "an economising process". Mammals will do a better job. Maybe a world without the EU would be more economic. I don't see why it would, but it doesn't follow that the collapse of the EU will be a good thing for any of us.

Thommo wrote:Don't get me wrong though, if (as many people fear) that means you get 10 or 20 years of poor performance (albeit, maybe not quite ruinously poor) that does have real consequences for people's lives and wellbeing, and those could still fail to be offset by better performance after the fact even on a changed playing field.

Again I agree. I don't know what to benchmark "poor performance" against, although my working assumption is worse than 2008 and therefore worse than things are now. The political record shows the public do not look kindly on political parties in power when an economic downturn hits, regardless of how "responsible" for that downturn the Government of the day is. Given the Tories are wholly responsible for Brexit and seem unable to make a success of it, if the economic impact is bad (as it looks likely to be), they won't be in power post the next election. Especially if they put in a lacklustre campaign as they did in 2017.

Thommo wrote:I find it very difficult to find any certainties in all of this. I often feel like I'm the only one though, as many people seem to be... emphatically sure of what will happen, even as they violently disagree with one another about what that will be.

I'm in the same boat in so far as the outcomes go. Within Whitehall, the mood is one of being certain that we are leaving the EU one way or the other. Leaving the EU will impact negatively on the UK economy and beyond that, how bad is entirely dependent on the terms of our leaving and what "how bad" means, really is hard to see.

As I said, five or 10 years from now, the world will be a different place. I can't say how, only that things do change and we'll see where that gets us to.

Had John actually said "The swallows will be gone for 6 monthsr", and I'd written "Swallows fly south for the winter (John says they will be gone for 6 months )."

Then you would be wrong to say "John didn't say that swallows fly south for the winter" because I didn't attribute that to John.

JRM did not say whether the next 50 years will be economically good or bad, all he did was put a timescale on it, Like John in the example.

GrahamH wrote:.JRM did not say whether the next 50 years will be economically good or bad, all he did was put a timescale on it, Like John in the example.

Yes, that's what Thommo has been saying for quite a few posts now.

Sendraks wrote:

GrahamH wrote:.JRM did not say whether the next 50 years will be economically good or bad, all he did was put a timescale on it, Like John in the example.

Yes, that's what Thommo has been saying for quite a few posts now.

And that was never contested or claimed that he did say that. Just the timescale, not the direction.

Thommo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:I see lots of posts from Teague to you saying you have misunderstood. And I see posts from you saying that Teague stated something that was not stated. At leas in terms.

No you don't.

If you aren't being wilfully blind you see Teague saying this:

Teague wrote:Something that's going to most likely, ruin the country (for the next 50 years according to Mogg)

And you wish he didn't, so you pick a fight.

He said it, and he clearly meant it. If he didn't, or has changed his mind, he's absolutely free to say so at any time.

GrahamH wrote:I haven't spotted any post from Teague that comes close to saying that JRM said Brexit would ruin the country ...

Perhaps you should go back to school and learn to read.

GrahamH wrote:[
And that was never contested or claimed that he did say that. Just the timescale, not the direction.

*sigh*
The discussion between Teague and Thommo has been about what JRM claimed the effect of Brexit would be over that timescale, with Teague claiming JRM said something which he demonstrably did not say.

GrahamH wrote:And which part of the correct use of parentheses requires that an attribution made in part of a sentence (in parentheses) must be an attribution of the entire sentence? Is it nothing is attributed until everything is attributed?


It is plain that you object to what you see as an incorrect interpretation of what JRM said. It is simple enough to see how you interpreted Teague that way.

Essentially I was motivated similarly to you, to highlight an inaccurate attribution.

All I did was point to the alternative interpretation of Teague's post, which is accurate on what JRM said about timescale and consistent with Teague's other posts. The interpretation that makes the most sense is a bit more likely to be correct than the one that requires us to assume irrational lies. I can see both and I don't deny that you could read it your way.

Unfortunately you absolutely refuse any acknowledgement of any other interpretation, to the extent you ignore specific points and blindly re-quote the contested post.




Very odd.

Sandraks and Thommo are the two most pedantic posters on these boards. They simply cannot let even the tintiest point go, even when they're wrong. The also fail on mulitple levels to understand context and nuance. They also lower the tone of the thread by arguing points so pointless it's almost a derail. Just understand they struggle with English - after all, they're both SCottish aren't they? Maybe it's our southern accents ... :p

GrahamH wrote:Had John actually said "The swallows will be gone for 6 monthsr", and I'd written "Swallows fly south for the winter (John says they will be gone for 6 months )."

Then you would be wrong to say "John didn't say that swallows fly south for the winter" because I didn't attribute that to John.

Not wrong, no, that's incorrect. What you could have said is that it wouldn't be relevant, it would be a non sequitur (at least to that in isolation).

It would be wrong to say "you said that John said that swallows fly south for the winter", if you'd said that. That said, you're heavily implying it, you'd be extremely misleading if John said "The swallows will be gone for 6 months" and you said "Swallows are abducted by aliens (John says they will be gone for 6 months)", because by including John's true statement in the same sentence as your assertion you associate it with John. This is reasonable in the case of an obvious bit of common sense like swallows flying south, but as jarring as it is misleading in the case of something that John clearly does not think.

However, the structure of your new example does not match the structure of the quote you're struggling to parse.

That quote was:
"Something that's going to most likely, ruin the country (for the next 50 years according to Mogg)"

So you'd need your new example to be "Swallows fly south for the winter (for the next six months according to John)", in which case, yes, you are saying that John says that swallows fly south for the winter for the next six months. Different sentences with different structures can and often do have different meanings. In this case the addition of a complete standalone clause "they will be gone" in substitution for the clause that lacked an object "for the next 50 years", because it inherited it from the full sentence of which it was a part (i.e. What will happen for the next 50 years?) is the key change.

Teague wrote:

GrahamH wrote:And which part of the correct use of parentheses requires that an attribution made in part of a sentence (in parentheses) must be an attribution of the entire sentence? Is it nothing is attributed until everything is attributed?


It is plain that you object to what you see as an incorrect interpretation of what JRM said. It is simple enough to see how you interpreted Teague that way.

Essentially I was motivated similarly to you, to highlight an inaccurate attribution.

All I did was point to the alternative interpretation of Teague's post, which is accurate on what JRM said about timescale and consistent with Teague's other posts. The interpretation that makes the most sense is a bit more likely to be correct than the one that requires us to assume irrational lies. I can see both and I don't deny that you could read it your way.

Unfortunately you absolutely refuse any acknowledgement of any other interpretation, to the extent you ignore specific points and blindly re-quote the contested post.




Very odd.

Sandraks and Thommo are the two most pedantic posters on these boards. They simply cannot let even the tintiest point go, even when they're wrong. The also fail on mulitple levels to understand context and nuance. They also lower the tone of the thread by arguing points so pointless it's almost a derail. Just understand they struggle with English - after all, they're both SCottish aren't they? Maybe it's our southern accents ... :p

And I assume this is you letting things go, not arguing pointless things, not making factual errors, raising the tone and understanding English?

How about we iron this whole thing out now.

Do you now think Mogg said, or meant that Brexit would ruin the country for the next 50 years, or not?

If not, how about you follow Sendraks's suggestion from the previous page to move the conversation on and just give a quick bit of discussion about what he actually said, as we have already done.