Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on May 29, 2019, 11:42:08 am
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430
What's the betting on where Boris will be come Xmas?
No.10 or Wormwood Scrubs?
-
Missed your post!
A win here for the general public could have very very big ramifications for democracy.
-
You can have any money you want on it Billy, the Battle bus was on the News Channel with that little word COULD be spent on the NHS, which it would not be admittedly, but factually Could be.
But more serious statements Vote out will be out by Cameron, and Coopers statements at the Mile End Institute about respecting the referendum vote, now that could get some people pooing their pants.
-
You can have any money you want on it Billy, the Battle bus was on the News Channel with that little word COULD be spent on the NHS, which it would not be admittedly, but factually Could be.
But more serious statements Vote out will be out by Cameron, and Coopers statements at the Mile End Institute about respecting the referendum vote, now that could get some people pooing their pants.
If the only good outcome is that it f**ks his chances of being PM it would be money to a good cause.
-
If Labour got its own house in order and elected an electable leader they might be able to win an election on merit instead of by means of discrediting the opposition.
-
That's a odd non-sequitur BB.
A more apt comment would be that if Johnson and Gove hadn't lied through their lying teeth about the £350m, we'd likely not be in the current shit storm.
-
Rubbish! Do you honestly think that the 350 million quid claim that COULD be spent on the NHS swung it for the Leave vote? Aren't all leavers too thick, stupid, ignorant, selfish bas**rds with no common sense to bother about the NHS?
-
Rubbish! Do you honestly think that the 350 million quid claim that COULD be spent on the NHS swung it for the Leave vote? Aren't all leavers too thick, stupid, ignorant, selfish bas**rds with no common sense to bother about the NHS?
If 2% of those that voted leave had voted stay ?????????????????????
-
What about if Cameron hadn't lied about seeing out the job if we vote to leave? If he'd have been honest some would have voted leave just to see the back of him!
And what about Cameron's claim of an immediate recession? Surely that frightened potential leavers off?
And what about Osborne's porkies about immediate punishment budgets and pension cuts? Surely that frightened potential leavers off? It did me!
-
What about if Cameron hadn't lied about seeing out the job if we vote to leave? If he'd have been honest some would have voted leave just to see the back of him!
And what about Cameron's claim of an immediate recession? Surely that frightened potential leavers off?
And what about Osborne's porkies about immediate punishment budgets and pension cuts? Surely that frightened potential leavers off? It did me!
I think you can put that down to speculation rather than outright bald faced lying of which Boris has an extensive form, as for Cameron it speaks for itself but Boris is a known liar.
''“Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice. Stability and strong government with me or chaos with Ed Miliband''
-
It wasn't any less speculating than Boris' claim. The fact that Cameron and Osborne resigned instead of carrying out their promises goes a stage further than Boris' claim of what could happen. What they did actually did happen! They actually did lie!
-
It wasn't any less speculating than Boris' claim. The fact that Cameron and Osborne resigned instead of carrying out their promises goes a stage further than Boris' claim of what could happen. What they did actually did happen! They actually did lie!
I think a court could quite easily make a connection from the Battle bus claim and that at least 2 people out of every hundred that voted may voted differently had that not happened, fingers crossed aye.
Didn't Cameron and Osbourne resign after the vote?
-
Yes, they resigned after the vote! Your point?
-
BB
I understand that you're in one of those moods again, so I'll be patient and spell it out really, really simply.
The reason Johnson is going in the dock is not because of what people might or might not have claimed they might or might not do in some hypothetical future. Nor is it because of NHS money.
Are you ready? Big deep breath and just hold your tongue for a minute because this is REALLY easy.
He's going in the dock because he peddled a lie about an established fact at that time. We didn't send £350m/week to the EU. Ever. The National Audit Office made that clear. Johnson and Gove ignored that and carried on peddling the lie.
Got it?
-
Yes, they resigned after the vote! Your point?
Fairly obvious that an offence of misconduct in public office going against Boris could be seen as being more grave if the prosecution shows what the ramifications could have been (2 votes/100) whereas who knows what the consequences are of Cameron and Osbourne being complete dicks.
Anyone sick of the country being run by dumb posh boys?
Correction: ''Mr Power said the prosecution's application was not brought to undermine the result of the 2016 referendum and it was not about what could have been done with the saved money''
-
Yes, they resigned after the vote! Your point?
Fairly obvious that an offence of misconduct in public office going against Boris could be seen as being more grave if the prosecution shows what the ramifications could have been (2 votes/100) whereas who knows what the consequences are of Cameron and Osbourne being complete dicks.
Anyone sick of the country being run by dumb posh boys?
I'd say the consequences of Cameron and Osborne's lies were far, far more than 2%.
-
You can have any money you want on it Billy, the Battle bus was on the News Channel with that little word COULD be spent on the NHS, which it would not be admittedly, but factually Could be.
But more serious statements Vote out will be out by Cameron, and Coopers statements at the Mile End Institute about respecting the referendum vote, now that could get some people pooing their pants.
Way to miss the point.
This not about lying about what £350m could be spent on.
It's about lying about sending £350m a week to the EU.
-
BB
We've been through this endlessly.
The Treasury made a prediction on the economic effects of a Leave vote ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. That predi toon was that there would be a serious hit to economic activity and to the value of the pound, stoking inflation. And that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, that would tip us into recession.
That reflected the broad consensus of economic experts (you know, those people who Gove told us to ignore).
Osborne made a POLITICAL judgement from that basis, that the consequence ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL would be major job losses and a significant cutback in public spending (which includes pensions) in order to hit the aim of balancing the books by 2020.
What actually happened after the vote was that the pound dropped sharply, inflation rose sharply and economic growth collapsed. We went from being the strongest growing G7 economy to being the weakest. We lost about £100m of economic growth. We were spared the worst of this, and spared outright recession because the rest of the world had a mini-boom and we were pulled along with that. Consequently, we didn't lose jobs, but we did have 2.5 years of falling real incomes.
The economic predictions were broadly correct. To equate that to Boris lying about the £350m is boringly stupid. You're neither boring nor stupid so I've no idea why you insist on repeatedly doing that.
Regarding the "punishment Budget", of course, Osborne wasn't around to implement it. Hammond chose a different path, of stretching out the pain. He accepted not balancing the books by 2020, but instead extended Austerity through to the late 2020s. So no immediate massive hit, but a long term grinding reduction in Govt spending. Caused by the economic hit. Caused by the Leave vote.
As for Cameron resigning, well, politicians change their minds. Look at Farage. He wanted a Norway deal before the Referendum then switched to insist that Norway deal would be a betrayal of the vote. That comes with the territory in politics. I don't like it. You don't like it. But that's what happens.
None of that is remotely similar to repeatedly and knowingly lying on a massive scale about an established and unarguable fact.
-
BST. You amaze me with your political bias. Are those economic experts the same ones that threatened a severe hit to our economy if we didn't adopt the Euro? Again, they f**ked up, and Cameron and Osborne misled the public by sending every household a leaflet threatening what WILL happen, not might, based on the 'experts'.
I'm sure Boris would have had 'economic experts' providing him with figures such as the 350 million quid a week paid to the EU.
Why can Cameron and Osborne get away with untruths because they were following advise, but Boris can't?
-
BST. You amaze me with your political bias. Are those economic experts the same ones that threatened a severe hit to our economy if we didn't adopt the Euro? Again, they f**ked up, and Cameron and Osborne misled the public by sending every household a leaflet threatening what WILL happen, not might, based on the 'experts'.
I'm sure Boris would have had 'economic experts' providing him with figures such as the 350 million quid a week paid to the EU.
Why can Cameron and Osborne get away with untruths because they were following advise, but Boris can't?
BB
No remotely serious economist predicted a severe hit to the economy if we didn't join the Euro. You don't help yourself by saying daft shite like that.
It's true that there was a debate in economic circles as to the positive and negative effects of joining the Euro. And the outcome was that it wasn't in our economic interests. It wasn't a slam dunk either way. It was a nuanced decision. Brown and Blair listened to the economic advice and they were correct. I'd be quite happy to dig out the policy papers prepared for them by Prof Wren-Lewis from Oxford if you want to read them. Fascinating stuff.
Johnson wasn't advised by economists. He parotted a line devised by that odious little Kitson, Dominic Cummings. If he didn't know it was a lie initially, he DID know it was a lie when the Leave campaign got a letter from the Office for National Statistics (Not Audit Office as I said before - my mistake) telling him it was a lie. But he kept on telling that lie after receiving that letter.
These are all established facts BB. You don't have to hypothesise what might have happened.
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/remaining-in-the-eu-would-be-a-disaster-for-britain-just-like-the-euro-a7059326.html
-
Go on BB. Indulge me. Where are these economists in that article saying that not joining the Euro would lead to a severe hit to our economy?
I can see the ones looking at a nuanced issue and considering pros and cons.
I can see a list of politicians who supported the idea of the Euro, but we weren't talking about politicians' opinions.
And I can see a quote from a journalist whose balls had barely dropped when he wrote the piece quoted, who has and had zro economics training and who, by the time the article that you link to was published, had already had his career go down the pan because he was a liar and a plagiarist.
Other than that, I'm struggling. What was the point you were trying to make?
-
You can have any money you want on it Billy, the Battle bus was on the News Channel with that little word COULD be spent on the NHS, which it would not be admittedly, but factually Could be.
But more serious statements Vote out will be out by Cameron, and Coopers statements at the Mile End Institute about respecting the referendum vote, now that could get some people pooing their pants.
Seems it wasn't just on the Battle Bus Selby....
(https://i.imgur.com/bo95g6P.jpg)
And there appears to be no COULD on that poster!
-
BST. You are starting to bore me with your predictability. You believe what you want. If being on the losing side time after time rocks your boat there's now't I can do to dissuade you.
Perhaps you prefer to be in a minority because you enjoy the challenge of ducking and diving in a state of denial.
-
You can have any money you want on it Billy, the Battle bus was on the News Channel with that little word COULD be spent on the NHS, which it would not be admittedly, but factually Could be.
But more serious statements Vote out will be out by Cameron, and Coopers statements at the Mile End Institute about respecting the referendum vote, now that could get some people pooing their pants.
Selby.
I'll repeat for you what I said for BB.
It's got nothing, zero, nada to do with the implied promise of NHS funding.
It's all about the fact that Johnson would have known categorically that we didn't EVER send £350m/week to the EU. That was a lie. Pure and simple. There's no ifs or buts or interpretation about it. But he hammered on that point week after week during the campaign. And in an opinion poll in the week of the vote, 48% of people said they believed that we DID send £350m/week to the EU.
This is massively important. All politicians are allowed to have their own interpretation of what facts imply. Those can and should be debated and dissected. But if we have politicians that deliberately, consciously and brazenly lie about the basic facts themselves, and convince large swathes of the population that their lies are correct, then our democracy is a sham.
And son't come back with that bone idle "they all do it" line. They DON'T. Politicians, generally and historically do NOT lie about established and easily checkable facts. Ever. They DO lie about things that they think won't be found out, sure. But not about things that can be checked easily. Because it used to be that a politician being found unarguably to have lied meant the end of their career.
But we HAVE moved into a different era now. Farage is a past master of it. He lies as easily as he breathes about things that are easily checkable (like his involvement in the batshit 2010 UKIP manifesto for example, or his contacts with Russia, Trump and Assange). Trump...well, there's not much point even discussing it is there. And Johnson, our likely next PM has made a career out of it, from lying about straight bananas to lying about the £350m.
They will continues to do this because they sense that people like you don't actually care. As long as they are telling you what you want to hear, it doesn't matter if they are demonstrated to be lying. So, if you don't care about it, running it through the courts seems like a decent second best approach.
-
BB.
I apologise from the bottom of my heart for basing my opinions and judgments (as best I can) on established facts. It's a failing of mine in these times, and I understand your frustration with it. But, if it's all the same, I carry on with my approach, and I'll continue to point out to other people where the facts don't support their own conclusions.
-
The problem with your 'facts' is that you only accept them as facts because you agree with them.
-
BST, your posts in this thread are totally ambiguous. You start by saying that Boris could end up in Wormwood Scrubs, and then you later claim that we've now entered a new political era where politicians can get away with telling lies.
What's your point with this thread?
-
BST. Do you think if they put every single politician in the UK, apart from Labour ones, in prison, Labour would win an election?
-
BB.
Sweet Jesus, are you telling me you don't believe in the concept of objective truth? That some facts are simply facts. Like 1+1=2, not 10,000? Like if you have a pound in your hand, you have a pound, not 50p?
SS.
I started this thread with a faintly humorous line about Johnson doing time. Of course he won't. I followed up by saying that the most corrosive thing in current politics is a new breed of politician who have realised that they can lie about objective truth and get away with it because their supporters don't care about being lied to.
-
BB.
I genuinely do worry for you. You are a very intelligent person but you seem to revel in this ridiculous baiting. I've no idea why you do it.
-
Yes, Billy. I believe in the concept of truth, but for everyone, not just what political side they are on.
-
So, on this SPECIFIC issue, you agree that Johnson and the Vote Leave campaign were lying when they said this? Fully FIVE WEEKS after the head of the Office for National Statistics had taken the exceptional step of publicly upbraiding them for misleading voters with this figure.
https://twitter.com/vote_leave/status/735380643195064320
You DO agree that they were deliberately lying by saying that we sent £350m/week to the EU when we didn't?
Simple answer. Yes or No.
-
No
-
Astonishing. Just astonishing. Is that where we've come to?
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/29/boris-didnt-lie-even-did-harassing-brexiteers-courts-outrageous/
-
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with that article BB. It's behind a paywall. What I DID read before the paywall faded out leaves me questioning the bona fides of Andrew Lilico (not for the first time I'd add) as an honest purveyor of information. He's implying that Matthew Elliott, Dominic Cummings and Darren Grimes have been "repeatedly harrassed through legal processes". Yes. In democracies, we have this funny thing about investigating crimes and prosecuting people when the evidence of crimes is there. Which is what happened to Darren Grimes for example, for massively flouting national laws on election spending during the referendum.
But we're getting away from the point.
Forget Lilico's opinion. I expect that from him, because he has a track record of waiving away inconvenient facts and he's paid to do it by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which steadfastly refuses to tell us where it gets its funding from.
My question was about whether YOU believed Johnson and Vote Leave had repeatedly lied by saying that we sent £350m/week to the EU, when the head of the UK National Office of Statistics had categorically explained that we don't.
Why don't you think Johnson lied?
-
You can subscribe for free. I just did. I thought you'd be able to read it all.
Anyway, it basically points out that we do pay 350 million quid a week to the EU.
-
How happy, innocent and naïve we all were! We thought - we fools - it worked liked this: you have a campaign; people vote; someone wins; the thing people voted for happens; life and politics move on to the next debate.
But no. Instead, the way it works is: if you vote the wrong way, the thing you voted for doesn’t happen and the people who campaigned for that wrong thing get hounded through the courts.
Since the EU referendum, Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave, Darren Grimes, head of the youth campaign BeLeave, and Dominic Cummings, Campaign Director of Vote Leave, have all been repeatedly harassed through legal processes. Now Boris Johnson has been ordered to appear before the courts to face a criminal charge related to his repeating the claim that the UK sends £350 million each week to Brussels.
Proper procedures should of course be followed when campaigning, but this sustained legal harassment of people simply for having had the temerity to campaign to leave the EU is outrageous. It is truly the conduct of anti-democratic authoritarian regimes the world over.
It’s bad enough that when dictators say some public vote should be ignored they can appeal to the UK government’s ignoring of the EU referendum as precedent, but now they can also say the same when they lock up their political opponents on trumped up charges simply for standing against them.
Taking your political opponents to court for the things they said in campaigns cannot end happily. Suppose we finally get a pro-Brexit government.
Will David Cameron then be arrested for having said he would trigger Article 50 immediately following the election? Will George Osborne be taken to court for claiming a vote to leave would mean an emergency budget raising taxes and accompanied by interest rate hikes?
How much jail time will there be for the civil servants that drafted that leaflet sent to every home saying: “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”? If pro-Brexit people can face criminal charges for things they said in political campaigns, why can’t anti-Brexit people?
It shouldn’t matter to this discussion, but it’s also quite wrong to claim that the “£350 million sent to Brussels” claim was a lie. It was not the figure I favoured using during the referendum campaign, but it definitely was not a lie, for many reasons.
The most straightforward of these is that that was indeed approximately the UK’s gross contribution to the EU budget. It just was. Saying “Ah, but we get a rebate” misses a fundamental point: the rebate is paid to the UK by the member states, not by the EU. The EU does not give us a discount on our membership fee; rather the member states pay us something in return.
If I send Fred £350 million per week, and then Jane and Eliza send me £100 million per week, that does not change the fact that I send Fred £350 million per week. It does mean that saying “I send Fred £350 million per week” is not the whole story, but it is not a lie.
Second, the £350 million claim is not a lie because in fact even when one takes the wider context into account, it’s roughly the correct amount. Critics of the figure say it neglects the rebate. But that criticism neglects the supposed accumulated “liabilities” that we’ve become aware of as the “divorce bill”. A little over half the £40 billion or so “divorce bill” takes that form. If we spread £23 billion in such “liabilities” over five years and add the weekly sum of that to the £250 million or so weekly sum, net of the rebate, then we come to about £340 million per week “sent to Brussels” as an overall net figure.
So it’s just wrong to call the £350 million figure a lie. It is not a “lie” in any sense. It is not a lie in that it was the literal amount, and it’s not a lie in that it was the overall amount once one took everything into consideration. If we had stayed in the EU long enough, that would have been roughly the actual overall net weekly figure we would have sent to the EU in respect of the years Boris and Vote Leave referred to.
Political claims should be for voters to assess — for them to decide whether they believe them and, subsequently, whether they feel they were true in substance even if not precisely accurate in every detail. We should not accept the principle that such matters are for courts, not democracy, to pronounce upon.
Related Topics
EU Referendum
Boris Johnson
1530
-
So if you look at the actual figures produced by the ONS about how much we actually send to the EU, it makes for interesting reading.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31
So basically, the battle bus used the gross figure (which actually equates to more than £350 million a week). It didn't take into account the rebate and money returned through other initiatives. Had they done so it would have been a figure in the region of £180 million a week. So still a fair old chunk of cash but admittedly not as much as it said on the bus.
Naughty to use the gross instead of the net however more a case of politicians presenting something one way to suit their means rather that a total fabrication. It is at least based on some loose facts albeit conveniently forgetting the rebates etc.
Surely the key question would be do we actually think less people would have voted leave if they had used the £180 million true figure instead of the £350 million figure they used? They both sound a lot of money to me and I'm not sure the difference between the gross and net figures would actually have made much of a difference to the point they were trying to make.
My view for what its worth is that this prosecution is a waste of time and money and totally inappropriate. I'd bet money on either the AG stepping in to prevent it or that it fails at Court. What a waste of Court time and a lot of cash for all involved.
Leave our politicians (all of whom bend and twist "facts" to suit their own agenda) to be judged at the ballot box. This is not misfeasance in a public office and the pivate prosecution will fail, quite rightly so too. Lawyers should not be the adjudicator of political discourse. And I say that as a lawyer.
-
BB.
You choose who you want to believe on this.
Someone who is paid by a far-right economic pressure group which itself refuses to say who funds it.
Or the career statistician at the head of the non-partisan body tasked with ensuring that the statistics that we mae our decisions on are correct.
This is what the latter said.
"The UK’s official gross contribution for 2014 before the application of the rebate was £19.1 billion. As I have made clear previously, this is not an amount of money that the UK pays to the EU each year. The full £19.1 billion is not a net contribution."
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/uk-contributions-to-the-eu/
He also said "I note the use of the £350 million figure, which appears to be a gross figure which does not take into account the rebate or other flows from the EU to the UK public sector (or flows to non-public sector bodies), alongside the suggestion that this could be spent elsewhere. Without further explanation I consider these statements to be potentially misleading. Given the high level of public interest in this debate it is important that official statistics are used accurately, with important limitations or caveats clearly explained."
https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/eu-contributions/
Johnson and the Leave campaign continued to use the £350m figure for more than a month after this letter, before they finally appeared to reach the limits of even their embarrassment and let it fade away over the last few weeks of the campaign.
-
I think we can safely assume that the guy who took this action did so to try and undermine the result of the referendum more than anything to do with carrying out a moralistic crusade against bullshitting politicians. All politicians lie, that's a given but this clearly ticked a few boxes for him. Saying that, purely on a selfish basis I find it hilarious because I don't like Johnson.
-
Billy, I don't know about the £350 million a week we pay in to the Eu, an economist on talkradio yesterday did say that we contribute £58 million a day, times seven is about the same, I have no information myself whether it is correct or not, probably you know better than I.
But on the same programme were two business people, one who sold the 99p group of shops two years ago, and was of Asian immigrant stock, and a Welsh owner of a solar panel firm.
Both said that import duty tariffs imposed by the EU to protect things not produced in this country,LED light bulbs, olive oil, solar panels,coffee, cerials etc.etc. put the purchase price up to the consumer by at least 30%, and affected the poorest people in this country the most.
In the case of LED light bulbs when tariffs were imposed it was to protect the one factory in the EU at the time that produced them in Germany, and a similar situation with the solar panels.
Goes against saving the planet when making cheap energy available to the poorest is ignored to protect Philip's profit margins and a small work force on the continent.
And as the shop owner pointed out he could buy olive oil from Tunisia as well as orange juice far cheaper than from a protectionist EU.
-
Tommy.
It's more than "naughty". It was an out and out deception and fabrication. Because it gave the clear and unambiguous message that we are £350m/week out of pocket through the deal with the EU.
I agree that they might well have made a similar impact with the £180m figure. Which raises the question - why didn't they? Why not use a truthful figure?
-
BB.
By the way. That article by Lilico. There was something bugging me about it and I couldn't figure out what. But it's just hit me.
It's not the obvious one. The bit where he says "If I send Fred £350 million per week, and then Jane and Eliza send me £100 million per week, that does not change the fact that I send Fred £350 million per week. It does mean that saying “I send Fred £350 million per week” is not the whole story, but it is not a lie.".
No, that bit is just dissembling shite.
The bit that is REALLY naughty is this:
"Second, the £350 million claim is not a lie because in fact even when one takes the wider context into account, it’s roughly the correct amount. Critics of the figure say it neglects the rebate. But that criticism neglects the supposed accumulated “liabilities” that we’ve become aware of as the “divorce bill”. A little over half the £40 billion or so “divorce bill” takes that form. If we spread £23 billion in such “liabilities” over five years and add the weekly sum of that to the £250 million or so weekly sum, net of the rebate, then we come to about £340 million per week “sent to Brussels” as an overall net figure."
That's REALLY naughty. For two reasons.
Firstly, because our payment for these liabilities has only been fastracked because we are leaving. If we hadn't left, they would have been paid down over many, many decades. Secondly, because even with us leaving, we are NOT going to be paying them back over 5 years. we will be paying the liabilities off until well into the 2040s. He's plucked that 5 year figure out of the air to make the numbers work.
See, that's his job. He's a hired hand, using his not inconsiderable influence to push the agenda that the unknown people who fund the IEA want to have pushed.
He says that the £350m/week figure was fair because if you're going to include the
-
Billy, I don't know about the £350 million a week we pay in to the Eu, an economist on talkradio yesterday did say that we contribute £58 million a day, times seven is about the same, I have no information myself whether it is correct or not, probably you know better than I.
But on the same programme were two business people, one who sold the 99p group of shops two years ago, and was of Asian immigrant stock, and a Welsh owner of a solar panel firm.
Both said that import duty tariffs imposed by the EU to protect things not produced in this country,LED light bulbs, olive oil, solar panels,coffee, cerials etc.etc. put the purchase price up to the consumer by at least 30%, and affected the poorest people in this country the most.
In the case of LED light bulbs when tariffs were imposed it was to protect the one factory in the EU at the time that produced them in Germany, and a similar situation with the solar panels.
Goes against saving the planet when making cheap energy available to the poorest is ignored to protect Philip's profit margins and a small work force on the continent.
And as the shop owner pointed out he could buy olive oil from Tunisia as well as orange juice far cheaper than from a protectionist EU.
I just looked up olive oil from Tunisia. There is no Customs Duty on olive oil of Tunisian origin because of to the EC Preference Scheme. There is also no duty on oilve oil imported from the EU due to being in the single market. When we leave the EU and the Single Market, we will lose Duty-free trade with the EU, and will also be throwing away the EC Preference agreement with Tunisia. It will mean importing from both will be more expensive than it is now.
What I don't get from what you've said is that earlier in the the paragraph you say the EU impose import Duty Tariffs on olive oil (and other things) putting the purchase price up by at least 30%. But they certainly don't on olive oil!
EDIT: I've just looked up Duty rates from third countries with no preference agreement:
Coffee - 7.5%
Solar panels - 2.6%
LED bulbs - 2.7%
Olive oil - 124.4 Euros per 100kg.
Cereals is too vague to know exactly what to look up.
Given those Duty rates, I really have to ask where this 'at least 30%' rubbish is coming from?
-
According to the BBC yesterday, the UK was one of only 9 net contributors to the EU in 2017. We were the second largest net contributor after Germany with a contribution of 6.55 billion pounds. The other 18 countries took out more from the EU than they contributed. Our contribution equates to around 112 euro per person.
-
I realise people are salivating over the prospect of Johnson being locked up, but actually this sets a dangerous precedent. The way to deal with politicians who lie is not to vote for them, not to drag them before the courts.
Apparently Theresa May said 108 times (I wasn't counting but someone with time on their hands did) that the UK would be leaving the EU on 29th March. She must be waiting nervously for the knock on the door.
-
Come on TRB. You can't prosecute someone for being detached from reality.
The European Convention on Human Rights wouldn...oh...hang on!
-
Come on TRB. You can't prosecute someone for being detached from reality.
The European Convention on Human Rights wouldn...oh...hang on!
Don't get me started on May. She has been almost criminally useless. Although the "almost" is the critical bit. She is a hopeless failure as a PM, but we'd be getting in the area of Show Trials if she could in some way be prosecuted for her incompetence, rather than just sacked.
If the Johnson case isn't thrown out as soon as it goes to Crown Court, all bets will be off. I can only conclude that the Judge who decided it could proceed is a politically-motivated Remainer who is too blind to see the bigger picture.
-
So who's right and who's wrong then?
Johnson who said that after we leave the EU we could give £350 million to the NHS
or Farage who said that can't be guaranteed, he would never have made that claim and it was a mistake to say it
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/
-
On balance, I think Farage is probably right on this one. But that doesn't mean I think Johnson should be prosecuted.
On the other hand, a lawsuit against Mesut Ozil for stealing a wage would have a very good chance of success.
-
According to the BBC yesterday, the UK was one of only 9 net contributors to the EU in 2017. We were the second largest net contributor after Germany with a contribution of 6.55 billion pounds. The other 18 countries took out more from the EU than they contributed. Our contribution equates to around 112 euro per person.
Seems you don't understand the club we currently belong to, like most leavers! We actually gain far more than we contribute - as has been demonstrated numerous times. But go on, keep believing the lies propagated by the likes of Farrage and the Daily Mail. Oh, and please, don't complain when things get really bad when we ultimately leave the club, especially if it's with no deal.
-
TRB
Problem with the "you can vote them out if they lie" line is that this is not about a General Election.
I assume you're not saying we should have a chance to revisit the Referendum because of this lie.
And if you're not, then where's the sanction, other than legal action?
-
According to the BBC yesterday, the UK was one of only 9 net contributors to the EU in 2017. We were the second largest net contributor after Germany with a contribution of 6.55 billion pounds. The other 18 countries took out more from the EU than they contributed. Our contribution equates to around 112 euro per person.
Seems you don't understand the club we currently belong to, like most leavers! We actually gain far more than we contribute - as has been demonstrated numerous times. But go on, keep believing the lies propagated by the likes of Farrage and the Daily Mail. Oh, and please, don't complain when things get really bad when we ultimately leave the club, especially if it's with no deal.
Before the 2016 vote, the Treasury was predicting around 2.3% growth over the next decade on the assumption that we Remained.
It's now predicting an average of around 1.5%.
If that prediction is right (and it's been a bit on the optimistic side for the past 3 years) then by 2026, we'll have lost something like £7-800bn of economic output. That's about £1.5bn a week.
Kind of puts the amount Johnson lied about into perspective doesn't it?
-
Come on TRB. You can't prosecute someone for being detached from reality.
The European Convention on Human Rights wouldn...oh...hang on!
Don't get me started on May. She has been almost criminally useless. Although the "almost" is the critical bit. She is a hopeless failure as a PM, but we'd be getting in the area of Show Trials if she could in some way be prosecuted for her incompetence, rather than just sacked.
If the Johnson case isn't thrown out as soon as it goes to Crown Court, all bets will be off. I can only conclude that the Judge who decided it could proceed is a politically-motivated Remainer who is too blind to see the bigger picture.
I am sort of with you TRB. For a start I can't see why Gove and Cummings haven't also been cited as they are just as guilty as Johnson for coming up with and then publicising that claim. OK Johnson may have been the most high profile but if there is blame then surely all three should be culpable? To just charge Johnson seems vindictive rather than attempting to achieve justice.
However on the other side of the coin what May and other politicians routinely do is claim something they are unable to deliver. What Johnson (and Gove and Cummings) did was to claim something they knew to be untrue. Allegedly.
Thats why we have a legal system and its good to know that no-one is above it.
-
Wilts.
My understanding is that Johnson was the official head of Vote Leave and has overall responsibility. I might be wrong, but I recall reading that somewhere.
-
I would say that every MP that stood to be elected under either the labour or conservative manifesto pledge to respect the referendum result and have continually voted against it, and have campaigned against it subsequently are all open to stand trial then.
-
According to the BBC yesterday, the UK was one of only 9 net contributors to the EU in 2017. We were the second largest net contributor after Germany with a contribution of 6.55 billion pounds. The other 18 countries took out more from the EU than they contributed. Our contribution equates to around 112 euro per person.
Seems you don't understand the club we currently belong to, like most leavers! We actually gain far more than we contribute - as has been demonstrated numerous times. But go on, keep believing the lies propagated by the likes of Farrage and the Daily Mail. Oh, and please, don't complain when things get really bad when we ultimately leave the club, especially if it's with no deal.
NNK
Please don't try and drag me into a pissing contest. I was simply sharing some interesting information and in the interests of equilibrium I was also careful to point out how little our contribution is per person. If youd like to challenge or contradict my comments then please feel free but try and do it without being a smart arse. Oh, and don't EVER suggest that I base my views on those propagated by Farage or the Daily Mail or we will fall out. And for the record, I don't want a no deal.
-
TRB
Problem with the "you can vote them out if they lie" line is that this is not about a General Election.
I assume you're not saying we should have a chance to revisit the Referendum because of this lie.
And if you're not, then where's the sanction, other than legal action?
BST
But the action has been taken against Johnson on the basis that he was a MP at the time of the Referendum. He didn't become a Minister of the Crown until after the Referendum when he was appointed Foreign Secretary. Presumably that is why they didn't go after Cummings.
Anyway, is an MP in a public office? The charge is usually used against corrupt police or prison officers. Someone tried to use it against John Prescott when he was Deputy PM (and a minister) but it was laughed out of court. (It was when he was caught shagging his secretary btw). If an MP holds an office of profit under the Crown he or she is supposed to resign (The Chiltern Hundreds etc.).
This is a politically motivated prosecution. I don't care for Johnson, but the motives of the Judge who allowed this to proceed need to be questioned.
-
I would say that every MP that stood to be elected under either the labour or conservative manifesto pledge to respect the referendum result and have continually voted against it, and have campaigned against it subsequently are all open to stand trial then.
Think about it in that way, and you can see what a can of worms has been opened. Serious questions need to be asked about the Judge who allowed this to go forward. It is a bizarre decision.
-
TRB
Didn't really address the core of my question.
If someone commits an egregious lie in a referendum and that affects the result, what's the sanction?
-
I would say that every MP that stood to be elected under either the labour or conservative manifesto pledge to respect the referendum result and have continually voted against it, and have campaigned against it subsequently are all open to stand trial then.
Think about it in that way, and you can see what a can of worms has been opened. Serious questions need to be asked about the Judge who allowed this to go forward. It is a bizarre decision.
No. Because there IS a democratic process for dealing with that. You can vote them out five years later.
How do you address a lie in a Referendum?
-
TRB
Didn't really address the core of my question.
If someone commits an egregious lie in a referendum and that affects the result, what's the sanction?
They should resign.......Oh b*llocks, they did!
Swings and roundabouts owd lad.
-
I would say that every MP that stood to be elected under either the labour or conservative manifesto pledge to respect the referendum result and have continually voted against it, and have campaigned against it subsequently are all open to stand trial then.
Think about it in that way, and you can see what a can of worms has been opened. Serious questions need to be asked about the Judge who allowed this to go forward. It is a bizarre decision.
Judges are, in the main. politically ambivalent when it comes to application of the law, they have to be. So, ignoring TV programs like Judge John Deed, what has this Judge done wrong in your eyes?
-
If this goes through, Osborne, Clegg, and Cameron would be on sticky wickets, an immediate recession after the vote, every family will be worse off( Reece Mogg won't be), a once in a lifetime decision, tuition fees, you could go on and on, Cooper and Milliband would be toast.
That judge wants his bumps feeling.
-
If this goes through, Osborne, Clegg, and Cameron would be on sticky wickets, an immediate recession after the vote, every family will be worse off( Reece Mogg won't be), a once in a lifetime decision, tuition fees, you could go on and on, Cooper and Milliband would be toast.
That judge wants his bumps feeling.
Oh do keep up. That Judge was a she!
-
According to the BBC yesterday, the UK was one of only 9 net contributors to the EU in 2017. We were the second largest net contributor after Germany with a contribution of 6.55 billion pounds. The other 18 countries took out more from the EU than they contributed. Our contribution equates to around 112 euro per person.
Seems you don't understand the club we currently belong to, like most leavers! We actually gain far more than we contribute - as has been demonstrated numerous times. But go on, keep believing the lies propagated by the likes of Farrage and the Daily Mail. Oh, and please, don't complain when things get really bad when we ultimately leave the club, especially if it's with no deal.
Before the 2016 vote, the Treasury was predicting around 2.3% growth over the next decade on the assumption that we Remained.
It's now predicting an average of around 1.5%.
If that prediction is right (and it's been a bit on the optimistic side for the past 3 years) then by 2026, we'll have lost something like £7-800bn of economic output. That's about £1.5bn a week.
Kind of puts the amount Johnson lied about into perspective doesn't it?
Latest Q1 growth figures
Q1 GDP 2018 v Q1 GDP 2019
US + 3.2%
UK + 1.8%
Canada + 1.6%
Eurozone + 1.2%
France + +1.1%
Germany +0.6%
Italy +0.1%
-
TRB
Didn't really address the core of my question.
If someone commits an egregious lie in a referendum and that affects the result, what's the sanction?
George Osborne said a vote for Leave would cause an immediate recession and mass unemployment. Is he being hauled before the courts?
I realise this is all Whataboutery, but if you are going to apply legal sanctions to politicians where do you stop? I'd love to see Continuity Remain in court for spending two years trying to frustrate the result of a democratic vote rather than pushing for Norway-plus. If they had all got behind that, we'd have left political EU on 29th March, we would have avoided these divisive EU elections, and both sides would be able to claim a victory of sorts. The Remainers would hope they could get us back into the EU one day, and the Leavers would hope we could leave the SM and CU one day.
-
If this goes through, Osborne, Clegg, and Cameron would be on sticky wickets, an immediate recession after the vote, every family will be worse off( Reece Mogg won't be), a once in a lifetime decision, tuition fees, you could go on and on, Cooper and Milliband would be toast.
That judge wants his bumps feeling.
Selby, everyone knows you're right, but the sore Remoaners will never admit it. They will do anything to get their way. They have slumped to new depths of unprecedented depravity in modern civilisation.
-
I would say that every MP that stood to be elected under either the labour or conservative manifesto pledge to respect the referendum result and have continually voted against it, and have campaigned against it subsequently are all open to stand trial then.
Think about it in that way, and you can see what a can of worms has been opened. Serious questions need to be asked about the Judge who allowed this to go forward. It is a bizarre decision.
Judges are, in the main. politically ambivalent when it comes to application of the law, they have to be. So, ignoring TV programs like Judge John Deed, what has this Judge done wrong in your eyes?
It's odd then, that a politically charged case is held before a Judge who then makes a political ruling. IMO Johnson, who at the time of the Referendum was a Backbench MP and not a member of the Government, was not in a Public Office. If you want a show trial for Johnson, for whom I have no time, then fine. Just don't expect me to care when they knock on your door.
-
I would say that every MP that stood to be elected under either the labour or conservative manifesto pledge to respect the referendum result and have continually voted against it, and have campaigned against it subsequently are all open to stand trial then.
Think about it in that way, and you can see what a can of worms has been opened. Serious questions need to be asked about the Judge who allowed this to go forward. It is a bizarre decision.
Judges are, in the main. politically ambivalent when it comes to application of the law, they have to be. So, ignoring TV programs like Judge John Deed, what has this Judge done wrong in your eyes?
It's odd then, that a politically charged case is held before a Judge who then makes a political ruling. IMO Johnson, who at the time of the Referendum was a Backbench MP and not a member of the Government, was not in a Public Office. If you want a show trial for Johnson, for whom I have no time, then fine. Just don't expect me to care when they knock on your door.
No, the judge made a legal ruling based on the submissions presented to her. It's what judges do! Bugger all to do with politics. And why on God's green earth should anyone be knocking on my door?
-
TRB
I'm not getting back into the debate about Osborne's predictions. Read earlier in the thread if you're interested, but suffice to say they are qualitatively of a totally different genre to Vote Leave's £350m/week ( not to mention Turkish immigrants and EU killing polar bears...)
Regarding "getting behind a Norway deal", how could anyone have done that when May set down red lines 2.5 years ago that committed her to getting us out of the CU. THAT was the moment that a Brexit that could have reached over the divide died. She saw playing to the Tory Right (20% of the 52%) as more important than reaching out to the 48%. Personally, I'd have been (in fact, was) fully behind a Norway deal in early 2017. May removed that option and polarised the debate
-
HA
Fascinating how no Brexit supporter EVER puts up the growth figures for the first 2.5 years after the Referendum.
I'll do it for you.
(https://obr.uk/docs/2.2chartc.png)
By the way,from 2014-16, we had the highest growth rate in the G7. After that, we've vied with the long term basket cases Japan and Italy for the lowest.
And even more frightening for the future, commercial investment has flatlined. That will hit us like a 4x2 in the future.
(https://obr.uk/docs/2.2chartd.png)
By the way, you DO know why our GDP growth was abnormally high in Q1 this year? It was companies stockpiling raw materials as insurance against the anticipation of a chaotic Brexit at the end of March. For March itself, when it was clear that we weren't leaving, economic output actually SHRUNK.
You can choose to highlight numbers that support your case, but there's enough data in the bank to draw unarguable conclusions now. Our GDP is about 2% lower now than it would have been if we'd continued to grow at the rate that we were growing before the Referendum. But it's worse than that. The rest of the world had a boom in 2017 and 18. Their GDP growth shot up, while ours, alone in the G7, shrank. Factor that in, and our GDP is about 4% lower than it should have been. Or, in cash money, we've missed out on about £150bn of economic output that we should have had.
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION.
That's not a prediction. That's happened.
In the past 3 years we have lost 20-odf years worth of net contributions to the EU. That's what YOUR vote has given us.
-
Just for the hell of it stick this into your search engine, I take no responsibility it it crashes.
Boris Johnson a history of lies and incompetence
Boris Johnson "on the right side of history"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P796ztgoVw
It's only 5 mins but worth hearing it through.
-
HA
Fascinating how no Brexit supporter EVER puts up the growth figures for the first 2.5 years after the Referendum.
I'll do it for you.
(https://obr.uk/docs/2.2chartc.png)
By the way,from 2014-16, we had the highest growth rate in the G7. After that, we've vied with the long term basket cases Japan and Italy for the lowest.
And even more frightening for the future, commercial investment has flatlined. That will hit us like a 4x2 in the future.
(https://obr.uk/docs/2.2chartd.png)
By the way, you DO know why our GDP growth was abnormally high in Q1 this year? It was companies stockpiling raw materials as insurance against the anticipation of a chaotic Brexit at the end of March. For March itself, when it was clear that we weren't leaving, economic output actually SHRUNK.
You can choose to highlight numbers that support your case, but there's enough data in the bank to draw unarguable conclusions now. Our GDP is about 2% lower now than it would have been if we'd continued to grow at the rate that we were growing before the Referendum. But it's worse than that. The rest of the world had a boom in 2017 and 18. Their GDP growth shot up, while ours, alone in the G7, shrank. Factor that in, and our GDP is about 4% lower than it should have been. Or, in cash money, we've missed out on about £150bn of economic output that we should have had.
ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION.
That's not a prediction. That's happened.
In the past 3 years we have lost 20-odf years worth of net contributions to the EU. That's what YOUR vote has given us.
Billy,
You're probably right on a number of those points.
It's also interesting that Germany saw only a 0.4% growth during Q1 compared to the previous quarter.Indeed their economy actually shrank in Q3 last year and they missed recession by the skin of their teeth. Economies fluctuate for many reasons. Of course Brexit is a factor for the UK but for the past 6 months we've outperformed Germany. So, to shine a light on Brexit as the only contributing factor is utterly false.
Also, I'm sure you know that the largest components of GDP are services and construction. This applies to all Euro countries. So, if stockpiling is the reason behind our growth, could you advise how on earth you stockpile construction and services?
Finally, MY vote hasn't caused any of this. The uncertainty wasn't caused by the UK voting to leave the EU. It's been caused by a catastrophic goverment and a parliament unwilling to deliver the result of the referendum. Instead, business doesn't know what the hell to do because the remain faction have a policy of blocking brexit at every possible turn, whatever the cost.
-
''Finally, MY vote hasn't caused any of this. The uncertainty wasn't caused by the UK voting to leave the EU. It's been caused by a catastrophic goverment and a parliament unwilling to deliver the result of the referendum. Instead, business doesn't know what the hell to do because the remain faction have a policy of blocking brexit at every possible turn, whatever the cost''
Yes HA except the ProEU group have only questioned, probe and challenged they haven't actually stopped anything yet. If business is in a bind it's on the shoulders of government and their incompetent ministers.
-
''Finally, MY vote hasn't caused any of this. The uncertainty wasn't caused by the UK voting to leave the EU. It's been caused by a catastrophic goverment and a parliament unwilling to deliver the result of the referendum. Instead, business doesn't know what the hell to do because the remain faction have a policy of blocking brexit at every possible turn, whatever the cost''
Yes HA except the ProEU group have only questioned, probe and challenged they haven't actually stopped anything yet. If business is in a bind it's on the shoulders of government and their incompetent ministers.
Well, yes Sydney. That's pretty much what I said. However it's a little naive to believe that the pro EU mp's are merely 'probing'. I don't believe for one moment that Chucka, Lammy and those like them would vote for ANY Brexit proposal. I'm quite sure that their policy is to stop Brexit at all costs.
-
''Finally, MY vote hasn't caused any of this. The uncertainty wasn't caused by the UK voting to leave the EU. It's been caused by a catastrophic goverment and a parliament unwilling to deliver the result of the referendum. Instead, business doesn't know what the hell to do because the remain faction have a policy of blocking brexit at every possible turn, whatever the cost''
Yes HA except the ProEU group have only questioned, probe and challenged they haven't actually stopped anything yet. If business is in a bind it's on the shoulders of government and their incompetent ministers.
Well, yes Sydney. That's pretty much what I said. However it's a little naive to believe that the pro EU mp's are merely 'probing'. I don't believe for one moment that Chucka, Lammy and those like them would vote for ANY Brexit proposal. I'm quite sure that their policy is to stop Brexit at all costs.
True HA but they still have not stopped brexit happening, that's all on the government which has been unable to get it up, so to speak.
-
HA
I do appreciate that there's s reluctance on the Leave side to face up to the negatives of their decision, and a determination to overplay perceived positives.
But on the fact that stockpiling added to "growth" in Q1, you don't have to look very far to find the info. You don't have to rely on your own guesses.
https://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/brexit-stockpiling-drives-improvement-in-uk-gdp-growth/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1SR0Y6
https://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/articles/brexit-uncertainty-sees-stockpiling-race-to-post-financial-crisis-peak-cbi/
-
Oh and don't forget these!
https://www.trusselltrust.org/
-
What really intrigues me about this subject, and could be the reason the UK is lagging behind, is what the bloody hell do some of the regular posters do on here for work? do you have time to work? and what do you discuss with your mates at work? and what will you do with your time when Brexit is over and done with?
There will be a bloody great hole in your lives, you will have to start talking to the wife again.
-
The contrast between Osborne, Cameron, May, Corbyn or any other politician making promises and projections and this £350 million claim is what I think is the heart of this court case.
As we know politicians are more than prone to making claims that they can't deliver - or predictions that don't come true. However what is being alleged here is not that Johnson was making a claim or prediction - but he was stating something factual he knew not to be true.
So what they need to prove is:
a) the £350 million a week claim is untrue
b) Johnson knew this to be false when he made it
According to Farage he knew it wasn't true and that Gove & Johnson shouldn't be making it. According to Tim Shipman's book he told Gove this at a dinner in May 2016.
So if Nigel Farage thinks Johnson was wrong - and told his campaign so at the time - why do you think he is right? And Farage wrong?
-
So what you are saying Wilts is that we can believe all the promises and projections, and that's all right.
Please don't give any MP's this idea, Christ knows what they would think up.
Both major parties stated in their manifesto's to respect the referendum result, is that a promise or factual?is it Ok or not?
Most of the politicians about nowadays couldn't lay straight in bed in a straight jacket.
If this goes to court, watch the counter prosecutions against others come in.
Personally I think I could be a hanging judge for Cameron and Osborne.
-
It won't go to court.
-
They ALL knew the £350m/week figure was grossly inaccurate as a net figure. Cummings made that clear in a letter to Andrew Dilnott. They claim that it doesn't matter, because, as BB posted yesterday, we send the gross amount, but on the understanding that we get a large rebate sent back.
At the very least, quoting £350m/week and claiming that THAT sum should be spent on something else, whilst ignoring the rebate is an egregious lie of omission.
It's typical of Cummings, who is of the opinion that there is no-one in politics cleverer than him. But hammering that message home to the extent that half the population, in the week of the vote thought that our EU membership cost us that amount is simply disgraceful.
Almost as disgraceful as setting up a betting competition on line that no-one could possibly win, in order to identify gullible people who could be targeted with secretly targeted on-line lies about the EU which the Remain side couldn't rebut, because they didn't know they were being sent.
But that's the contempt for democracy that the clever bas**rds who ran Vote Leave had.
-
No Selby, what I am saying is that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage said different things about the slogan on the bus.
What I am also saying is that this claim is provable. We either do or we dont give that amount of money. Boris Johnson either did or did not know if it was a true fact.
If it does go to court a judge and jury will make a legal judgement on the case. But at the moment all we have is that either Farage or Johnson is wrong, which one is it?
-
Steve, I agree with you, it won't.
-
What I will say is that the battle bus shown on the BBC news channel when the story broke had the word could as part of the inscription on the side of the bus, as I pointed out to the wife at the time.
On the still photographs I have subsequently seen on this thread no such word is in the lettering.
It leads me to two theories, either someone has purposely doctored the still photographs, or the word was added as the campaign progressed if the same bus.
just as an aside, what do you think could possibly be the truth?
-
Selby.
I know it's like pushing water uphill but here you go.
https://mobile.twitter.com/vote_leave/status/730415023571542017
And here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/vote_leave/status/735380643195064320
For what it's worth, I've never seen a photo of the bus slogan with the word "could" on it. You sure you're remembering clearly?
-
HA
I do appreciate that there's s reluctance on the Leave side to face up to the negatives of their decision, and a determination to overplay perceived positives.
But on the fact that stockpiling added to "growth" in Q1, you don't have to look very far to find the info. You don't have to rely on your own guesses.
https://www.schroders.com/en/insights/economics/brexit-stockpiling-drives-improvement-in-uk-gdp-growth/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKCN1SR0Y6
https://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/articles/brexit-uncertainty-sees-stockpiling-race-to-post-financial-crisis-peak-cbi/
Billy,
And I never cease to be amazed at how remainers are quite willing to dismiss any positive news to support their narrative.
So, let's look at this another way.
The primary component of GDP in the UK is services (approx 80% I believe). Services cannot be stockpiled!! So, how on earth can stockpiling be the main reason for our growth? For those organisations in the manufacturing sector (which I believe makes up around (15% of GDP) stockpiling is of course more likely. However, considering the size of its contribution to GDP this is much smaller than your suggesting. So, while stockpiling is probably contributing to growth it's impossible that it can be the dominant factor!
12 month year in year growth in UK GDP was the second highest in the G7. UK growth was 1.8%, France 1.2%, Japan 0.8%, Germany 0.7%, Italy 0.1%.
So, whatever you try to claim, stockpiling (though undoubtedly taking place) can only have a comparatively negligible affect on GDP.
-
HA
So you ignore the OBR and that string of business commentators (none of which have a record of partiality on this)?
You ignore the fact that our economy actually had NEGATIVE growth in March? You ignore the fact that our growth dropped precipitately in 2016-18 while every one of those countries you cite had a sustained surge in growth?
And you accuse ME of being selective!
-
HA
So you ignore the OBR and that string of business commentators (none of which have a record of partiality on this)?
You ignore the fact that our economy actually had NEGATIVE growth in March? You ignore the fact that our growth dropped precipitately in 2016-18 while every one of those countries you cite had a sustained surge in growth?
And you accuse ME of being selective!
Billy,
I don't ignore those points. How can I argue with the fact our growth dropped in 16-18 when it's a fact? So, for the record I agree with you on that point ok? Although, it's also worth pointing out that other G7 countries saw serious economic down turns during this period too, Germany and Italy are examples, so it wasn't exclusively the UK.
However, I'm pointing out to you (and others) that make the claim that our recent economic growth is down to stockpiling are plain wrong.
-
No HA!
Those other countries all saw GDP growth surge in from mid-2016 to mid-2018, while our growth dropped badly.
That's precisely the point I've been making for a year now.
The rest of the world saw a boom for those two years whilst UK, alone among leading countries, saw its growth slow.
Missing out on that boom has already cost us £100bn of economic activity (or, if you want to look at it another way, fi e and a half years worth of the £350m/week that we don't pay to the EU).
Yes, those countries have seen a downturn over the past few months, but in overall terms since 2016, they have all outperformed us.
What you've done is to take a snapshot of one quarter and implied that we're doing better than anywhere in Europe. Possibly correct for a brief period. Categorically incorrect over the entire period since the Brexit vote.
-
how have we missed out when we haven't even left yet?
-
Big deep breath Billy. Big deep breath.
Because, BB, as has been discussed half a dozen times in this very thread, business investment has dried up because we are seen as having a less successful future, and inflation spiked after the pound tumbled after the vote. The pound tumbled because we are seen as having a less successful future ahead of us.
-
And here's me thinking it was because of the uncertainty of whether we're actually gonna leave or not. Ah well! We live and learn.
Well, some of us do.
-
No HA!
Those other countries all saw GDP growth surge in from mid-2016 to mid-2018, while our growth dropped badly.
That's precisely the point I've been making for a year now.
The rest of the world saw a boom for those two years whilst UK, alone among leading countries, saw its growth slow.
Missing out on that boom has already cost us £100bn of economic activity (or, if you want to look at it another way, fi e and a half years worth of the £350m/week that we don't pay to the EU).
Yes, those countries have seen a downturn over the past few months, but in overall terms since 2016, they have all outperformed us.
What you've done is to take a snapshot of one quarter and implied that we're doing better than anywhere in Europe. Possibly correct for a brief period. Categorically incorrect over the entire period since the Brexit vote.
Billy
Ok, let's look at a longer term picture then. Since July 2016 German GDP has seen average quarterly increases of 0.4%. UK GDP has seen average increases of 0.38%. In fact, UK GDP has outperformed Germany over the past 3 quarters. So, when you say other countries saw a surge in GDP compared to the UK I take it you don't include Germany in that...or maybe our understanding of a surge is quite different.
So, we've debunked the theory that stockpiling is the primary mover behind any growth so what is it?
-
HA
Fair points, but with respect, you are greatly over-simplifying things on two points. That's not me dissembling. Bear with me and I'll explain.
1) To identify the Brexit effect, you must also take into account what the conditions were like BEFORE
the vote and see how the trajectories changed.
Here are the figures (approximate because I'm reading them by eye from a graph, but not too far out).
UK annual GDP growth rate in the 12 months before the vote: 2.3%
For the 12 months after the vote: 1.7%
For the 24 months after the vote: 1.6%
For the 33 months after the vote: 1.6%
(NB: Worth noting that our long term average post-War growth rate is 2.3%, so we've had three years of significantly below par growth since the vote.)
Comparative figures for Germany
For the 12 months before the vote: 1.7%
For the 12 months after the vote: 2.3%
For the 24 months after the vote: 2.4%
For the 33 months after the vote: 1.9%
You see?
We were growing much more strongly than Germany. They had a boom. We dipped.
The same think applies to the whole G7 and the whole EU27.
2) Yes Germany has dipped recently so that their CURRENT growth rate is lower than ours and their average growth over the past 3 years is only slightly greater than ours.
That categorically doesn't mean that we've performed similarly.
You need to think about what GDP is.
GDP is the amount of economic production in a year.
GDP growth is that rate at which that changes.
Cumulative output is the sum of GDP figures over a given time.
There's a direct analogy with the speed of a car.
GDP is speed
GDP growth is acceleration.
Cumulative GDP is distance travelled.
Look at it like that and it's clear that WHEN growth happens matters.
Consider two cars, both doing 50mph. They are both going to drive for an hour.
One accelerates immediately to 60. Drives for 45 mins then decelerates to 40 for the last 15 mins. They drive 55 miles in the hour.
The other one decelerated to 40 and held that speed for 45 mins, then accelerated to 60 for the last 15. They cover 45 miles in the hour.
Both have accelerated and decelerated the same amount, but when it happens matters.
So, even though our average growth RATE has been similar to Germany over the past 3 years, our cumulative increase in wealth is much slower.
-
What I will say is that the battle bus shown on the BBC news channel when the story broke had the word could as part of the inscription on the side of the bus, as I pointed out to the wife at the time.
On the still photographs I have subsequently seen on this thread no such word is in the lettering.
It leads me to two theories, either someone has purposely doctored the still photographs, or the word was added as the campaign progressed if the same bus.
just as an aside, what do you think could possibly be the truth?
Sorry Selby, I missed this at the time.
Vote Leave used the 'We send the EU £350 million' slogan quite a lot, with slightly different wording each time. I don't remember the 'could' on the bus (and I cant find a photograph of it either) but if you say you saw it, well you must have. Did they have more than one bus maybe?
Anyway on the bus it is:
We send the EU £350 million a week let's fund our NHS instead
A billboard of the first time it was used, later on a panel whilst Johnson & fox are speaking and on the Marr show:
Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week
https://jonworth.eu/the-two-versions-of-the-350-million-for-the-nhs-slogan/
The official Vote Leave leaflet:
The EU costs us £350 million a week. That’s enough to build a new NHS hospital every week of the year
https://fullfact.org/europe/vote-leave-facts-leaflet-membership-fee/
There might be more example but I think these are the main ones.
As for the truth, I am afraid I am with Farage on this one, it's not true and they shouldn't have used it. What do you think the truth is?