Post by Altroy1 Post by James Harris Post by Altroy1 Post by harry
One claim was about £350 million was being sent to Brussels. That claim has been
fact checked and found wanting. Even some leave supporters are prepared to admit
it was a lie.
I keep avoiding defending the £350m figure because I never agreed with
it in the first place. But this might be fun. In what way, specifically,
was it a lie?
OK, OK you have got me at least in part.
Oh, that's not so much fun! :-(
Post by Altroy1
James O'Brien on LBC did a phone in concerning "talking Britain down" and one of
the callers said he voted for Brexit. His vote he said wasn't motivated by the
£350 million to the NHS. The caller opined he did think that was a lie but added
for him sovereignty and other matters was the issue not £350 million more each
week to the NHS.
When the polls closed Nigel Farage said on TV that the £350 million to the NHS
was "a claim that should never have been made".
So yes it isnt the bare figure of £350 million that was the lie. My bad. It is
what was put on the side of that accursed battlebus that was the lie.
The Daily Express (perhaps inadvertently) revealed the issues today. Let's peer
Senior Tory Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, said: "If we stopped
paying into EU coffers, we could save ourselves nearly £14 billion,
that would be money we could use for social care, the NHS, reducing
the deficit and we could still have some left for tax cuts.
"The message to the Government is get on and get us out of the EU and
don't pay any more money to Brussels".
Not quite. Firstly the 8 or 9 billion is part of the UK's annual budget circa
850 Billion. 8 Billion would hardly pay to invade Iraq (Oops - yeah that may be
cheap jibe). OK but cutting the 8.8 Billion SUB to the club will hardly result
in a huge swell of money to every household in the land. The UK pays its
subvention and gets a place on the board of management. Norway pays its sub too,
per capita a similar amount and does NOT get a place on the board of management.
But the Norwegians are not fools. They will pay for something if helps their
The equation is not between paying and not paying. The equation is the
difference between the cost of staying and the cost of leaving. The cost of a no
deal leave will require the payment of expenditure to manage hard borders and
changes to revenue arising from lost trade with 27 other nearby countries. This
simple economic reality is something that could be grasped by any schoolchild
but not apparently by certain of the Get us out Now!™ crowd.
Anyway, the above from the Express quoting Bone gives the game away. NB Bone,
IDS and Boris don't even like the NHS. Hannan was on Fox News warning the
Americans of the dangers of adopting the notion of single payer wicked
socialised medicine. Spot the duplicity. Its easy. Those types have voted for
very welfare cut ever proposed. Do you really think that lot care half a fig
about social care or the NHS? You might if you were born yesterday.
"This money should be spent where it is needed in this country and not
in Bulgaria, Romania or other parts of the EU."
More nonsense. We are a human family. These Brextremists are also demanding cuts
to the 0.7% GDP aid budget. These demands have been resisted even by the
mainstream Conservative Party. Properly done, aid to the 3rd world is an
investment. A rising tide lifts all boats. The people demanding such cuts tend
to have links to hedge funds, big tobacco etcetera. They wouldn't know what
poverty was if they fell over it in a sunny uplands no-regulation paradise and
it reared up an bit them in their sorry arses. Monbiot wrote about them
eloquently. They don't give a fiddlers fk about any dirt poor "piccaninnies with
watermelon smiles". They can't envision that the countries helped today will be
trading with us in 10 or 20 years time. Just as long as the hedge funds and
hundreds of luxury jets to rich cronies via the Isle of Man are comming along
swimmingly. That's all that matters. Anyone objecting can go suck a cyanide
Officials also calculated that a further £4.4 billion out of the gross
contribution was spent on agricultural subsidies and grants to
public-sector bodies in the UK.
Around £2.4 billion was spent through the EU's Agricultural Guarantee
Fund and a further £359 million came through the European Regional
Ah! Now even the Heily Express is starting to get it. To take back control of
£350 weekly million (or whatever it is) and put all of it to the NHS means
taking money from someone else. A nice economic model that basically boils down
to robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Strangely all this money that would need to be taken from Education,
Agriculture and the Regions didn't get a mention on the side of that lying
You might be surprised at how much I am in agreement, although less
surprised at parts I disagree with.
First, to put the EU sub in perspective:
Now, more importantly, the effect Brexit would have on our economy -
including on money for the NHS. Certainly, /if/ the EU chooses a
restrictive trade deal - which I consider very likely despite the
optimism of some in government - then the UK and the EU will suffer a
reduction in trade compared with what it would have been if we had
stayed in. The eurozone is showing signs of growth again and if it
continues for the next four or five years and if the EU puts trade
restrictions in place then we will lose out on some of that for our sales.
On the other hand, certain parts of the rest of the world are growing
much faster than the EU and while we are in the EU we cannot make trade
deals with them. Of course, even once we have left it will take us time
to negotiate those deals.
So whichever way you look at it, we are likely to be worse off for a few
years than we would have been if we stayed in. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that we will be worse off than we are now - except in
Yet almost everyone will need to undertake change of some sort. Some
will be better off. Some will be worse off.
What, though, about the longer term? About 50 countries have deals with
the EU and about 160 do not. Some of the latter are big economies,
others of them are growth areas. In fact, over the next decade or so
most future growth (85% or more) is expected to occur in non-EU
countries. Thus there are very large opportunities which are now opening
up which we basically would not have had in the EU. And as is often the
case, it is better to think long term. Lower growth in the short term
should be more than repaid in the future.
The £8bn or so is a considerable sum but the bigger economic issue, for
me, is regaining control of our trade policy and of all those things
which help to make a trade policy effective.