Re: Brexit discussion
 

Thank you, Andrew, that is helpful.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

and we all know it wasn't a promise because the campaign group had no mandate to make any such promise. That'd be down to the Government the key players in which at that point were heavily in favour of remaining as we all know. None of this will stop the usual suspects claiming it was a promise however as it suits their aims to misrepresent it as such.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The issue in dispute this year differs from what you are defending.
The wording in question was "After leaving the EU, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week."
- The impartial fact-checking service FullFact says this is incorrect.
- The pro-Brexit Spectator magazine owned by the billionaire Barclay Brothers says the statement is correct.
As a footnote and as highlighted earlier, Boris's article was unnecessary as Boris and Theresa actually agree on how a future relationship with the EU should look!

Re: Brexit discussion
 

£350m is our potential liability, given that our contribution liability could be reviewed to our detiment at a future date. Boris makes people believe that he is an incompetent buffoon, but this underestimates him. If you think about it, there is something Churchillian about him.

Please put aside these attitudes towards the rich. Many of them have extraordinary abilities that they can put to good use to help the poor and everyone else. They are, in fact, like you and me because surprisingly, they are also human.

Whether you are talking about £350 million or £250 million, that's still a huge amount of money.

Let's stop splitting hairs and get on with Brexit!

:ninja:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

No it not incorrect, the figure has varied widely over the years and crucially, it would be around 376M in 2022/3, had we stayed in.

The attitude of some remainers is desperation clinging to the 350M figure being banded about and claiming it was a lie by the Vote Leave Campaign. I think it is totally disengenuous for remainers to keep allocating this as a scapegoat in to why Brexiteers voted the way they did. As repeatedly stated at nearly every time this, done to death argument comes up, my intention to vote leave was made years ago.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

It can only be changed with the UK's agreement. https://fullfact.org/europe/350-mill...hority-misuse/

The cost of EU membership is 0.3% of our GDP. That's far less than the decline in GDP that the UK is anticipated to incur when it leaves the EU. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...3600101#page=4

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------

I'm going with the impartial Factchecking service on the key argument on this point in preference to the tax haven, billionaire-owned Spectator magazine. Call me old fashioned :)
Regarding the rest of your statement, it was actually Derek Cummings who credited the £350m pw as winning the referendum. He headed up Vote Leave and therefore I doubt he would not like to be called a remainer!
And as Ignitionet has patiently explained, it was the Statistics Regulator who pulled Boris up, not remainers. He's required to do that as part of his job .(Sir David Norgrove, that is, not Ignitionet.:))

Re: Brexit discussion
 

As usual, one sidedness rears its ugly head.

I repeat, it is not a lie. The UK gives the EU a "gross" contribution of £350 million a week, of that amount, most of it which "could" be spent on the NHS if the UK Government so wished. These are usually touted as lies, but this stems from ‘Remainers' being unable to tell the difference between the words ‘gross’ and ‘net’ as well as the difference between the words ‘could’ and ‘will’.

But if we want to discuss voter influence, no problem, as for lies, there were plenty told by Remain campaign...

Such as....

• David Cameron implied in a speech about the “serried rows of white headstones” that World War 3 would be upon us if Brexit occurred.
  
• European Council President Donald Tusk, said western political civilisation would be destroyed if the UK voted ‘Leave.
  
• George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented in an emergency budget straight after referendum if leave won.
  
• “A dangerous fantasy” is how Nick Clegg described Nigel Farage’s claim of EU plans to create an army. Barely three months on from the Referendum, Juncker had proposed an EU Army.
  
• David Cameron said he wouldn’t resign as Prime Minister if he lost the Referendum vote. He said at a PM questions session when asked if he would be around to enact the result of the referendum on June 24th. He replied "Yes.".
  
• President Obama indicated we would be at the back of the queue if leave won, this was single handed, the most dirty trick the Remain camp used to try sway votes, but I actually think Obama convinced more Brits to vote leave. Either way, by the time brexit happens he would no longer be the serving President, perhaps he was hoping for Crooked Hillary to do his bidding, had she actually won, after his departure.
  
  Perhaps this not a lie but more of a big issue allowing a foreign leader to influence a British Democratic Process. We can see how upset the US got when it does not like foreign countries influencing their election process. Why should we not feel aggrieved at Obama's intervention during our referendum ?

How many of the above lies attributed to the undecided folks going with voting Remain....?

So I'm sorry, this voter influence works both ways I'm afraid.

:rolleyes:

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Agreed
Independent Factchecking sources disagree with you and their analysis is fortunately not based on how many times we post on forums.

More importantly, whilst every UK household pays £317 to the EU, Brexit is set to cost each household a reported £4,200. (I think that figure explains why the Government is aiming for a two-year standstill period and why the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy wants a five-year period.)

However, if the Brexit press is to be believed, the Coalition of Chaos continues to lurch from division to division.
The Sunday Telegraph is reporting that Boris is demanding no new EU rules after 2019 which will cause a cabinet split. His demand puts him on a collision course with the Treasury, which wants a “status quo” transition.
The Mail on Sunday says that the truce between Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson has ended with Philip Hammond annoyed that Boris's team people claim that Boris blocked a five-year Brexit transition. According to the paper, the feud between the two is beginning to look like a fight to the political death.
The Sunday Times is reporting that four of Theresa May's senior ministers had made plans to replace her after the general election. Boris Johnson, Philip Hammond, David Davis and Amber Rudd were embroiled in leadership plots after she surrendered the Tory majority.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I see you avoided commenting on the remain lies that haven't happened Andrew continuing to flog your favourite dead horse but then your always happy to ignore things that don't suit your agenda. In or out things were never gauranteed and both have their risks but being out means the UK government is in a position to do whats best for the UK and only that now if only we could get some decent politicians.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The £350 million claim is highly misleading at best and a lie at worst. We don't send that and we control the money we do not send. The only people who claim it to be true are the Brexit camp.

Full Fact say it's false: https://fullfact.org/europe/350-mill...hority-misuse/
The UK Statistics Authority say it's false.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies say it's false: https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...-week-brussels

Even the Brexit-supporting Telegraph weren't defending it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu...-fact-checked/

Now Boris chose his words carefully to say 'control' rather than the 'spend' they used in the referendum but I think that's just a typical weasel way politicians word things in order to seem like they're promising something they're not. 'Controlling' this money means nothing if 1) it's not really there and 2) you can't spend it.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Oh fgs nobody i know or have seen on the internet took the £350 million thing as a major aspect of how or why they voted as they did it was a silly claim but it was one silly claim amongst many many others as much by remain as anyone else war, collapse of europe which everyone on the remain side seems to have forgotten about which is funny given the total clarity they have on the stupid £350 million claim.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

The brexit claims were just outright lies. The truth is no one on that campaign had any idea what leaving would really mean.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Its just very typical of a fair proportions of politicians nowadays who obfuscate on a regular basis to suit their own political ends but the bigger fools are the ones who believe what they say.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

I don't participate too much on this thread because it's rehashing old arguments but people were defending the £350 million claim so I commented that it is indeed false.

Re: Brexit discussion
 

Problem is Den people don't like to admit they've been conned, hence the head in the sand attitude from many. Those that spun these lies are well insulated from the affects of Brexit; Joe Public are the ones who will suffer. The outcome might well be we are still in the EU in all but name, paying for the single market, with free movement but we have no say or influence. Did people really know what they were voting for or did they just read the latest tabloid immigration headline ?