Forum menu
UKIP understood it very well, they came with a simple, easily understood message
So did some very nasty regimes in the 1930s. Just because it sells doesn't make it a good idea.
adherence to EU law does cost money and time. In these things, they were told the truth, or at least a piece of it.
A part of the truth is not the truth.
Yes, we give the EU money. BUT WE GET SOMETHING IN RETURN!
That part was overlooked wasn't it?
£350m a week was accurate
This was accurate. That's what we pay. I know we get the rebate and I know there are other figures which reduce this down to £180m, but the figure that we actually pay is correct.
No-one backed away from the figure, they backed away from the "£350m - let's fund our NHS instead pledge"
Most of you seem to forget that I'm a devout Remainer, I campaigned in Bath and Bristol to Remain and went door-to-door for months prior to the referendum. Bath and Bristol voted to Remain.
I agree that people were only given a snippet of the truth, but the grain of truth was all that was required for them to cast their vote. nothing that's been said or done since will have convinced many of them to change it. I saw this face to face, had it spat at me, was threatened in certain parts of Bristol. I think I'm fairly qualified to make a reasoned appraisal of the situation, probably more so than most on here.
£350m a week was accurate
Even Jamba readily admits that figure is nonsense and refuses to use it (and to his credit I think he only used it once).
So if the government appeal to the Supreme Court fails do they go to the European Court 😀
Remain didn't come up with a comparable, simplistic argument.
And we even had Salmond on our side - and even he couldnt out BS the BSers!!
(Apologies to Chris TT)
And you can call it a betrayal well it looks like that to me
And you can call it bad behaviour or a waste of time and money
And I've never been in favour of police brutality
But when the brexiteer comes a-riotin'
You give him one for me, officer, give him one for me.
hard to believe one man's hubris has caused such a shambolic mess. 😯
they backed away from the "£350m - let's fund our NHS instead pledge"
That's the only pledge they made 😆
Remain didn't come up with a comparable, simplistic argument.
Because it's not that simple. Which is why the leave campaign used scare tactics instead of facts.
Klunk - Member
hard to believe one man's hubris has caused such a shambolic mess.
Two men.
Farage started it, Cameron (in his desperation to get re-elected made the referendum a manifesto pledge) finished it/us.
Because it's not that simple. Which is why the leave campaign used scare tactics instead of facts.
I wholeheartedly agree, which is why such a complex issue should never have been given over to a public vote. One is easy to communicate, the other is not.
I never heard the 350 number from a brexiteer. I heard it repeated ad nauseum by remainers.
Classic case of using a debatable fact to trick your opponent into spreading the message you want out there.
Not that many remainers/leavers would have changed their mind either way if 180m had been used instead.
Which is why the leave campaign used scare tactics instead of facts.
As did Remain to be fair.
They also backtracked on the the VAT free fuel didn't they
and here is 6 more
which is why such a complex issue should never have been given over to a public vote.
At least we agree on something 
I never heard the 350 number from a brexiteer.
I never heard the 350 number from a brexiteer. I heard it repeated ad nauseum by remainers.
This is a joke, right?
If not - go and watch the Gove v Islam interview on CH4. Gove is categorical in the lies - even stating on direct questioning - that there was an actual cash flow of that amount. It was bare-faced lying. No ifs, no buts.
I never heard the 350 number from a brexiteer.
Missed this then?
"which is why such a complex issue should never"
+1
Classic case of using a debatable fact to trick your opponent into spreading the message you want out there.
Yep - very well executed too.
A large proportion will just believe the £350m figure.
Another proportion will know it is controversial but think it is probably "about right".
A further proportion will hear the Remain argument that it is "only" £180m (or one of the many other lower figures quoted) and still think that's a lot of money.
All wins for Leave.
Ipsos Mori poll conducted at the time:
[img] 
[/img]
([url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nearly-half-of-britons-believe-vote-leaves-false-350-million-a-week-to-the-eu-claim-a7085016.html ]Source[/url])
"Missed this then?"
Yup, I'm pretty certain I'd have remembered that.
"Yep - very well executed too.
A large proportion will just believe the £350m figure.
Another proportion will know it is controversial but think it is probably "about right".
A further proportion will hear the Remain argument that it is "only" £180m (or one of the many other lower figures quoted) and still think that's a lot of money.
All wins for Leave."
Yup.
Far better to ignore the membership fee and focus on the benefits - leave it to the brexiteers to publicise the costs.
[img] 
[/img]
To eliminate any doubt
10:10 Gove "each week we send more than £360m to Brussels
10:16 in response to question about does this figure actually leave the country - Gove says "yes"
Bare faced lies - it gets worse from there.
If a CEO lied like that to those who represented he would be out on his backside
it's a fact 6.20 another brexiteer claiming it so
If MPs vote on it, they should vote not for what they personally want, or the party whip, but what the majority of people who voted in their constituencies voted.
I don't know what the result would be but it must be possible to figure out?
IDS also quoted that figure as correct, as we do send them 350 million a week, and that they send us most of it back is immaterial.
Anyway back to HC decision - seems to me to be nothing more than a technicality. Given its a decision that affects everyone, its has to be an Act of Parliament not a executive decision alone. Seems fair enough.
As you were....
{only skim read it, so could well be wrong. Need to ask Mini THM as he is studying constitutional law now!)
You really would never grow tired of punching Michael Gove, would you?
I don't know what the result would be but it must be possible to figure out?
Dead easy. Almost everywhere voted out. So that would be out.
mikey74 - MemberAt least we agree on something
I'd imagine we agree on quite a lot, did you not see my early post? I'm just saying that branding them as bigots, racists, morons etc and ignoring the reasons they voted the way they did (however miss led we believe them to be) isn't going to help.
If MPs vote on it, they should vote not for what they personally want, own the party whip, but what the majority of people who voted in their constituencies voted.
I don't know what the result would be but it must be possible to figure out?
but what kind of "Brexit" did people vote for ?
Just saw this- stay classy, Mail
[img] 
[/img]
One of the judges did a thing with europe in the name! Another wants paid to work. And the last one [i]has sex with men[/i]. To the tower with them!
Almost everywhere voted out. So that would be out.
Almost everywhere, apart from two out of the four countries forming the UK...
[img] 
[/img]
(or "nations" before someone gets geographically pedantic again).
5thElefant - MemberDead easy. Almost everywhere voted out. So that would be out.
if you're looking at Leave vs remain, that's true, but if you look at the percentages, it's [u][b]A LOT[/b][/u]closer.
[img] 
[/img]
Flying to the states. Has Jamba been back? Pound reacting to the good news will save me a couple of quid
if you're looking at Leave vs remain, that's true, but if you look at the percentages, it's A LOTcloser.
So the MPs should all vote out but only just.
I suspect a few Mail Readers might be about to literally explode in a seething mass of impotent 1950's rage.
You can just see them reading that, with faces like angry tomatoes 😆
Pound reacting to the good news will save me a couple of quid
Or more probably the BofE not reducing rates further and upgrading their UK growth forecast.
but what kind of "Brexit" did people vote for ?
I should imagine those voting to leave expect a Brexit of the hardest possible kind. We're British dammit. We'll soon have an empire again.
So the MPs should all vote out but only just.
MPs should consult their constituents...in the form of a general election.
It seems callous to suggest it but if this gets strung out long enough there is a good chance that seasonal flu, old age, peptic ulcers, gout, hypertension, etc. may radically alter the makeup of the brexit voting population anyway.....................
I'd personally like to see any article 50 activation put off until after the elections in Europe, just to see which way the wind is blowing before we [s]jump out of the metaphorical plane into a volcano with an anvil for a parachute[/s] start negotiations .
They voted for a Brexit where they could have their cake and eat it.
Did the Wail actually read the ruling??? Ok, rhetorical question....no need to answer.
"This is a joke, right?"
Sorry, this might not be as simple to grasp as I thought.
If in a debate a fact is quoted to argue for a case the opponent will typically ignore it, they will not emphasise or repeat it.
If you slightly distort it, or use it in a badly misleading way, you might get lucky and the fact might go viral with the detail being debunked, whilst the gist remains recognised as true.
If remain had said 180m the fact would sunk out of sight.
By saying 350m we're still discussing it now in this thread and everyone in the country knows that membership is 180m, plus a fair few might still think the £350m is accurate.
MPs should consult their constituents...in the form of a general election.
Can you imagine the election promises? Free money for everyone, public hanging , flogging and a page 3 stunna in every newspaper.
"I'm just saying that branding them as bigots, racists, morons etc and ignoring the reasons they voted the way they did (however miss led we believe them to be) isn't going to help."
This. It was a winnable vote. Simply selling the benefits would have worked. Shouting "racist" was never going to win anyone over, and it didn't.
That is some twisted ogic but hey, ho
This was an interesting view IMO on the ruling
Professor Roberta Guerrina, Head of Politics at the University of Surrey says the ruling may not stop Brexit, but is [b]important because it asserts that Parliament, rather than the Government, is the supreme.[/b] Here's her reaction in full:Today’s High Court ruling on the Government’s ability to give notice/trigger Article 50 and begin negotiations for a UK exit from the EU is a significant development in the politics of Brexit. Although it is unlikely to reverse the outcome of the EU Referendum it has asserted one of the most fundamental principles of the UK’s constitution: Parliamentary Sovereignty. Today’s High Court ruling has asserted this core principle that establishes Parliament (i.e. the legislature) as the supreme legal authority. This is significant because is a challenge to the power of the executive. Does this ruling mean that the results of the Referendum will be overturned? It is almost impossible to answer this question. First of all, it is likely that the case will go to the Supreme Court. The government has already announced that it will appeal the result. We will have to wait another month for a final answer in this regard. Secondly, it depends on how MPs will decide to vote if/when there will be a debate in Parliament. Voting to overturn the referendum results is likely to result in MPs losing their seats at the next general election, something that must weigh heavily on the minds of some MPs with small majorities. [b]The real impact of today’s ruling is therefore likely to be symbolic[/b], as it strengths the position of the legislature vis-à-vis the government.”
Well said.
Shouting "racist" was never going to win anyone over, and it didn't.
True, they won.
But tactically you are correct. During the indy debate I had lunch with Ken Clarke an Chris Bryant. I asked them both, but especially KC as an ex-CoExchequer, why they did not challenge Salmond directly on his blatant lies.
They both admitted that this is the modern strategy - [b]its better to let people lie and not engage, than to give the lie the oxygen it needs to persist.[/b] Its a sad indictment on modern politics. Cynical to the core. But its a bit like here!!
The fundamental issue IMO, westminster and the media have spent 40 years telling everyone that the UK is s**t because of Brussels. They couldn't then go and say all those things we told you were their fault well we lied, we ****ed up and it was nothing to do with them.
immigration is not an EU issue but how westminster chose to handle it, healthcare, benefits, traffic, environment, etc etc etc. look to London and not Brussels
mefty - MemberPound reacting to the good news will save me a couple of quid
Or more probably the BofE not reducing rates further and upgrading their UK growth forecast.
Nah, £ bounced at 10am-ish at the time of the EU announcement, fell again slightly at midday at the time of the BoE accountment and rose again afterwards.
Still no Jammers?
#prayforjammers
mrmo - Member
The fundamental issue IMO, westminster and the media have spent 40 years telling everyone that the UK is s**t because of Brussels. They couldn't then go and say all those things we told you were their fault well we lied, we ****ed up and it was nothing to do with them.immigration is not an EU issue but how westminster chose to handle it, healthcare, benefits, traffic, environment, etc etc etc. look to London and not Brussels
completely agree
Cmon binners - give him a break.
everyone in the country knows that membership is 180m, plus a fair few might still think the £350m is accurate.
Except as that Mori poll showed, near half of voters still believed the £350m figure just days before the actual vote. So arguably quite a lot was won there on the blatant lie alone, without the added bonus of Remain disputing it.
Also I wouldn't say everyone knows it is 180m - there are a range of possible figures:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060 ]BBC Fact Check[/url]: "If we deduct all that we end up with £161m"
[url= https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ ]FullFact.org[/url]: "But the UK actually pays just under £250 million a week."
[url= http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-send-350m-week-brussels/22804 ]http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-send-350m-week-brussels/22804]Channel 4 Fact check[/url] :"All these adjustments slash the contribution per person from £252 to £89. And the IFS thinks that even this could be too high.. Changing the way these things are worked out could reduce the cost of EU membership to the UK to around £60 per person."
I think that uncertainty over what the actual figure was and how to calculate it only helped to fuel the notion that £350m was probably correct, even though every fact check agreed it was wrong.
I didn't hear many of the big remainer names explaining what we got for that money.
This is just so funny. Predictable as well. Anyone who knew anything about constitutional law knew that this had to be debated and decided in parliament. To attempt to use 'royal perogative for triggering article 50 is simply wrong as May must have known.
I really hope the MPs vote to remain as they must if they have any morals. A huge majority of MPs are in favour of remain.
mrmo - Member
The fundamental issue IMO, westminster and the media have spent 40 years telling everyone that the UK is s**t because of Brussels. They couldn't then go and say all those things we told you were their fault well we lied, we ****ed up and it was nothing to do with them.
immigration is not an EU issue but how westminster chose to handle it, healthcare, benefits, traffic, environment, etc etc etc. look to London and not Brussels
Do you know who was a key figure in turning the EU into the bad guy?
None other than Boris Johnson.
He spent his early journalism career essentially making up stories about goings on at the EU parliament.
if they have any morals.
that right there is the problem, cowards mostly
Anyone who knew anything about constitutional law knew that this had to be debated and decided in parliament.
Not true. Plenty of debate among C lawyers on this issue. We even negotiated and entered the EU under Royal Perogative, so it would be helpful not to keep making things up.
I really hope the MPs vote to remain as they must if they have any morals. A huge majority of MPs are in favour of remain.
That would be immoral. They're supposed to represent their electorate.
I didn't hear many of the big remainer names explaining what we got for that money.
I didn't hear anyone give out much in the way of actual facts or the minor details of what the EU gives to Britain.
Plenty of soundbites, a lot of vague blabber about "the economy" (whihc to the average person on the street who's had years of austerity and council cuts means pretty much nothing other than they're poor), a whole raft of blatant lies, a lot of sniping about actual people and their characters...
Very little in the way of intelligent informed debate.
Well I am not getting to excited yet, there is going to be all sorts of grief and nastiness before this is resolved.
I mean I send Netflix £8 a month. Terrible, isn't it? No, cos I get loads of telly to watch.
That would be immoral. They're supposed to represent their electorate.
Yeah, but what does that actually mean? Simply do whatever the majority tell them to? Or make decisions based on their political alignment (which was voted and campaigned on remember)? Or how about spending the time that we don't have to learn about and understand the issues involved in decisions?
It's not really defined, is it?
Thanks to Brexit you can cancel that and just watch the news for all your comedy/drama/soap needs.
Plenty of debate among C lawyers
what does the "C" mean?
Not that you might think!!!
Constitutional
Not true. Plenty of debate among C lawyers on this issue. We even negotiated and entered the EU under Royal Perogative, so it would be helpful not to keep making things up.
Know your place THM, You're forgetting that we are getting a lecture on constitutional law from the bloke who spent two years telling us that Scotland would retain automatic EU membership, and after losing a referendum said that they never needed to hold one in the first place as they could UDI 😆
Still, little Englanders like myself ought to be careful, we run the risk of drowning amidst the flood of tears and bed wetting if The Donald wins this month, followed by the deluge when parliament votes to uphold the result of the referendum
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[quote=5thElefant ]That would be immoral. They're supposed to represent their electorate.
I don't think that means quite what you seem to think it means.
Ninfan, I am not sure it's about upholding a decision. If I have read the ruling correctly, it's essentially a technical issue. Does this need and Act - yes or no. They were be clear that the decision had nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of Brexshit
If we're doing pretty graphs, have you seen this one ninfan?
[img] 
[/img]
I'll let you work out the conclusion yourself
So the 5% (or whatever) that regret voting the stay... err... why? It's not like we're staying.
5thElefant - Member
So the 5% (or whatever) that regret voting the stay... err... why? It's not like we're staying.
Which graph are you reading? 😕
98% of Remain are happy with their vote, 1% are unhappy, 1% are undecided,
89% of Leave are happy with their vote, 6.5% regret their vote and 4.5% are undecided.
11% of 17.4m voters is 1.9m which means that were the referedum re-run, with exactly the same voters, it'd be a dead heat.
Oh, look aracer, an opinion poll.
If only we had had some sort of national opinion poll in which everyone got to decide once and for all whether to stay in the EU or leave, instead of a 'representative' sample run by a polling company
😳
So MPs should represent their constituents/the electorate, in which case, presumably they should vote to remain. 30-something percent of the electorate voted to leave, 30-something percent voted to remain and the rest didn't vote, so presumably weren't fussed with the idea of change (there is some (non Brexit focused) research that says you're less likely to vote if you are happy with the status quo). Therefore the will of the electorate (rather than the will of the voters of the referendum) is probably not to leave the EU.
Also if I was a self serving MP I might well gamble on the youngsters who can't yet vote but who like the EU voting for me at the next GE while the elderly leavers die off
You could hold an election with MP's being forced to say how they would vote and each party saying how they would carry out the...er plan?
The sooner we dig a big moat between us and Europe the better.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-nigel-farage-brexit-betrayal-court/
Very well put.