BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
There are people benefiting from returning power to Westminster.john80 said:
One the spend side but maybe not so much on the benefit side there:)kingstongraham said:£350m x 52 = £18.2bn which has been given to NHS test and trace, so promise fulfilled already for this year.
It's just not the general public.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It was a complete and utter lie but a genius political move. If Remain said nothing it gave it legitimacy, if they challenged it they gave it publicity.john80 said:
It was never justified. It was merely clarified as a factual statement at the time if you consider it a gross figure. The fact that remain spent so long labouring the point is probably one of the reasons they lost the referendum. Maybe if they had shifted the debate to all those worthwhile EU projects they would have won. I have given you some belters from my area that the public could really have got behind. I am sure you can come up with your own from the webpage. For the avoidance of doubt I am being sarcastic. You would have lost even more if people in Cumbria realised that about £10-20 million pounds of their money had gone to Natural England for projects to maintain, sand dunes, bogs and some mussels.kingstongraham said:While I have no desire to revisit the bus, the idea that £350m a week is justified because it was a gross figure is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
The equivalent would be buying something that is reduced in a sale from £350 to £250, and saying you had spent £350 on it.
The gross figure after thatchers rebate that we had been deducting for 30 years would have been about £250m, and the net figure after payments received from the EU was maybe £160m. Which is surely a big enough number to get the desired effect anyway.
Here is a useful document that supports your figures however it unfortunately does underpin the definition of the 350 that was detailed at the time as well.
http://urbis.europarl.europa.eu/urbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/CBP-7886.pdf
Did you know the ONS told him to stop using the number? do you not think him stopping using the number is a tacit admission it was a lie?0 -
It is not a lie. All three numbers are not lies. The gross, post rebate the net figure are all valid numbers that if the context is available are not lies. Without context it is misleading which was the ONS's take on the position as below. Given it was widely reported to be the gross figure any claims that it remained misleading are pretty dubious at best. Labeling it as a lie is a lie you keep repeating and one for the irony thread. Is the net figure a better number given how this is spent. You could have given 90% of the money to Peru and the people of Cumbria would not have noticed such was the inconsequential benefit they received from the money spent.surrey_commuter said:
It was a complete and utter lie but a genius political move. If Remain said nothing it gave it legitimacy, if they challenged it they gave it publicity.john80 said:
It was never justified. It was merely clarified as a factual statement at the time if you consider it a gross figure. The fact that remain spent so long labouring the point is probably one of the reasons they lost the referendum. Maybe if they had shifted the debate to all those worthwhile EU projects they would have won. I have given you some belters from my area that the public could really have got behind. I am sure you can come up with your own from the webpage. For the avoidance of doubt I am being sarcastic. You would have lost even more if people in Cumbria realised that about £10-20 million pounds of their money had gone to Natural England for projects to maintain, sand dunes, bogs and some mussels.kingstongraham said:While I have no desire to revisit the bus, the idea that £350m a week is justified because it was a gross figure is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
The equivalent would be buying something that is reduced in a sale from £350 to £250, and saying you had spent £350 on it.
The gross figure after thatchers rebate that we had been deducting for 30 years would have been about £250m, and the net figure after payments received from the EU was maybe £160m. Which is surely a big enough number to get the desired effect anyway.
Here is a useful document that supports your figures however it unfortunately does underpin the definition of the 350 that was detailed at the time as well.
http://urbis.europarl.europa.eu/urbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/CBP-7886.pdf
Did you know the ONS told him to stop using the number? do you not think him stopping using the number is a tacit admission it was a lie?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/leavecampaignclaimsduringbrexitdebate
As a spoiler alert the 3rd point that they made is not as damning as you think it is.0 -
-
john80 said:
It is not a lie. All three numbers are not lies. The gross, post rebate the net figure are all valid numbers that if the context is available are not lies. Without context it is misleading which was the ONS's take on the position as below. Given it was widely reported to be the gross figure any claims that it remained misleading are pretty dubious at best. Labeling it as a lie is a lie you keep repeating and one for the irony thread. Is the net figure a better number given how this is spent. You could have given 90% of the money to Peru and the people of Cumbria would not have noticed such was the inconsequential benefit they received from the money spent.surrey_commuter said:
It was a complete and utter lie but a genius political move. If Remain said nothing it gave it legitimacy, if they challenged it they gave it publicity.john80 said:
It was never justified. It was merely clarified as a factual statement at the time if you consider it a gross figure. The fact that remain spent so long labouring the point is probably one of the reasons they lost the referendum. Maybe if they had shifted the debate to all those worthwhile EU projects they would have won. I have given you some belters from my area that the public could really have got behind. I am sure you can come up with your own from the webpage. For the avoidance of doubt I am being sarcastic. You would have lost even more if people in Cumbria realised that about £10-20 million pounds of their money had gone to Natural England for projects to maintain, sand dunes, bogs and some mussels.kingstongraham said:While I have no desire to revisit the bus, the idea that £350m a week is justified because it was a gross figure is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
The equivalent would be buying something that is reduced in a sale from £350 to £250, and saying you had spent £350 on it.
The gross figure after thatchers rebate that we had been deducting for 30 years would have been about £250m, and the net figure after payments received from the EU was maybe £160m. Which is surely a big enough number to get the desired effect anyway.
Here is a useful document that supports your figures however it unfortunately does underpin the definition of the 350 that was detailed at the time as well.
http://urbis.europarl.europa.eu/urbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/CBP-7886.pdf
Did you know the ONS told him to stop using the number? do you not think him stopping using the number is a tacit admission it was a lie?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/leavecampaignclaimsduringbrexitdebate
As a spoiler alert the 3rd point that they made is not as damning as you think it is.
Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you happy with your choice. You might have taken the hint by now the rest of us don't believe it.0 -
Let's remind ourselves of the contextjohn80 said:
It is not a lie. All three numbers are not lies. The gross, post rebate the net figure are all valid numbers that if the context is available are not lies. Without context it is misleading which was the ONS's take on the position as below. Given it was widely reported to be the gross figure any claims that it remained misleading are pretty dubious at best. Labeling it as a lie is a lie you keep repeating and one for the irony thread. Is the net figure a better number given how this is spent. You could have given 90% of the money to Peru and the people of Cumbria would not have noticed such was the inconsequential benefit they received from the money spent.surrey_commuter said:
It was a complete and utter lie but a genius political move. If Remain said nothing it gave it legitimacy, if they challenged it they gave it publicity.john80 said:
It was never justified. It was merely clarified as a factual statement at the time if you consider it a gross figure. The fact that remain spent so long labouring the point is probably one of the reasons they lost the referendum. Maybe if they had shifted the debate to all those worthwhile EU projects they would have won. I have given you some belters from my area that the public could really have got behind. I am sure you can come up with your own from the webpage. For the avoidance of doubt I am being sarcastic. You would have lost even more if people in Cumbria realised that about £10-20 million pounds of their money had gone to Natural England for projects to maintain, sand dunes, bogs and some mussels.kingstongraham said:While I have no desire to revisit the bus, the idea that £350m a week is justified because it was a gross figure is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
The equivalent would be buying something that is reduced in a sale from £350 to £250, and saying you had spent £350 on it.
The gross figure after thatchers rebate that we had been deducting for 30 years would have been about £250m, and the net figure after payments received from the EU was maybe £160m. Which is surely a big enough number to get the desired effect anyway.
Here is a useful document that supports your figures however it unfortunately does underpin the definition of the 350 that was detailed at the time as well.
http://urbis.europarl.europa.eu/urbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/CBP-7886.pdf
Did you know the ONS told him to stop using the number? do you not think him stopping using the number is a tacit admission it was a lie?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/leavecampaignclaimsduringbrexitdebate
As a spoiler alert the 3rd point that they made is not as damning as you think it is.
“We send the EU £350 million a week, let’s fund our NHS instead”
The truth would have been
"membership of the EU costs us £160 million week but if we leave the additional costs we incur from losing shared resources will mean there is less money to fund our NHS"0 -
If the bus had actually been...john80 said:
It is not a lie. All three numbers are not lies. The gross, post rebate the net figure are all valid numbers that if the context is available are not lies. Without context it is misleading which was the ONS's take on the position as below. Given it was widely reported to be the gross figure any claims that it remained misleading are pretty dubious at best. Labeling it as a lie is a lie you keep repeating and one for the irony thread. Is the net figure a better number given how this is spent. You could have given 90% of the money to Peru and the people of Cumbria would not have noticed such was the inconsequential benefit they received from the money spent.surrey_commuter said:
It was a complete and utter lie but a genius political move. If Remain said nothing it gave it legitimacy, if they challenged it they gave it publicity.john80 said:
It was never justified. It was merely clarified as a factual statement at the time if you consider it a gross figure. The fact that remain spent so long labouring the point is probably one of the reasons they lost the referendum. Maybe if they had shifted the debate to all those worthwhile EU projects they would have won. I have given you some belters from my area that the public could really have got behind. I am sure you can come up with your own from the webpage. For the avoidance of doubt I am being sarcastic. You would have lost even more if people in Cumbria realised that about £10-20 million pounds of their money had gone to Natural England for projects to maintain, sand dunes, bogs and some mussels.kingstongraham said:While I have no desire to revisit the bus, the idea that £350m a week is justified because it was a gross figure is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
The equivalent would be buying something that is reduced in a sale from £350 to £250, and saying you had spent £350 on it.
The gross figure after thatchers rebate that we had been deducting for 30 years would have been about £250m, and the net figure after payments received from the EU was maybe £160m. Which is surely a big enough number to get the desired effect anyway.
Here is a useful document that supports your figures however it unfortunately does underpin the definition of the 350 that was detailed at the time as well.
http://urbis.europarl.europa.eu/urbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/CBP-7886.pdf
Did you know the ONS told him to stop using the number? do you not think him stopping using the number is a tacit admission it was a lie?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/leavecampaignclaimsduringbrexitdebate
As a spoiler alert the 3rd point that they made is not as damning as you think it is.
I don't think it was, from memory.
It's like saying "this hotel is ridiculously expensive - I paid £300 a night!" when that's the rack rate and you've actually only paid half that.0 -
and then telling your kids you are cancelling the booking and telling them you are buying them new trainers with the £300 a night you have saved.kingstongraham said:
If the bus had actually been...john80 said:
It is not a lie. All three numbers are not lies. The gross, post rebate the net figure are all valid numbers that if the context is available are not lies. Without context it is misleading which was the ONS's take on the position as below. Given it was widely reported to be the gross figure any claims that it remained misleading are pretty dubious at best. Labeling it as a lie is a lie you keep repeating and one for the irony thread. Is the net figure a better number given how this is spent. You could have given 90% of the money to Peru and the people of Cumbria would not have noticed such was the inconsequential benefit they received from the money spent.surrey_commuter said:
It was a complete and utter lie but a genius political move. If Remain said nothing it gave it legitimacy, if they challenged it they gave it publicity.john80 said:
It was never justified. It was merely clarified as a factual statement at the time if you consider it a gross figure. The fact that remain spent so long labouring the point is probably one of the reasons they lost the referendum. Maybe if they had shifted the debate to all those worthwhile EU projects they would have won. I have given you some belters from my area that the public could really have got behind. I am sure you can come up with your own from the webpage. For the avoidance of doubt I am being sarcastic. You would have lost even more if people in Cumbria realised that about £10-20 million pounds of their money had gone to Natural England for projects to maintain, sand dunes, bogs and some mussels.kingstongraham said:While I have no desire to revisit the bus, the idea that £350m a week is justified because it was a gross figure is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
The equivalent would be buying something that is reduced in a sale from £350 to £250, and saying you had spent £350 on it.
The gross figure after thatchers rebate that we had been deducting for 30 years would have been about £250m, and the net figure after payments received from the EU was maybe £160m. Which is surely a big enough number to get the desired effect anyway.
Here is a useful document that supports your figures however it unfortunately does underpin the definition of the 350 that was detailed at the time as well.
http://urbis.europarl.europa.eu/urbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/CBP-7886.pdf
Did you know the ONS told him to stop using the number? do you not think him stopping using the number is a tacit admission it was a lie?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/leavecampaignclaimsduringbrexitdebate
As a spoiler alert the 3rd point that they made is not as damning as you think it is.
I don't think it was, from memory.
It's like saying "this hotel is ridiculously expensive - I paid £300 a night!" when that's the rack rate and you've actually only paid half that.1 -
It's a shame we can't bus over willing people in the UK to the EU to get the jabs they don't want to take.0
-
maybe we could trade them 1 Pfizer for 2 Oxfordfocuszing723 said:It's a shame we can't bus over willing people in the UK to the EU to get the jabs they don't want to take.
0 -
Now that's a good point. I'm cool with the Astra Zeneca one.surrey_commuter said:
maybe we could trade them 1 Pfizer for 2 Oxfordfocuszing723 said:It's a shame we can't bus over willing people in the UK to the EU to get the jabs they don't want to take.
We would win 2-1 as well!0 -
I would wait a couple of extra weeks for Pfizer but equally would be OK with the Govt swapping out our suppliesfocuszing723 said:
Now that's a good point. I'm cool with the Astra Zeneca one.surrey_commuter said:
maybe we could trade them 1 Pfizer for 2 Oxfordfocuszing723 said:It's a shame we can't bus over willing people in the UK to the EU to get the jabs they don't want to take.
We would win 2-1 as well!0 -
Plus the fact the money saved was going to be spent on the NHS plus also kept getting quoted as being available to make up the shortfall in every other bit of income affected by Brexit. It was going to have to do a lot of work!kingstongraham said:While I have no desire to revisit the bus, the idea that £350m a week is justified because it was a gross figure is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
The equivalent would be buying something that is reduced in a sale from £350 to £250, and saying you had spent £350 on it.
The gross figure after thatchers rebate that we had been deducting for 30 years would have been about £250m, and the net figure after payments received from the EU was maybe £160m. Which is surely a big enough number to get the desired effect anyway.0 -
0 -
Well that lasted well. We are [checks calendar] less than two months in and already the party within a party + DUP is writing to the PM urging him to renege on the NI Protocol and start again.
And Stevo thought it was all done with 😂1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
Well that lasted well. We are [checks calendar] less than two months in and already the party within a party + DUP is writing to the PM urging him to renege on the NI Protocol and start again.
And Stevo thought it was all done with 😂
Stevo's signature tune:
https://youtu.be/48BXn8z1iNQ 0 -
Keep us laughing with your best and worst local EU grant. I don't believe we were ever going to spend an extra 350 million a week on the NHS but I can't buy into the lie argument when even the ONS can't go beyond potentially misleading. Can you beat the Dutch school 67k water chat.briantrumpet said:john80 said:
It is not a lie. All three numbers are not lies. The gross, post rebate the net figure are all valid numbers that if the context is available are not lies. Without context it is misleading which was the ONS's take on the position as below. Given it was widely reported to be the gross figure any claims that it remained misleading are pretty dubious at best. Labeling it as a lie is a lie you keep repeating and one for the irony thread. Is the net figure a better number given how this is spent. You could have given 90% of the money to Peru and the people of Cumbria would not have noticed such was the inconsequential benefit they received from the money spent.surrey_commuter said:
It was a complete and utter lie but a genius political move. If Remain said nothing it gave it legitimacy, if they challenged it they gave it publicity.john80 said:
It was never justified. It was merely clarified as a factual statement at the time if you consider it a gross figure. The fact that remain spent so long labouring the point is probably one of the reasons they lost the referendum. Maybe if they had shifted the debate to all those worthwhile EU projects they would have won. I have given you some belters from my area that the public could really have got behind. I am sure you can come up with your own from the webpage. For the avoidance of doubt I am being sarcastic. You would have lost even more if people in Cumbria realised that about £10-20 million pounds of their money had gone to Natural England for projects to maintain, sand dunes, bogs and some mussels.kingstongraham said:While I have no desire to revisit the bus, the idea that £350m a week is justified because it was a gross figure is, I'm afraid, nonsense.
The equivalent would be buying something that is reduced in a sale from £350 to £250, and saying you had spent £350 on it.
The gross figure after thatchers rebate that we had been deducting for 30 years would have been about £250m, and the net figure after payments received from the EU was maybe £160m. Which is surely a big enough number to get the desired effect anyway.
Here is a useful document that supports your figures however it unfortunately does underpin the definition of the 350 that was detailed at the time as well.
http://urbis.europarl.europa.eu/urbis/sites/default/files/generated/document/en/CBP-7886.pdf
Did you know the ONS told him to stop using the number? do you not think him stopping using the number is a tacit admission it was a lie?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/leavecampaignclaimsduringbrexitdebate
As a spoiler alert the 3rd point that they made is not as damning as you think it is.
Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you happy with your choice. You might have taken the hint by now the rest of us don't believe it.0 -
£67k is pretty small beer when it comes to dubious uses of public money (and I'm not really clear what is supposed to be dubious about that particular example). That's roughly one five-hundredth of a non-existent garden bridge. Surely you can find better than that.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I've just typed my own postcode in. Nearest result; 25 NHS nurses from the EU staff 21 hospital beds in the Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.john80 said:
Go to this website https://www.myeu.uk/postcode/CA16/6XU and type in your own postcode. Couple of highlights from my area.rolf_f said:
You still haven't responded to the point I made and Brians post was made after you made your fanboy post. I don't need to go digging around.john80 said:
It was a gross figure and not a net figure. Ridicule was mainly driven by remains objectives. The figure on the bus is a factually accurate statement if you understand it is gross figure. Do you get equally outraged about covid vaccines offered versus covid vaccines given.briantrumpet said:john80 said:
You must be my fan boy and not read any other posts on here if you think that is the case.rolf_f said:
You are the only one banging on about a figure on a bus here.......john80 said:
I would argue I miss the point much less than those that keep banging on about a figure on a bus where the basis of the number was widely reported on at the time. It is closely linked to the deligitimising of the referendum whilst conveniently forgetting the bollocks David Cameron and remain spouted daily.rolf_f said:
You miss the point. You've acknowledged that we were not "taking back control" by leaving the EU but in fact losing some control (in that we can no longer make the EU work for us by working with it).john80 said:
Everybody in Britain even the most mathematically illiterate know the underpinning for that figure on the bus. It was widely reported at the time.rolf_f said:
Something honest to have put on the side of a bus........john80 said:Whilst we are an independent country and can be impacted by the actions of others this is as before when in the EU.
If you don't get why the £350m was ridiculed at the time and continues to be referenced, then I guess you never will.
As to the £350m - go tell that to the voters of Sunderland. They are starting to realise how mendacious the use of that number was.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/brexit-backing-sunderland-says-it-is-not-receiving-same-level-of-funding-outside-eu-222122/
Note - this article is all a bit "might be, could be" but it does seem that they are starting to worry. It will be interesting to see what happens. There are no obvious downsides from the Govt perspective in cutting the funding to Sunderland.
Then there is one looking at how to teach disadvantaged children, one on developing standard qualifications for trainers, one researching non destructive methods for testing thermoplastic tanks, one about teaching seismology in schools. They sort of sound OK to me.
Faster than a tent.......0 -
157 NHS nurses from the EU staff 130 hospital beds in the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
162 NHS nurses from the EU staff 134 hospital beds in the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust.
The two nearest me (daughter born in Epsom Hospital and son in St Helier).0 -
Just down the road from you, some money was spent on what is effectively a student exchange programme with Mayotte - a French territory near Madagascar.elbowloh said:157 NHS nurses from the EU staff 130 hospital beds in the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
162 NHS nurses from the EU staff 134 hospital beds in the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust.
The two nearest me (daughter born in Epsom Hospital and son in St Helier).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
For me it is showing loads of research grants into high tech inovations such as compact power, marine hybrid technology, autonomous technology development alongside various education schemes in primary schools and funding to colleges to help provide skills allowing people to get into the workplace. But apart from that what did EU funding ever do for us?0
-
FFS, I was anticipating a personal benefit would be cheaper pork prices as the UK pig industry was broken on the wheel of reduced exports to the EU. I concede this is selfish so please don't write in.
Anyway it seems life is not so simple and
Brits like loins, legs and back. Europeans want fattier parts—belly and shoulders—for their salami, saucisson and bratwurst and prefer streaky to back bacon. That’s why Britain kills 10m hogs each year, but eats 23m loins, 19m hams and only 5m bellies
https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/02/27/why-brexit-has-left-british-pig-farmers-mired0 -
-
but it was a personal upside that I had been looking forwards to.rick_chasey said:Don't worry SC, *everyone* loses out.
my one remaining upside is that as we come into the lamb season they will realise they can not export live animals so will be competing in the global frozen market so making lamb in the UK as cheap as chips.0 -
surrey_commuter said:
but it was a personal upside that I had been looking forwards to.rick_chasey said:Don't worry SC, *everyone* loses out.
my one remaining upside is that as we come into the lamb season they will realise they can not export live animals so will be competing in the global frozen market so making lamb in the UK as cheap as chips.
And that way we get into the 'hog cycle', as your temporary joy of cheap lamb means that domestic producers make a big loss, and give up lamb production... then two or three years down the line, there's a shortage, prices go up, people return to producing lamb (though obviously the breeding cycle means there's a 2-3 year lag... etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_cycle. It's actually a slower process than rolling out a vaccine...
tl;dr - in the long run it benefits no-one.0 -
So much so that the farmers will no longer be able to sustain it.surrey_commuter said:
but it was a personal upside that I had been looking forwards to.rick_chasey said:Don't worry SC, *everyone* loses out.
my one remaining upside is that as we come into the lamb season they will realise they can not export live animals so will be competing in the global frozen market so making lamb in the UK as cheap as chips.0 -
Surely this is more a sudden contraction in demand until supply adjusts I will have cheaper meat.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
but it was a personal upside that I had been looking forwards to.rick_chasey said:Don't worry SC, *everyone* loses out.
my one remaining upside is that as we come into the lamb season they will realise they can not export live animals so will be competing in the global frozen market so making lamb in the UK as cheap as chips.
And that way we get into the 'hog cycle', as your temporary joy of cheap lamb means that domestic producers make a big loss, and give up lamb production... then two or three years down the line, there's a shortage, prices go up, people return to producing lamb (though obviously the breeding cycle means there's a 2-3 year lag... etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_cycle. It's actually a slower process than rolling out a vaccine...
tl;dr - in the long run it benefits no-one.
0 -
Sorry Rick, I had to fix that to edit out your Remoaner negativity.rick_chasey said:Don't worry SC, *everyone* gains in some way that no-one has yet to properly explain plus blue passports.
0
