Jump to content

EU referendum

Wade Garrett

By Wade Garrett,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
I doubt somehow that being told to "ignore" that which does not conform to one's established opinion is the wisest piece of advice ever offered on here ...

 

Only if it is hysteria and fear mixed with misinformation or didn't that part register? I accept that this is true of both campaigns. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHAPEL END CHARLIE

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Posted
Posted
Show me the mere evidence. The article states that Immigration MAY reduce the time you wait to see a doctor. So even they are not saying that it does.

 

But the whole thrust of the argument is patently ludicrous, that if you have an indigenous population the waiting times will be a certain length and that if you add 300000 to the population the waiting times will reduce. I assume that a substantial percentage of these additional immigrants must be doctors and nurses for that to happen :lol:. It could be that using statistical sleight of hand, they massage their figures on the basis of a percentage of immigrants per 1000 of a local population, so that the healthier, younger immigrants water down the percentages requiring the health service in those localities where they settle.

 

As usual, you read into these things what you want to see and ignore the parts that throw doubt upon them; like this bit:-

 

"May" is a useful word that conveys the profound truth that the world is a uncertain and complicated place. To the type of person (such as yourself) who likes to see everything in simplistic black and white terms then this will seem unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, science and evidence are not quite the same thing - although it "may" require a mind more subtle than yours is to comprehend the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)
The polls are entirely predictable. Leave starts to look like it may actually win and then people get nervous and return to the status quo. Remain will win, probably comfortably.

 

Most people are settled in who they will vote for but some are sheep and will vote with whoever looks like winning; some like to protest during campaigns but end up voting safe and some simply are slightly ashamed of who they intend to vote and so will lie to pollsters. The 'big' shifts in polling are in reality only a few people in 100 changing sides.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted

If it's less than 55% either way it's going to be an absolute clusterf uck. Not really sure anyone will be able to claim victory if there are, say, 500k votes in it.

 

Above 55% ands it's the same as Scotland so the losers will have to suck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
colehillsaint

colehillsaint

Posted
Posted
If it's less than 55% either way it's going to be an absolute clusterf uck. Not really sure anyone will be able to claim victory if there are, say, 500k votes in it.

 

Above 55% ands it's the same as Scotland so the losers will have to suck it up.

 

Yep. Can't dispute that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wes Tender

Wes Tender

Posted
Posted
"May" is a useful word that conveys the profound truth that the world is a uncertain and complicated place. To the type of person (such as yourself) who likes to see everything in simplistic black and white terms then this will seem unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, science and evidence are not quite the same thing - although it "may" require a mind more subtle than yours is to comprehend the point.

 

Bluster as usual, as well as the arrogant superiority that you like to comfort yourself with. But I'm glad that you accept that the use of "may" undermines the basis of the article as fact or evidence, which of course is clearly defined as being black or white, not grey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)
Bluster as usual, as well as the arrogant superiority that you like to comfort yourself with. But I'm glad that you accept that the use of "may" undermines the basis of the article as fact or evidence, which of course is clearly defined as being black or white, not grey.

 

Lets face it Wes, you are pig schit thick and unable to see nuance or degrees of difference in an argument. You cant even figure out how someone can work for a charity and work on fisheries at the same time (hint: its a marine conservation charity. FYI marine means oceans). I don't know who you think you are convincing with the 'points' you make.

Edited by buctootim
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Bluster as usual, as well as the arrogant superiority that you like to comfort yourself with. But I'm glad that you accept that the use of "may" undermines the basis of the article as fact or evidence, which of course is clearly defined as being black or white, not grey.

 

Good one Les. If you read the underlying paper pal, you'll note the authors report only a 5% probability that their results on immigration/reduced waiting times to see a doctor are due to random chance -and that's even after using a battery of sophisticated techniques to show causal effects (rather than simple correlation).

 

But hey you "may" be a bit dim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
So Spain will say, we don't want your British money in our economy?

 

That's funny

 

So we dont want hundreds of thousands of hard workers to pick our fruit, clean our hospitals and wipe our elderly's bums, or the taxes they pay?

 

That's funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
So we dont want hundreds of thousands of hard workers to pick our fruit, clean our hospitals and wipe our elderly's bums, or the taxes they pay?

 

That's funny.

 

I've not seen one person saying we should stop immigration & send immigrants home . I'm sure you wouldn't just make things up , so I look forward to you providing the link .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
True, only this morning on the radio there was a statement from the PM mentioning this tragedy and voting to remain in the same breath.

 

He's also tweeted 10 mins ago that she will had a strong voice in the remain campaign and will be missed by it . Funny because I hadn't seen her put up on one debate , one tv interview or political show & not read one national newspaper article written by her . But evidently she'll be a big loss to Remain campaign

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted (edited)
I've not seen one person saying we should stop immigration & send immigrants home . I'm sure you wouldn't just make things up , so I look forward to you providing the link .

 

The leave side have clearly offered a more positive and fair immigration policy.

 

 

 

Cameron's tweet

He is lower than a snakes belly. He is getting it from all parts of the divide.

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's all very sweet this self righteous indignation, but I think it would be a different story if a) it was, say, Peter Bone who was dead or b) Cox was killed by anyone who wasn't white British.

 

In the "it's what she would have wanted" stakes it's pretty clear what she would have wanted was a remain result. She was on a flipping "in" boat three days ago, she's not some empty vessel neutral being used or misrepresented.

 

It's not going to stop the Brexit campaign winning, they will win, but it's given some people pause for thought anyway.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
what she would have wanted was a remain result..... It's not going to stop the Brexit campaign winning, they will win, but it's given some people pause for thought anyway.

 

I think it probably will make the critical difference - which will be a touch of Karma for the hate and lie ridden campaign Brexit have run. The Brexit campaign indirectly caused Cox's death and her death will cause Brexit to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted

Just heard something on LBC where it was stated that after verification of postal votes and feedback from the 'doorstep' campaigning from around the UK in the last 48 hours or so... it is horrendous news for the remain side.

 

Guess that is why we are seeing the blatant use of the death of the labour MP to try and gain votes when it was stated that campaigning would come to a brief halt

 

we shall see I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted (edited)
having read opinions from people I don't know and who post anonymously, I'm voting out .

 

you've outdone that with this nonsense. You're becoming a bit of a joke

 

Having read opinions from people I don't know and post anonymously, I give very few schits .

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JackFrost

JackFrost

Posted
Posted
I think it probably will make the critical difference - which will be a touch of Karma for the hate and lie ridden campaign Brexit have run. The Brexit campaign indirectly caused Cox's death and her death will cause Brexit to lose.

 

The irony. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
Just heard something on LBC where it was stated that after verification of postal votes and feedback from the 'doorstep' campaigning from around the UK in the last 48 hours or so... it is horrendous news for the remain side.

 

Guess that is why we are seeing the blatant use of the death of the labour MP to try and gain votes when it was stated that campaigning would come to a brief halt

 

we shall see I guess

Out will win.

 

There are experts saying that undecided people will revert to the status quo like they did with Scotland but they won't. Wavering Scottish people I think genuinely saw independence as a leap in the dark, a load of faff and nor really necessary, and that things are fine as they are. That made sense in the ballot box. A simple, well, nah. Thanks Alex and Nicola but nah.

 

That thinking really doesn't apply here. Huge swathes of people have no genuine concept that the EU is any force for good at all, it doesn't represent a cosy status quo like the concept of the UK did in Scotland. It's not intuitive. People who don't think about this stuff at all will trudge down the polling station and vote leave. Easily. It's even got a really easy name. Leave. Leave. Too easy.

 

I read today there are not going to be any exit polls on Thursday which is bloody annoying but there was some indication of how to read the results as they come in. ie Sunderland will declare first, but if it is, say, only a 6% swing for Leave that suggests a dead heat across the whole country.

 

It then went on to say that Remain need to win cities like Newcastle to win the vote. A belwether city. And then I knew. I know jack about Newcastle but why would that city vote remain? Theyre not. Why would Coventry? Why would Derby? They're not. Norwich, Bristol, Brighton, Oxford. Yep, fine. Trendy London, obviously. unless the next few days are a car crash for leave I cannot see how they can possibly lose from here.

 

Cameron is going to get a fu cking pasting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
I dont know her. What should I have said?

 

I could see yo getting excited about this from the off. Couldn't wait for your Diana line. And then ironically complaining about political mileage if others using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
So we dont want hundreds of thousands of hard workers to pick our fruit, clean our hospitals and wipe our elderly's bums, or the taxes they pay?

 

That's funny.

 

All stuff that British people used to do. Pay people a wage they can live on, and they will do the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
Out will win.

 

There are experts saying that undecided people will revert to the status quo like they did with Scotland but they won't. Wavering Scottish people I think genuinely saw independence as a leap in the dark, a load of faff and nor really necessary, and that things are fine as they are. That made sense in the ballot box. A simple, well, nah. Thanks Alex and Nicola but nah.

 

That thinking really doesn't apply here. Huge swathes of people have no genuine concept that the EU is any force for good at all, it doesn't represent a cosy status quo like the concept of the UK did in Scotland. It's not intuitive. People who don't think about this stuff at all will trudge down the polling station and vote leave. Easily. It's even got a really easy name. Leave. Leave. Too easy.

 

I read today there are not going to be any exit polls on Thursday which is bloody annoying but there was some indication of how to read the results as they come in. ie Sunderland will declare first, but if it is, say, only a 6% swing for Leave that suggests a dead heat across the whole country.

 

It then went on to say that Remain need to win cities like Newcastle to win the vote. A belwether city. And then I knew. I know jack about Newcastle but why would that city vote remain? Theyre not. Why would Coventry? Why would Derby? They're not. Norwich, Bristol, Brighton, Oxford. Yep, fine. Trendy London, obviously. unless the next few days are a car crash for leave I cannot see how they can possibly lose from here.

 

Cameron is going to get a fu cking pasting.

 

Remain will win. Will be comfortable

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
Remain will win. Will be comfortable

 

This. It wouldn't surprise me if all this "leave is suddenly winning" nonsense has just been dreamt up by the people with vested interests to remain.

 

Just like the first Irish referendum, apathy is the biggest danger to remain, but I still think they will win easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHAPEL END CHARLIE

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Posted
Posted
Bluster as usual, as well as the arrogant superiority that you like to comfort yourself with. But I'm glad that you accept that the use of "may" undermines the basis of the article as fact or evidence, which of course is clearly defined as being black or white, not grey.

 

You really don't understand the nature of what research evidence is do you? I find this quite remarkable in a man of your age.

 

Researchers can't practically collate patient immigration status with waiting times from every single GP surgery in the land - I doubt these are even generated. So they study what is calculated to be a representative sample and base their conclusions on that. This is reasonable and common practice in the real world. If you on the other hand have any reputable evidence that immigration has significantly incresed GP waiting times (as claimed on here) then I suggest that you either produce it or shut up.

 

Also, I must note (without rising to the bait) that you have elected to call me "arrogant" (for the umpteenth time) while at the same time proudly stating that you intend to ignore everyone else's opinion! This is as clear a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black' as could be possibly imagined. Not for the first time on this thread your epic lack of self-awareness seemingly prevents you from comprehending even this eminently obvious point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goatboy

Goatboy

Posted
Posted
And your government has told you, in the most categorical terms, that this nation will have nothing to do with a so-called 'EU Army' and would employ our veto power to squash any proposal to involve the UK in this area.

 

So that seems clear enough then.

 

Yep, they keep all their promises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Everyone of those points contains its source.

 

Do you want to pay vat on children's clothes, books and food?

 

How about the additional tax increases/spending cuts to plug the £20-40bn hole in the public finances the IFS predicts from any Brexit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted
How about the additional tax increases/spending cuts to plug the £20-40bn hole in the public finances the IFS predicts from any Brexit?

Would be very anti conservative. Normally they cut taxes to fuel spending and growth. Why would they have changed their tune?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHAPEL END CHARLIE

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Posted
Posted
The ability to vote them out.

 

Well you get a opportunity to vote for both your MP and MEP every five years or so - is that not good enough?

 

As for the EU Commission, critics of the EU (such as yourself) habitually like to argue that Britain is losing its 'soverengthy' to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. While the senior staff of the Commission are indeed unelected, so are bureaucrats almost everywhere - including those in Whitehall of course. Members of the EU Commission, as well as being appointed by the elected governments of member states, are indeed subject to confirmation in their positions by the directly elected European Parliament and cannot make final decisions on EU law or policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Would be very anti conservative. Normally they cut taxes to fuel spending and growth. Why would they have changed their tune?

 

You'll remember the tories raised VAT to 20% in 2010 in order to balance the books. A combination of additional spending cuts, tax increases and higher borrowing costs- pick your poison.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...