Current Affairs EU In or Out

[joey_macmo]

Excuse me but you are wrong in every sense.

The £350m figure was banded about in bold on the side of buses. It was a glib headline trotted about without any careful explanation.

The clear and undisputed implication it gave was that by voting to Leave there would be an additional £350m each week to spend on the NHS. That is patently untrue.

It ignores the rebate as you say but it also ignores the positive wealth that accompanies EU membership. Post Brexit it ignores the likely forecast negative economic impacts of leaving the EU.

It's a headline that played out well to the thick and uneducated that bought the line.

Even if you dispute the suggestion that the EU brings with it wider economic benefits you must agree that it is wrong simply by virtue of it ignoring the rebates back from the EU.

You are playing semantics and ignoring the banner headline.

Genuinely mate it’s pointless because the evidence that points to people believing the £350m lie is just rejected because it doesn’t sample every single voter in the UK.

It must be quite a comforting place to be in really.

Well comforting is one word for it.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

I see the U.K. is looking for an exemption from Trumps steel tariffs because we provide finished material for their defence programmes and we also pay the 2% required by NATO. So on the face of it it should be granted. The EU however have immediately said that the EU must be treated as a bloc, even though Trump has publicly insisted it will be done on a country by country basis. I think Trump will home in on Germany tbh, as he is pretty upset watching them with massive export surpluses while not paying their way in NATO. If the U.K. does get a US exemption, just watch the rest of the 27. If we don’t, then no one in the EU will get one. Of course the EU may well get an exemption for everyone, but somehow I believe that this is a very deliberate ploy by Trump to destabilise the power of the EU. This is going to be quite interesting.......

Edit, thinking about it, I expect we will shortly hear another threat from the EU saying that there will ne no trade talks or something, if we obtain an exemption.......

Trump already shafted the UK on Brexit trade deal on agriculture, see no reason why he will look to benefit the UK, unless it benefits the USA much further. He also tried shaft us with Bombardier, don’t think people are getting the American first policy, free trade it is not. Sat in the middle of EU and USA square up to each other in trade war is not ideal, particular as Trump has been duplicitous when it come UK and trade.


https://www.politico.eu/article/us-...food-quotas-as-post-brexit-trade-woes-deepen/

 

[Charlie Sweet]

I think the words you are looking for are:

EQUIVALENT AMOUNT

Thank you. I am well aware of the definition behind comparative.

My question to you was what message was the Leave campaign trying to get across to Joe Public when the £350m was painted in bold letters?

Are you suggesting it was simply a rather abstract statement of the gross figure paid into the EU? An academic number of no bearing whatsoever......

Or was there a suggestion that the £350m could somehow be alternatively appropriated and put towards funding the good old NHS instead?

 

[Old Blue 2]

Thank you. I am well aware of the definition behind comparative.

My question to you was what message was the Leave campaign trying to get across to Joe Public when the £350m was painted in bold letters?

Are you suggesting it was simply a rather abstract statement of the gross figure paid into the EU? An academic number of no bearing whatsoever......

Or was there a suggestion that the £350m could somehow be alternatively appropriated and put towards funding the good old NHS instead?

I don't know whether it was an ABSTRACT statement (please don't try to impute words/phrases to me that I have never said or suggested), rather, it was a statement of an equivalent (yawn!) amount. What the GROSS amount meant with reference to how that amount may be deployed elsewhere within the UK. This is getting REALLY boring, the remainers throwing up the £350 million thing all the time. It's as if they've never read a single post about it before. And some wonder why I sit here laughing at those posts!

It's an academic number with no bearing whatsoever? Whatever next!? Juncker, Tusk & Verhofstadt are the greatest politicians ever?

Let's put you to the test.

What do you think?

 

[hullefc]

So it was quite a well worded bus then, both legally accurate and suggestive of how we can use our money.....

The UK doesn't send the EU £350 million every week, so it is not accurate. It certainly is suggestive but highly misleading, as the UK will not have £350 million every week to spend when it doesn't send that amount to the EU.

Apart from a few cranks, like Johnson, no one is shouting from the rooftops that the UK will have £350 million more in its coffers after it leaves the EU. It was a deliberately misleading figure and will haunt Johnson, the main architect of misleading buffoonery.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

I don't know whether it was an ABSTRACT statement (please don't try to impute words/phrases to me that I have never said or suggested), rather, it was a statement of an equivalent (yawn!) amount. What the GROSS amount meant with reference to how that amount may be deployed elsewhere within the UK. This is getting REALLY boring, the remainers throwing up the £350 million thing all the time. It's as if they've never read a single post about it before. And some wonder why I sit here laughing at those posts!

It's an academic number with no bearing whatsoever? Whatever next!? Juncker, Tusk & Verhofstadt are the greatest politicians ever?

Let's put you to the test.

What do you think?

A debate involves questions and answers. I've asked you a couple of times now. In your opinion what was the intention behind that advertising campaign? What was the marketing message?

 

[Old Blue 2]

A debate does not involve questions and answers. It is a discussion. IT MAY have the odd question. But there is no obligation on either party to answer questions put to them, if they feel the question is loaded, stupid, etc..

And to answr your point, go look at my response in BIG letters a few posts ago.

Do you really think you can trap me by asking vague questions? Here's a question for your consideration: What was the intention behind the Chancellor in the run-up to the Referendum stating that there would be a swingeing budget against the ordinary working people if 'Leave' won? I don't expect you to answer...

 

[Joey66]

The UK doesn't send the EU £350 million every week, so it is not accurate. It certainly is suggestive but highly misleading, as the UK will not have £350 million every week to spend when it doesn't send that amount to the EU.

Apart from a few cranks, like Johnson, no one is shouting from the rooftops that the UK will have £350 million more in its coffers after it leaves the EU. It was a deliberately misleading figure and will haunt Johnson, the main architect of misleading buffoonery.

We do they rebate it back telling us where to spend that majority of our money!
We are still 9 billion in debt for the free market
And if we proper that increases
Would you want to join a club like that no way!

 

[bobbydigital]

A debate does not involve questions and answers. It is a discussion. IT MAY have the odd question. But there is no obligation on either party to answer questions put to them, if they feel the question is loaded, stupid, etc..

And to answr your point, go look at my response in BIG letters a few posts ago.

Do you really think you can trap me by asking vague questions? Here's a question for your consideration: What was the intention behind the Chancellor in the run-up to the Referendum stating that there would be a swingeing budget against the ordinary working people if 'Leave' won? I don't expect you to answer...

Quite obviously the UK will be losing out on a significant amount of government revenue when we leave the EU. The government will then either have to raise taxes or lower spending on public services as a result.

I don’t remember exactly what he said in regards to timing but maybe he should of made it clearer that significant budget changes would need to happen when we actually leave rather than when we vote to leave and then don’t actually leave for however many years.

Anyway this post EU gap in public finances will have to be filled somehow and equivalent numbers won’t do it. I guess one good point of driving that ridiculous bus around is that surely they couldn’t privatise the NHS as part of filling that gap now.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Quite obviously the UK will be losing out on a significant amount of government revenue when we leave the EU. The government will then either have to raise taxes or lower spending on public services as a result.

So let me get this right.
Presently, we give the EU £350 Million per week, gross. We get a rebate on that amount. I don't know the exact amount, but we pay something like £100 million less per week. So we still contribute around £250 million per week to the EU.

Now, you say "...the UK will be losing out on a significant amount of government revenue when we leave the EU...". Well the last time I looked, if you are giving away £250 million per week, then suddenly NOT giving away £250 million per week, I don't think that is a losing situation. In fact, to me, it looks rather like a winning situation.

But you may have a different explanation to this mathematical conundrum, bobby...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Quite obviously the UK will be losing out on a significant amount of government revenue when we leave the EU. The government will then either have to raise taxes or lower spending on public services as a result.

I don’t remember exactly what he said in regards to timing but maybe he should of made it clearer that significant budget changes would need to happen when we actually leave rather than when we vote to leave and then don’t actually leave for however many years.

Anyway this post EU gap in public finances will have to be filled somehow and equivalent numbers won’t do it. I guess one good point of driving that ridiculous bus around is that surely they couldn’t privatise the NHS as part of filling that gap now.

It's not exactly rocket science is it? The blasted leaflet Joe bangs on about was based primarily on forecasts done by the Treasury and the Institute for Fiscal Studies into the impact of Brexit on the economy. Osborne will have used those forecasts to project how public finances would be impacted, and then did outlined some measures the government could take in response to that fall in revenue. If I remember rightly, it wasn't just Osborne making the statement either, as he was sharing the stage with Alistair Darling so it had cross party support.

I believe they split the £30bn hit on public finances between spending cuts and tax rises. As is usually the case with these things, the poorer would likely have been effected more than the wealthier, which to be honest is exactly what will happen with Brexit anyway.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So let me get this right.
Presently, we give the EU £350 Million per week, gross. We get a rebate on that amount. I don't know the exact amount, but we pay something like £100 million less per week. So we still contribute around £250 million per week to the EU.

Now, you say "...the UK will be losing out on a significant amount of government revenue when we leave the EU...". Well the last time I looked, if you are giving away £250 million per week, then suddenly NOT giving away £250 million per week, I don't think that is a losing situation. In fact, to me, it looks rather like a winning situation.

But you may have a different explanation to this mathematical conundrum, bobby...

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/eu-in-or-out.89343/page-486#post-4887325

The figure is £82 million per week saved. That's compared to the £570 million per week the IFS forecast the government would lose as a result of Brexit.

 

[bobbydigital]

So let me get this right.
Presently, we give the EU £350 Million per week, gross. We get a rebate on that amount. I don't know the exact amount, but we pay something like £100 million less per week. So we still contribute around £250 million per week to the EU.

Now, you say "...the UK will be losing out on a significant amount of government revenue when we leave the EU...". Well the last time I looked, if you are giving away £250 million per week, then suddenly NOT giving away £250 million per week, I don't think that is a losing situation. In fact, to me, it looks rather like a winning situation.

But you may have a different explanation to this mathematical conundrum, bobby...

Looking at the big picture here. Overall UK government revenue. Not just transfers between UK and EU.

Once we are out there will be companies that pay tax that leave, taking staff that pay tax with them therefore UK government have less money so either need to raise taxes or cut spending as the effect of this will dwarf the net or gross rebate.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Looking at the big picture here. Overall UK government revenue. Not just transfers between UK and EU.

Once we are out there will be companies that pay tax that leave, taking staff that pay tax with them therefore UK government have less money so either need to raise taxes or cut spending as the effect of this will dwarf the net or gross rebate.

One quite obvious measure is the ~75,000 drop in EU migrants to the UK since the vote. The employment rate of EU migrants is around 75%, so that's 56,250 fewer workers, which if you assume that they earn the same average salary as the rest of the country, that's £300 million less in income tax per year. We could spend that on our NHS we could.

 

[Joey66]

It's not exactly rocket science is it? The blasted leaflet Joe bangs on about was based primarily on forecasts done by the Treasury and the Institute for Fiscal Studies into the impact of Brexit on the economy. Osborne will have used those forecasts to project how public finances would be impacted, and then did outlined some measures the government could take in response to that fall in revenue. If I remember rightly, it wasn't just Osborne making the statement either, as he was sharing the stage with Alistair Darling so it had cross party support.

I believe they split the £30bn hit on public finances between spending cuts and tax rises. As is usually the case with these things, the poorer would likely have been effected more than the wealthier, which to be honest is exactly what will happen with Brexit anyway.

The treasury the ones who spend our budget!