Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

I have a question about the EU referendum watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It wasn't about trying to see into the future it was the out right lies on everything they wrote in that paper.

    On the subject of anything else I'm not here to answer on behalf of the leave campaign I'm talking about one subject only, that paper. I didn't even start talking about that some overly defensive europhile was just being picky


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yawn...let me guess, it was scaremongering? It's talking down on Britain's greatness? It's pessimistic? We're all in the pay of Goldman-Sachs/Brussels/lizard men?

    I haven't seen a single demonstration by you that it's lies, only an assertion. Given the absolute pie-in-the-sky panglossian statements by Leave, and the general consensus that most businesses, unions, and scientists are supporting Remain, I'm going to trust just a teensy bit more that they're closer in their estimates.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Yawn...let me guess, it was scaremongering? It's talking down on Britain's greatness? It's pessimistic? We're all in the pay of Goldman-Sachs/Brussels/lizard men?

    I haven't seen a single demonstration by you that it's lies, only an assertion. Given the absolute pie-in-the-sky panglossian statements by Leave, and the general consensus that most businesses, unions, and scientists are supporting Remain, I'm going to trust just a teensy bit more that they're closer in their estimates.
    I already told you in detail why it was lies, can't you read?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I already told you in detail why it was lies, can't you read?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In detail? Where?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Yea the dice are equally loaded alright.

    That the 4300 figure for example.

    It's predicated on a 15 year forecast when they can't even get one right for 15 months.

    It's predicated on a net migration of 185k a year and it is almost double that.

    The under estimated number of migrants aren't even figured into the number of households in 2030 the predicted number is 31 million households not 27.

    The fact that the document concedes we can't control migration and will never meet the 100k a year net.

    And oh yea gdp as household income is completely retarded. It makes it sound as if the households are losing 4300 pounds and in reality it has nothing to do with them even if it were true.

    Argue the toss over any of those points and you lose any credibility


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    That's...not refutation. You've simply made an unbased counterclaim. Where's the sources? Where's the impartial statistics?

    You can't bleat about doom-and-gloom predictions on immigration on the one hand but then say economic forecasts are frequently wrong.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't you showing it's all lies, this is you asserting it's all lies and then saying 'if you disagree with me you're stupid lol'.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Look at the report yourself, I'm sorry but if you just read the post I linked and think it's just my assertion you haven't read the report


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What report? You haven't linked to one in this thread.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    What report? You haven't linked to one in this thread.
    Are you taking the piss?

    The report that came out this week the 4300 pound one.......


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Are you taking the piss?

    The report that came out this week the 4300 pound one.......


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I assumed you were referring to a report that refutes the claims in the Treasury's report.

    Were you?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Look at the report yourself, I'm sorry but if you just read the post I linked and think it's just my assertion you haven't read the report


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're right, I haven't read the report, but if anything was glaringly wrong with it I suspect I'd have heard about it from a reliable source. Of course some projections are going to be on the pessimistic end, that's what the government's position is, just as some projections for the Leave side would be on the optimistic end of reasonable.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You're right, I haven't read the report, but if anything was glaringly wrong with it I suspect I'd have heard about it from a reliable source. Of course some projections are going to be on the pessimistic end, that's what the government's position is, just as some projections for the Leave side would be on the optimistic end of reasonable.
    You obviously aren't paying any attention to politics if you haven't seen detailed criticism of the report


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    You obviously aren't paying any attention to politics if you haven't seen detailed criticism of the report


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    'Reputable source'
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    'Reputable source'
    I already mentioned Tuesday's daily politics


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I already mentioned Tuesday's daily politics


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, but you're wrong about the things to draw from it. The DP picks holes in everything - the fact that the DP picks holes in it isn't a reason to dismiss it as *******s.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ODES_PDES)
    I could be wrong but it was one of the promises in the conservative manifesto (?)
    To be fair he's broken many of the other promises on that manifesto......
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, but you're wrong about the things to draw from it. The DP picks holes in everything - the fact that the DP picks holes in it isn't a reason to dismiss it as *******s.
    The point is everything the document is predicated on is stupid as I already pointed out


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The point is everything the document is predicated on is stupid as I already pointed out


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As you've stated. You haven't shown this at all.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    "It's stupid because I say so and other people have said it is."
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Ok let's do it point by point?

    If they assume there will be 3 million more migrants net then why have they divided their Gdp per household figure by 27 million instead of the predicted 31 million?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.