FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > People's Vote campaign mislead public over numbers
People's Vote campaign mislead public over numbers
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 That will be the argument against your post. | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I" How are you correlating crowd estimates with "other information?" it's a lot different to those other things...Getting desperate? | |||
"you know your going to get pulled on maths your 50,000 short of a third. That will be the argument against your post."Thats why i said "roughly a third".   | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I" One prominent remainer on here who attended that rally said there were 800000! There again it's not the first untruth he has told and I don't doubt it will be the last! | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I One prominent remainer on here who attended that rally said there were 800000! There again it's not the first untruth he has told and I don't doubt it will be the last! "Also told some "Anecdotal bollocks" about an encounter with some Brexiters on a train didn't he?  | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I One prominent remainer on here who attended that rally said there were 800000! There again it's not the first untruth he has told and I don't doubt it will be the last! "The 250,000 amount is still an estimate also. It's hard to estimate crowd sizes at events like this. https://fullfact.org/news/did-670000-march-peoples-vote-brexit/ | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I One prominent remainer on here who attended that rally said there were 800000! There again it's not the first untruth he has told and I don't doubt it will be the last!
Also told some "Anecdotal bollocks" about an encounter with some Brexiters on a train didn't he? "Yes I believe so, had to change is pants when he got home because a couple of OAPS gave him an ear bashing!! | |||
"you know your going to get pulled on maths your 50,000 short of a third. That will be the argument against your post."I am pulling you on your English its is you are 50,000 short not your 50,000 short. So many so called educated people do not understand their,you're, and many basic English words. is like um us um nor nowin ow 2 talk proppa int mun | |||
"you know your going to get pulled on maths your 50,000 short of a third. That will be the argument against your post.
I am pulling you on your English its is you are 50,000 short not your 50,000 short.
So many so called educated people do not understand their,you're, and many basic English words.
is like um us um nor nowin ow 2 talk proppa int mun "Thanks mate never was any good at school but never to late to learn i guess. | |||
| |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I One prominent remainer on here who attended that rally said there were 800000! There again it's not the first untruth he has told and I don't doubt it will be the last!
Also told some "Anecdotal bollocks" about an encounter with some Brexiters on a train didn't he? "Having seen his latest profile photo I think he may be seriously deluded, a tank top and an hard on is never a good look!! | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I One prominent remainer on here who attended that rally said there were 800000! There again it's not the first untruth he has told and I don't doubt it will be the last!
Also told some "Anecdotal bollocks" about an encounter with some Brexiters on a train didn't he?
Having seen his latest profile photo I think he may be seriously deluded, a tank top and an hard on is never a good look!! "If all else fails: personal attack based on appearance!!! Nice one. | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I One prominent remainer on here who attended that rally said there were 800000! There again it's not the first untruth he has told and I don't doubt it will be the last!
Also told some "Anecdotal bollocks" about an encounter with some Brexiters on a train didn't he?
Having seen his latest profile photo I think he may be seriously deluded, a tank top and an hard on is never a good look!!
If all else fails: personal attack based on appearance!!! Nice one."You can always follow the trend if you think it's a good look!Lol | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I One prominent remainer on here who attended that rally said there were 800000! There again it's not the first untruth he has told and I don't doubt it will be the last!
Also told some "Anecdotal bollocks" about an encounter with some Brexiters on a train didn't he?
Having seen his latest profile photo I think he may be seriously deluded, a tank top and an hard on is never a good look!!
If all else fails: personal attack based on appearance!!! Nice one.
You can always follow the trend if you think it's a good look!Lol "......Lol | |||
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested. | |||
"As the only two sources are Brexit supporting papers with no text quoted and no document available to interrogate I think I'll pass on your assertion as your interpretation of data and theirs is questionable at best
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested."Yes, I only saw the Express and Telegraph were running it. | |||
| |||
"As the only two sources are Brexit supporting papers with no text quoted and no document available to interrogate I think I'll pass on your assertion as your interpretation of data and theirs is questionable at best
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested.
Yes, I only saw the Express and Telegraph were running it."That is true but would you expect remain papers to admit they had been telling porkies, the report was from the GLA estimate, should be easy to track it down by doing your own FOI request if you doubt it. | |||
"As the only two sources are Brexit supporting papers with no text quoted and no document available to interrogate I think I'll pass on your assertion as your interpretation of data and theirs is questionable at best
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested.
Yes, I only saw the Express and Telegraph were running it.
That is true but would you expect remain papers to admit they had been telling porkies, the report was from the GLA estimate, should be easy to track it down by doing your own FOI request if you doubt it."...or they could just publish the relevant part. Instead, they have implied something without giving the actual wording. Why so that? | |||
"As the only two sources are Brexit supporting papers with no text quoted and no document available to interrogate I think I'll pass on your assertion as your interpretation of data and theirs is questionable at best
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested.
Yes, I only saw the Express and Telegraph were running it.
That is true but would you expect remain papers to admit they had been telling porkies, the report was from the GLA estimate, should be easy to track it down by doing your own FOI request if you doubt it.
...or they could just publish the relevant part.
Instead, they have implied something without giving the actual wording.
Why so that?"They quoted Scotland Yard. You know what a quote means right? What Scotland Yard actually had to say on the matter. Or are you implying Scotland Yard have lied about this? | |||
| |||
"As the only two sources are Brexit supporting papers with no text quoted and no document available to interrogate I think I'll pass on your assertion as your interpretation of data and theirs is questionable at best
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested.
Yes, I only saw the Express and Telegraph were running it.
That is true but would you expect remain papers to admit they had been telling porkies, the report was from the GLA estimate, should be easy to track it down by doing your own FOI request if you doubt it.
...or they could just publish the relevant part.
Instead, they have implied something without giving the actual wording.
Why so that?
They quoted Scotland Yard. You know what a quote means right?
What Scotland Yard actually had to say on the matter. Or are you implying Scotland Yard have lied about this? "The papers claim that the figure was used in a GLA document but is careful not to quote the text or give the context. This is the FOI to the Metropolitan Police that does exist: "Dear Mr. Goodman, Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018100001387 I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/10/2018. I note you seek access to the following: "Can you please publish any data, information, or estimates you hold, or have communicated, about the number of attendees at the "Peoples Vote March" in London on 20th October 2018." SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted by MO6 - Public Order and Resources. The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request and therefore the information you have requested is not held. The MPS has not produced any information on attendance figures for the People's Vote march." Read it and understood it? | |||
"As the only two sources are Brexit supporting papers with no text quoted and no document available to interrogate I think I'll pass on your assertion as your interpretation of data and theirs is questionable at best
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested.
Yes, I only saw the Express and Telegraph were running it.
That is true but would you expect remain papers to admit they had been telling porkies, the report was from the GLA estimate, should be easy to track it down by doing your own FOI request if you doubt it.
...or they could just publish the relevant part.
Instead, they have implied something without giving the actual wording.
Why so that?
They quoted Scotland Yard. You know what a quote means right?
What Scotland Yard actually had to say on the matter. Or are you implying Scotland Yard have lied about this?
The papers claim that the figure was used in a GLA document but is careful not to quote the text or give the context.
This is the FOI to the Metropolitan Police that does exist:
"Dear Mr. Goodman,
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018100001387
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/10/2018. I note you seek
access to the following:
"Can you please publish any data, information, or estimates you hold, or
have communicated, about the number of attendees at the "Peoples Vote
March" in London on 20th October 2018."
SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
by MO6 - Public Order and Resources. The searches failed to locate any
information relevant to your request and therefore the information you
have requested is not held. The MPS has not produced any information on
attendance figures for the People's Vote march."
Read it and understood it?
"As I said the newspapers quoted Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard had seen the document from the GLA and quoted the numbers 250,000. Are you implying Scotland Yard have lied about this? | |||
| |||
"As the only two sources are Brexit supporting papers with no text quoted and no document available to interrogate I think I'll pass on your assertion as your interpretation of data and theirs is questionable at best
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested.
Yes, I only saw the Express and Telegraph were running it.
That is true but would you expect remain papers to admit they had been telling porkies, the report was from the GLA estimate, should be easy to track it down by doing your own FOI request if you doubt it.
...or they could just publish the relevant part.
Instead, they have implied something without giving the actual wording.
Why so that?
They quoted Scotland Yard. You know what a quote means right?
What Scotland Yard actually had to say on the matter. Or are you implying Scotland Yard have lied about this?
The papers claim that the figure was used in a GLA document but is careful not to quote the text or give the context.
This is the FOI to the Metropolitan Police that does exist:
"Dear Mr. Goodman,
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018100001387
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/10/2018. I note you seek
access to the following:
"Can you please publish any data, information, or estimates you hold, or
have communicated, about the number of attendees at the "Peoples Vote
March" in London on 20th October 2018."
SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
by MO6 - Public Order and Resources. The searches failed to locate any
information relevant to your request and therefore the information you
have requested is not held. The MPS has not produced any information on
attendance figures for the People's Vote march."
Read it and understood it?
As I said the newspapers quoted Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard had seen the document from the GLA and quoted the numbers 250,000. Are you implying Scotland Yard have lied about this? "No, he's implying the papers are misquoting. | |||
| |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt" Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there | |||
| |||
| |||
"As the only two sources are Brexit supporting papers with no text quoted and no document available to interrogate I think I'll pass on your assertion as your interpretation of data and theirs is questionable at best
If you can find the document made available in the freedom of information request but not then replicated even in part then I'll be interested.
Yes, I only saw the Express and Telegraph were running it.
That is true but would you expect remain papers to admit they had been telling porkies, the report was from the GLA estimate, should be easy to track it down by doing your own FOI request if you doubt it.
...or they could just publish the relevant part.
Instead, they have implied something without giving the actual wording.
Why so that?
They quoted Scotland Yard. You know what a quote means right?
What Scotland Yard actually had to say on the matter. Or are you implying Scotland Yard have lied about this?
The papers claim that the figure was used in a GLA document but is careful not to quote the text or give the context.
This is the FOI to the Metropolitan Police that does exist:
"Dear Mr. Goodman,
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018100001387
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/10/2018. I note you seek
access to the following:
"Can you please publish any data, information, or estimates you hold, or
have communicated, about the number of attendees at the "Peoples Vote
March" in London on 20th October 2018."
SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
by MO6 - Public Order and Resources. The searches failed to locate any
information relevant to your request and therefore the information you
have requested is not held. The MPS has not produced any information on
attendance figures for the People's Vote march."
Read it and understood it?
As I said the newspapers quoted Scotland Yard. Scotland Yard had seen the document from the GLA and quoted the numbers 250,000. Are you implying Scotland Yard have lied about this? "The Express is quoting the Sunday Times quoting an undisclosed freedom of information request quoting Scotland Yard reporting a figure that the GLA estimated. There is nothing to give this context. Was this a minimum attendance figure? Maximum? Was it the expected attendance figure? Was it the estimated attendance figure at the start of the demonstration? Who knows. We don't even know what the FOI request was for. Makes for a good old distraction though
'Following a request under the Freedom of Information Act, Scotland Yard told The Sunday Telegraph: "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document.
"Please note this is not a Metropolitan Police Service estimate as we have not recorded an estimated attendance figure for the march."' | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there" Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number? | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number?" The trend is that everything figure remain said/says has been wrong glad we can agree on that | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number? The trend is that everything figure remain said/says has been wrong glad we can agree on that " Facetious. You usually do better. Look up the graph for UK GDP growth vs G7, World GDP growth, UK employment, GBP exchange rate, UK inflation, UK wage growth. Look at what happens in 2016. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Rather than arguing to "win" some imagined argument, look at the data, form a logical narrative and express it coherently. | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number? The trend is that everything figure remain said/says has been wrong glad we can agree on that Facetious. You usually do better. Look up the graph for UK GDP growth vs G7, World GDP growth, UK employment, GBP exchange rate, UK inflation, UK wage growth. Look at what happens in 2016. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Rather than arguing to "win" some imagined argument, look at the data, form a logical narrative and express it coherently." Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Doing that has given us the figures that the gov has used and been shown to be wrong,you know as well as I do that you cant do that with any accuracy, they cant project figures a year ahead let alone waht was it 30 years in one forecast. No one has an idea what will happen if we leave with no deal, mays deal or some other means, everyone company that trades in, with and exports from the UK will react differently to each senario as will those in the eu and rest of the world, the only thing that is certain is that trade will continue, it may fall or increase but I believe it wont be that much different in total and over time we will be glad we have left the eu as more problems crop up | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number? The trend is that everything figure remain said/says has been wrong glad we can agree on that Facetious. You usually do better. Look up the graph for UK GDP growth vs G7, World GDP growth, UK employment, GBP exchange rate, UK inflation, UK wage growth. Look at what happens in 2016. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Rather than arguing to "win" some imagined argument, look at the data, form a logical narrative and express it coherently. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Doing that has given us the figures that the gov has used and been shown to be wrong,you know as well as I do that you cant do that with any accuracy, they cant project figures a year ahead let alone waht was it 30 years in one forecast. No one has an idea what will happen if we leave with no deal, mays deal or some other means, everyone company that trades in, with and exports from the UK will react differently to each senario as will those in the eu and rest of the world, the only thing that is certain is that trade will continue, it may fall or increase but I believe it wont be that much different in total and over time we will be glad we have left the eu as more problems crop up " I'm not saying extrapolate into the future with complex and unknown variables. I'm saying interpolate with existing data that has been collected. I even told you exactly what to look for. Go and find additional information that you think is pertinent. You are perfectly capable of doing that. It is also perfectly possible to work out what the most likely outcomes of leaving the EU with and without a deal are. Are you saying don't bother just do it and see what happens? That it's futile making any plans for anything ever because nobody knows anything ever? Of not then what? You believe means nothing to me as does my belief mean nothing to me. Explain how and why it won't be much different and why we will be glad. Over how long? Will there be any downside? What and for whom and for how long? You are just saying trust you it will be fine. That's the entire plan right? | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number? The trend is that everything figure remain said/says has been wrong glad we can agree on that Facetious. You usually do better. Look up the graph for UK GDP growth vs G7, World GDP growth, UK employment, GBP exchange rate, UK inflation, UK wage growth. Look at what happens in 2016. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Rather than arguing to "win" some imagined argument, look at the data, form a logical narrative and express it coherently. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Doing that has given us the figures that the gov has used and been shown to be wrong,you know as well as I do that you cant do that with any accuracy, they cant project figures a year ahead let alone waht was it 30 years in one forecast. No one has an idea what will happen if we leave with no deal, mays deal or some other means, everyone company that trades in, with and exports from the UK will react differently to each senario as will those in the eu and rest of the world, the only thing that is certain is that trade will continue, it may fall or increase but I believe it wont be that much different in total and over time we will be glad we have left the eu as more problems crop up I'm not saying extrapolate into the future with complex and unknown variables. I'm saying interpolate with existing data that has been collected. I even told you exactly what to look for. Go and find additional information that you think is pertinent. You are perfectly capable of doing that. It is also perfectly possible to work out what the most likely outcomes of leaving the EU with and without a deal are. Are you saying don't bother just do it and see what happens? That it's futile making any plans for anything ever because nobody knows anything ever? Of not then what? You believe means nothing to me as does my belief mean nothing to me. Explain how and why it won't be much different and why we will be glad. Over how long? Will there be any downside? What and for whom and for how long? You are just saying trust you it will be fine. That's the entire plan right?" Well even though remoaners like you are still incessantly painting pictures of doom and gloom everywhere, the government have been making plans for no deal. A civil servant has come forward and leaked to the press that the UK is "very well prepared" for no deal, and the current scaremongering being done by politicians is just a ploy to try to scare MP's into voting for May's deal. You ask should any planning ever be done for anything in future? Of course it should, and as the leak exposed we are very well prepared for a no deal outcome. | |||
"we are very well prepared for a no deal outcome. " Bookmarked. | |||
| |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number? The trend is that everything figure remain said/says has been wrong glad we can agree on that Facetious. You usually do better. Look up the graph for UK GDP growth vs G7, World GDP growth, UK employment, GBP exchange rate, UK inflation, UK wage growth. Look at what happens in 2016. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Rather than arguing to "win" some imagined argument, look at the data, form a logical narrative and express it coherently. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Doing that has given us the figures that the gov has used and been shown to be wrong,you know as well as I do that you cant do that with any accuracy, they cant project figures a year ahead let alone waht was it 30 years in one forecast. No one has an idea what will happen if we leave with no deal, mays deal or some other means, everyone company that trades in, with and exports from the UK will react differently to each senario as will those in the eu and rest of the world, the only thing that is certain is that trade will continue, it may fall or increase but I believe it wont be that much different in total and over time we will be glad we have left the eu as more problems crop up I'm not saying extrapolate into the future with complex and unknown variables. I'm saying interpolate with existing data that has been collected. I even told you exactly what to look for. Go and find additional information that you think is pertinent. You are perfectly capable of doing that. It is also perfectly possible to work out what the most likely outcomes of leaving the EU with and without a deal are. Are you saying don't bother just do it and see what happens? That it's futile making any plans for anything ever because nobody knows anything ever? Of not then what? You believe means nothing to me as does my belief mean nothing to me. Explain how and why it won't be much different and why we will be glad. Over how long? Will there be any downside? What and for whom and for how long? You are just saying trust you it will be fine. That's the entire plan right? Well even though remoaners like you are still incessantly painting pictures of doom and gloom everywhere, the government have been making plans for no deal. A civil servant has come forward and leaked to the press that the UK is "very well prepared" for no deal, and the current scaremongering being done by politicians is just a ploy to try to scare MP's into voting for May's deal. You ask should any planning ever be done for anything in future? Of course it should, and as the leak exposed we are very well prepared for a no deal outcome. " This is exhausting as you just flip as to what supports your argument at any given moment. It has stabilised though. There is no longer any attempt to say how much better off we will be. It is that as it won't be as disastrous as the most extreme predictions it will be fine. I'm not doom and gloom. Pointing out your fantasies as nonsense is not that at all. I'm just looking at the actual information available to me rather than promises and beliefs and drawing a conclusion. I criticise you regularly because you evade answering difficult questions, change the topic, misquote, misrepresent, cherry pick data and repeat lies. You also refuse to see any merit in an opposing view or any flaw in your own position so I cannot take you seriously. There's a cognitive bias thread. Managed to contribute yet? | |||
| |||
| |||
"we are very well prepared for a no deal outcome. Bookmarked." Staggering more like, given the government only sent out information before Christmas and the businesses that the local news here spoke to all said it was too late, too complicated and that they had where necessary already started to prepare and plan mo this agigiven the tory parties shambolic record thus far.. The 'civil servant' probably means yeah we are ready in my department but without details etc it's just another soundbite to be grabbed like a drowning man clutches a life belt by some.. | |||
"Also wankers marching against the Iraq war. Fuckem For women's votes. Fuckem For trade union representation Fuckem Good stuff "What are you on about exactly? | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number? The trend is that everything figure remain said/says has been wrong glad we can agree on that Facetious. You usually do better. Look up the graph for UK GDP growth vs G7, World GDP growth, UK employment, GBP exchange rate, UK inflation, UK wage growth. Look at what happens in 2016. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Rather than arguing to "win" some imagined argument, look at the data, form a logical narrative and express it coherently. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Doing that has given us the figures that the gov has used and been shown to be wrong,you know as well as I do that you cant do that with any accuracy, they cant project figures a year ahead let alone waht was it 30 years in one forecast. No one has an idea what will happen if we leave with no deal, mays deal or some other means, everyone company that trades in, with and exports from the UK will react differently to each senario as will those in the eu and rest of the world, the only thing that is certain is that trade will continue, it may fall or increase but I believe it wont be that much different in total and over time we will be glad we have left the eu as more problems crop up I'm not saying extrapolate into the future with complex and unknown variables. I'm saying interpolate with existing data that has been collected. I even told you exactly what to look for. Go and find additional information that you think is pertinent. You are perfectly capable of doing that. It is also perfectly possible to work out what the most likely outcomes of leaving the EU with and without a deal are. Are you saying don't bother just do it and see what happens? That it's futile making any plans for anything ever because nobody knows anything ever? Of not then what? You believe means nothing to me as does my belief mean nothing to me. Explain how and why it won't be much different and why we will be glad. Over how long? Will there be any downside? What and for whom and for how long? You are just saying trust you it will be fine. That's the entire plan right? Well even though remoaners like you are still incessantly painting pictures of doom and gloom everywhere, the government have been making plans for no deal. A civil servant has come forward and leaked to the press that the UK is "very well prepared" for no deal, and the current scaremongering being done by politicians is just a ploy to try to scare MP's into voting for May's deal. You ask should any planning ever be done for anything in future? Of course it should, and as the leak exposed we are very well prepared for a no deal outcome. This is exhausting as you just flip as to what supports your argument at any given moment. It has stabilised though. There is no longer any attempt to say how much better off we will be. It is that as it won't be as disastrous as the most extreme predictions it will be fine. I'm not doom and gloom. Pointing out your fantasies as nonsense is not that at all. I'm just looking at the actual information available to me rather than promises and beliefs and drawing a conclusion. I criticise you regularly because you evade answering difficult questions, change the topic, misquote, misrepresent, cherry pick data and repeat lies. You also refuse to see any merit in an opposing view or any flaw in your own position so I cannot take you seriously. There's a cognitive bias thread. Managed to contribute yet?" Classic.
You accuse me now of changing the subject or derailing the thread, when it's you who has changed the subject in the first place, lol. I was responding to your post. I suggest you scroll back up and read the thread again to see who changed the subject.
If you want to get back on topic then this is a thread about the Peoples Vote campaign misleading the public and politicians about the level of support it has. | |||
" I'm not saying extrapolate into the future with complex and unknown variables. I'm saying interpolate with existing data that has been collected. I even told you exactly what to look for. Go and find additional information that you think is pertinent. You are perfectly capable of doing that. It is also perfectly possible to work out what the most likely outcomes of leaving the EU with and without a deal are. Are you saying don't bother just do it and see what happens? That it's futile making any plans for anything ever because nobody knows anything ever? Of not then what? You believe means nothing to me as does my belief mean nothing to me. Explain how and why it won't be much different and why we will be glad. Over how long? Will there be any downside? What and for whom and for how long? You are just saying trust you it will be fine. That's the entire plan right?" The starting point is that our trade with the eu is IIRC 12% of our gdp, tariffs on average are around 3/4% the £ is down more than that so unlikely to have a huge impact on exports, yes I know cars are 10% but thats only around current currency drop, no doubt some exports will be lost but then again imports could /should be replaced by uk produced goods where avaliable, in all the forecasts Ive not seen one that says we will lose X amount of that 12% they just range from it being bad to the end of uk business which is just stupid. Of course many companies will adjust their prices to ensure they still sell product, anything sells for the price the market will stand and to compete with similar products, I dont beleive companies will just say oh well lets all give up they will have already taken a hard look at what they are doing and what they need to do in the event of wto trade. What they say in public and what they are going to do may well be very different, you know like politicains do all the time. Having run my own business for many years I know that challenges are there to be met and turned to advantage, being defeatist is the way to ensure you lose out As for eu problems, the increase in each countries contributions to make up for us, the ever increasing migrant numbers, the debt crisis, the rise of anti eu parties as opposed to the brussels demands for more europe. I have said many times the reason I voted leave was because of the later point leading to a united states of europe, I just dont beleive that can or will work, at least for many many years, had the eu stayed as just a trading block then in time it may have been possible but the pace of change is far too fast, we only have to look at the balkans to see that a long time is needed before people forget history. | |||
"It's been revealed that the People's Vote campaign, calling for a 2nd EU referendum has attempted to mislead the public and politicians about the numbers supporting its campaign. The People's vote campaign claimed upto 700,000 people joined its march in London last October, but following a freedom of information request Scotland Yard told the Sunday Telegraph, "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document." So 250,000 is roughly only a third of what the People's Vote had claimed had attended its March last October. It now must also bring into question what other numbers and figures have the People's Vote been exaggerating, or manipulating (possibly on its polls?). If they can get attendance figures massively wrong by 2 thirds, then how accurate (inaccurate) or misleading are other information this group has come out with? www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1067870/brexit-news-peoples-vote-march-leave-EU-october-protest www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZaxxAr-U3I" . At least they didn't claim there was 350 million marching every week | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there Don't you see when something is implied but not verified? Don't you see when something is estimated under a given set of circumstances but the circumstances change? Don't you see when a trend is significantly more important than an absolute number? The trend is that everything figure remain said/says has been wrong glad we can agree on that Facetious. You usually do better. Look up the graph for UK GDP growth vs G7, World GDP growth, UK employment, GBP exchange rate, UK inflation, UK wage growth. Look at what happens in 2016. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Rather than arguing to "win" some imagined argument, look at the data, form a logical narrative and express it coherently. Hypothesize how well the UK would have done had things been different. Doing that has given us the figures that the gov has used and been shown to be wrong,you know as well as I do that you cant do that with any accuracy, they cant project figures a year ahead let alone waht was it 30 years in one forecast. No one has an idea what will happen if we leave with no deal, mays deal or some other means, everyone company that trades in, with and exports from the UK will react differently to each senario as will those in the eu and rest of the world, the only thing that is certain is that trade will continue, it may fall or increase but I believe it wont be that much different in total and over time we will be glad we have left the eu as more problems crop up I'm not saying extrapolate into the future with complex and unknown variables. I'm saying interpolate with existing data that has been collected. I even told you exactly what to look for. Go and find additional information that you think is pertinent. You are perfectly capable of doing that. It is also perfectly possible to work out what the most likely outcomes of leaving the EU with and without a deal are. Are you saying don't bother just do it and see what happens? That it's futile making any plans for anything ever because nobody knows anything ever? Of not then what? You believe means nothing to me as does my belief mean nothing to me. Explain how and why it won't be much different and why we will be glad. Over how long? Will there be any downside? What and for whom and for how long? You are just saying trust you it will be fine. That's the entire plan right? Well even though remoaners like you are still incessantly painting pictures of doom and gloom everywhere, the government have been making plans for no deal. A civil servant has come forward and leaked to the press that the UK is "very well prepared" for no deal, and the current scaremongering being done by politicians is just a ploy to try to scare MP's into voting for May's deal. You ask should any planning ever be done for anything in future? Of course it should, and as the leak exposed we are very well prepared for a no deal outcome. This is exhausting as you just flip as to what supports your argument at any given moment. It has stabilised though. There is no longer any attempt to say how much better off we will be. It is that as it won't be as disastrous as the most extreme predictions it will be fine. I'm not doom and gloom. Pointing out your fantasies as nonsense is not that at all. I'm just looking at the actual information available to me rather than promises and beliefs and drawing a conclusion. I criticise you regularly because you evade answering difficult questions, change the topic, misquote, misrepresent, cherry pick data and repeat lies. You also refuse to see any merit in an opposing view or any flaw in your own position so I cannot take you seriously. There's a cognitive bias thread. Managed to contribute yet? Classic.
You accuse me now of changing the subject or derailing the thread, when it's you who has changed the subject in the first place, lol. I was responding to your post. I suggest you scroll back up and read the thread again to see who changed the subject.
If you want to get back on topic then this is a thread about the Peoples Vote campaign misleading the public and politicians about the level of support it has. "No. I've addressed your thread. As you've always pointed out, once you've posted the thread is no longer yours to control even though control is the only thing you seek | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there" I'm saying we've got bigger fish to fry. You are rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic at the moment. Get a grip, and put things in perspective. -Matt | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there I'm saying we've got bigger fish to fry. You are rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic at the moment. Get a grip, and put things in perspective. -Matt" Keep your head in the sand Matt, you're pretty good at it. This story has exposed the Peoples Vote campaign and called into question it's credibility. They've vastly exaggerated numbers and it must now make people who aren't swivel eyed Euroloon remainers, wonder what else they've exaggerated about or attempted to mislead the public over. | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there I'm saying we've got bigger fish to fry. You are rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic at the moment. Get a grip, and put things in perspective. -Matt Keep your head in the sand Matt, you're pretty good at it. This story has exposed the Peoples Vote campaign and called into question it's credibility. They've vastly exaggerated numbers and it must now make people who aren't swivel eyed Euroloon remainers, wonder what else they've exaggerated about or attempted to mislead the public over. " No, it's shown how you copy and paste any bullshit fake news story that echoes your own biases. | |||
"I love how you have two of the most ardent leavers on the forum both start a thread salivating over the fact that some march numbers were inaccurate. It's like the *only* thing that can come up with, so they latch onto it. Sod the social, economic, and political wrecking ball in action. Who cares that week after week we get a new prominent MP who campaigned to leave, go back on what they said. But those march numbers.... those are the important facts. -Matt Are you saying that the figures the GLA say were there and the met have reported were wrong ? Dont you see the theme of everything remain ? Every figure they quoted during the campaign and since has been wrong or some might say a lie, how many claimed here that the figure was 600,700 or one who claimed he was there and said there was 800,000 there I'm saying we've got bigger fish to fry. You are rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic at the moment. Get a grip, and put things in perspective. -Matt Keep your head in the sand Matt, you're pretty good at it. This story has exposed the Peoples Vote campaign and called into question it's credibility. They've vastly exaggerated numbers and it must now make people who aren't swivel eyed Euroloon remainers, wonder what else they've exaggerated about or attempted to mislead the public over. " Why are you so outraged at a possible over estimate at the numbers who attended a protest, (seems standard practice for every protest I can remember). And yet will defend to the last, the Leave campaigns various funding irregularities. | |||
" I'm not saying extrapolate into the future with complex and unknown variables. I'm saying interpolate with existing data that has been collected. I even told you exactly what to look for. Go and find additional information that you think is pertinent. You are perfectly capable of doing that. It is also perfectly possible to work out what the most likely outcomes of leaving the EU with and without a deal are. Are you saying don't bother just do it and see what happens? That it's futile making any plans for anything ever because nobody knows anything ever? Of not then what? You believe means nothing to me as does my belief mean nothing to me. Explain how and why it won't be much different and why we will be glad. Over how long? Will there be any downside? What and for whom and for how long? You are just saying trust you it will be fine. That's the entire plan right? The starting point is that our trade with the eu is IIRC 12% of our gdp, tariffs on average are around 3/4% the £ is down more than that so unlikely to have a huge impact on exports, yes I know cars are 10% but thats only around current currency drop, no doubt some exports will be lost but then again imports could /should be replaced by uk produced goods where avaliable, in all the forecasts Ive not seen one that says we will lose X amount of that 12% they just range from it being bad to the end of uk business which is just stupid. Of course many companies will adjust their prices to ensure they still sell product, anything sells for the price the market will stand and to compete with similar products, I dont beleive companies will just say oh well lets all give up they will have already taken a hard look at what they are doing and what they need to do in the event of wto trade. What they say in public and what they are going to do may well be very different, you know like politicains do all the time. Having run my own business for many years I know that challenges are there to be met and turned to advantage, being defeatist is the way to ensure you lose out As for eu problems, the increase in each countries contributions to make up for us, the ever increasing migrant numbers, the debt crisis, the rise of anti eu parties as opposed to the brussels demands for more europe. I have said many times the reason I voted leave was because of the later point leading to a united states of europe, I just dont beleive that can or will work, at least for many many years, had the eu stayed as just a trading block then in time it may have been possible but the pace of change is far too fast, we only have to look at the balkans to see that a long time is needed before people forget history. " So, again, I'm not asking you to discuss predictions. What happened in the lead up to the referendum? What has happened since? In the UK relative to globally and our G7 peers? Not predictions. Gathered data? Just write the narrative, no need to believe anything. You do keep using that word which really should give you pause when talking about the future of your country. I also quoted verbatim for you in another thread the Treaty of Rome which specifies more than a trading block. If you missed it then please look up Article 3. What does it mean to you? | |||
| |||
"I wonder what an accurate forecast would have been? Most of the key metrics will carry on with the long term trend. Sterling will take a tumble. Gdp will take a dent, moving us from being one of the higher growth countries in the EU tonone of the lowest. No metric will show a noticeable uptick beyond trend. Some of the positive measure (eg house price, business investments) may show a wobble towards the end of the two year but it won’t be sizeable enough, or recorded over a long enough period, to call significant. Neither side painted this picture. Neither side should be calling the other out for being “wrong” when they offered no “better” forecasts. " Possibly we could fall out of the G7? | |||
