Well the Common market, EEC, EC etc etc in all its guises.

You are comparing a leaflet put out by the Government promising to abide by the will of the people, with a slogan used by a group of campaigners who are in no position to promise anything.

Can you truly not see the difference? I assure you, most people, including Brexitters, can.




Please tell us again how it's really only £250 million. I know you say it so often I should be tired of it by now, but it's so exquisitely funny - such an unwitting shot in the foot, that I could just read it over and over.

Enjoy it while you can, soon enough we'll have to take off the 90m the EU spends in the UK we'll have to replace funding for, then there's the cost of David Davis' department for exiting the EU, all the extra civil servants Liam Fox needs to hire to renegotiate allt he treaties we already have as part of the EU, the cost of replace Europol, the European Medicines Agency and all the many other EU agencies.

Face it, the 350m was never there and you'll never see a penny of the 250m spent on anything new.

We could always have a sweepstake on how long it will be before the Tories announce the money to replace what the European Medicines Agency as some of that 250m being spent on the NHS and gullible mugs lapping it up.

What's so funny? The point was not that's it's only £250 mn, but that the figure given by Leave was incorrect by a large margin.

Basically you are saying that you think it's funny the leave side told a blatant lie because people (i.e. Leavers like you) were totally take in by it as it wasn't' a promise they could keep anyway.

Well here we are in the cold light of the New Year, with the Supreme Court decision about the authority of Parliament fast approaching. That will test UK democracy again and cause yet more trouble, I've no doubt. Will the judges buckle to government pressure or uphold the authority of parliament? It's going to be very interesting and the whole saga will just go on and on. What a shambles!

I think it's funny remainers use it as a stick to beat leavers with, as if people who voted leave only did so because of a slogan on a bus. Can remainers really believe this?

I think it funny that remainers point out that it isn't a huge sum we give to the EU, it's erm, a huge sum. Can remainers really believe this is a good argument?

Can remainers change the record?

Replaying the referendum campaign - it's a bit like those war games people play, I suppose; fun for some, but ultimately it doesn't change the outcome.

So if they come down on the side of Miller they will be upholding the law, and if they don't they will be buckling under government pressure?

Classic!

The point that was being made is that the UK is a net contributor to the EU. Whether you use the gross contribution before rebates or the net figure we are still a net contributor. When we leave this money is freed up to be spent in the UK. Yes this was converted into a single clear slogan to highlight we are a net contributor - and it highlighted this very well.

What is never asked of the remain side is why they would rather this money was spent - which will Only ever keep going up - subsidising French and Polish farmers or upgrading the Slovakian motorway network rather than on the NHS or social care for the elderly.

Remoaners - putting French and Polish farmers first and frail and ill British people second!

As for being lied to - still waiting for WWIII and the emergency budget and welfare cuts and more that Cameron and Osborne promised would happen within days. It works both ways you know!

It seems reasonable to criticise the Leave campaign (not Leavers generally) for using a false figure. And it's possible that some leavers were taken in by it, though that's not the point.


The argument isn't about whether the sum is huge or not, it's about accuracy. And that is a perfectly good argument. Even Farage has said the figure shouldn't have been used.

We all know the leavers would be doing the same if it had been the remain side bandying around false figures (in fact they're bound to have been even worse- we all know the massive outrage brexiters are capable of). But of course it's OK when it's their side doing it.

They could still have made the point perfectly clear if they had simply used the net rather than the gross figure. As it was, the incorrect figure detracted from the point they were trying to make.


That has been asked more than once already, but it is of course a very loaded question based on a false premise.

The point is valid. And you do want it spent abroad (and not in developing nations) rather than here.

Much of it is spent here. Remainers presumably think it's worth paying the remainder because of the benefits of being in the single market.

No the point isn't valid. The UK is not a closed economy but rather an open one that is hugely dependent on international trade for its "national income". The taxes collected from that "national income" form a huge part of the monies used to pay the bills for care for those "frail & ill" that you mentioned.

Anything that damages our ability - as ripping up our membership of the EU plus that of all the EU negotiated FTAs clearly will - to generate that national income & associated taxes is clearly going to hit our ability to provide care for those frail & ill.

As such, it is completely hypocritical of you to pretend to care for those frail & ill when you & many others chose to ignore the clear & explicit warnings that leaving the EU will damage our economy & our ability to generate the "national income" & taxes needed to pay for our public services.

You can be sure that had Cameron panicked in the last week and narrowly won the referendum by promising a fabricated extra £400 million a week for the NHS, only to turn around and renege on it immediately after the result, that Leave supporters would be howling in outrage at such tactics and would - quite correctly in my opinion - have accused him of basically having bribed the electorate with a fictitious sum of money.

As it is, since the Leave side are now clearly happy to have cheated, they have little grounds for complaints if the Remain side turn around and cheat in the future.

Yet Ms Millers own words kind of betray that claim, when she said she was compelled to do something after her 11 year old son was in tears the morning after the vote.
Unless we are to believe her 11 year old son's concern was just making sure Parliament was involved

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...eporting-story Supreme Court president: Court won't overturn Brexit vote

'We are not being asked to overturn the result of the EU referendum'

Who claimed they would?

Her goal (imo) is to hope that parliament rejects it.

He was the Prime Minister - the leave campaign is not.

That is the difference!

We haven't actually left the EU yet either - so I don't even see the point remoaners are making. Until we leave in we assume 2019 we still pay the contributions.

The remain campaign was full of lies and scare stories - it was led by two men almost incapable of telling the truth. But I suppose that is ok - as its remain.

It's almost like remoaners haven't been paying attention for years - politicians don't always tell the truth and sometimes they spin an issue to make the case.

But one fact is clear - we are the second biggest net contributor to the EU. And when we leave we won't be. But if remoaners would rather we subsidised French farmers than On treating ill elderly British citizens they are of course entitled to that view.

Yes , but when you pay yourself for everything that needs doing- like research, agricultural support, regional development, educational programmes, aid spending, and policing and security, there's not a substantial amount left. In fields like standards, research and policing, you either continue to pay into , more efficient ,international organisations, or spend more, doing worse , setting up your own substitutes. And when you pay for your past commitments - to things like EU staff pensions., the saving becomes smaller still.

if you do the things that anyone ,who wasn't grossly shortsighted would do - like continue financing for Eastern European stability ,there's less. And, if you adopt common sense , and start paying any necessary contribution, to ensure free market access - worth far more, there's less still.

The result is that the lie of a reasonably large sum of spare cash , becomes a trivial amount - that might just pay for one year's extra demand on the NHS.

Meanwhile the loss to the economy, growth, trade, and tax take is far bigger, from brexit, than even the top line for contributions , so the NHS ends up with less money overall anyway.

There is no reason to believe that they hold such a view. Leaving the EU does not mean we will be able to spend more on treating ill elderly British citizens.

Sorry not trying to be smart but the EEC, the EC just had the voters indifference, it was the EU that ramped up the problem. Suddenly we were in something over which we had little, if any, control and no one had really asked us if it was what we wanted. That should have happened not just because it seems constitutionally important but it would have been basic good manners.

Yes it does, the process will be whether we choose to do that or not.

And do you think with countries like Albania and Montenegro and maybe Ukraine joining all those structural funds would continue at current levels. They may think Tirana and Skopje are more in need than Tredegar and Swansea.