The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Genie]

57 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's a blatant lie. We don't " pay the full amount, then get back" - we never hand it over. It's like a discount - you don't pay the full price, then they give you back 50% - you just pay the 50% straight off. They know that. We do not spend 350 million a week. It's a lie. Clear lie.

I thought we got a rebate a few months back (the one that Osbourne was taking thr credit for negotiating but we were due it anyway....)

Is that something else?

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

I thought we got a rebate a few months back (the one that Osbourne was taking thr credit for negotiating but we were due it anyway....)

Is that something else?

it's related in a way, yes.

Beeb

Quote

Chancellor George Osborne's claim last year to have halved the UK's £1.7bn EU budget surcharge is "not supported by the facts", according to MPs.

Mr Osborne made the comment after meeting EU finance ministers in November when it was announced the UK would pay a total of £850m.

The Commons Treasury Select Committee said it "should have been clear" Britain's EU rebate would apply.

But the Treasury said it had "delivered a real result for Britain".

In a new report, the cross-party Treasury committee said it recognised the government's achievement in extending the payment period and avoiding interest charges.

'Not supported'

But it said the Treasury's arguments as to why the rebate would not have automatically applied were "unpersuasive".

The UK rebate is a system dating back to 1984, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, that provides the UK with a refund on a part of its contribution to the EU budget. It is calculated on the basis of changes in national income.

 

[tonyh29]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's a blatant lie. We don't " pay the full amount, then get back" - we never hand it over. It's like a discount - you don't pay the full price, then they give you back 50% - you just pay the 50% straight off. They know that. We do not spend 350 million a week. It's a lie. Clear lie.

we can go around and around in circles on this forever  , but it isn't a lie , it's Semantics ... FactCheck argued it was "misleading"  .. that's not the same as a lie ... same way taking people off of unemployment and moving them to work programmes or removing them from benefits  and then saying unemployment is down isn't a lie ..it just isn't the truth either

they aren't lies ..they just aren't straight truths ..  it's what politicians do  ..see Panama , see Corbyn being Pro Europe , see Clinton not having sexual relations with that woman

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

I thought we got a rebate a few months back (the one that Osbourne was taking thr credit for negotiating but we were due it anyway....)

Is that something else?

that's something else .. that was a demand for an additional payment of £1.7bn , that Osborne shouted to the media we would refuse to pay  .. then negotiated it down to paying  half .. then paid the full amount anyway  (or so I believe)  ... I was going to mention this figure myself as It seems to have been missed off by the In camp (and out camp best I can tell) in all the calculations around our contribution  .... I'm assuming it's just more smoke and mirrors stuff , but some might say it's nothing put a lie  

 

 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

it isn't a lie , it's Semantics ... FactCheck argued it was "misleading" 

Deliberately misleading you say? 

A lie: something intended or serving to convey a false impression. An inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

So it's a lie.

But regardless, this deliberately misleading type of thing (in this instance from the Out camp) should be illegal. it's not an opinion, it's not a viewpoint or speculation, it's a falsehood repeated over and over, despite the speakers knowing it to be untrue, to mislead and to create a false impression that the EU is more expensive than it truthfully is.

I mean why don't they concentrate on truthful flaws and aspects of the EU that help their case (and there are many)?

[Chindie]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

I mean why don't they concentrate on truthful flaws and aspects of the EU that help their case (and there are many)?

They're harder to argue of course

I support staying in, but I can admit there are numerous problems. Democratic deficit the main one. To explain that I need a paragraph with jargon, and somewhat unrelated asides, to do it. Nobody is going to read that on a leaflet, a great number that do won't understand it, or care.

Do it's easier to sit there and mislead people with numbers. The EU costs you exaggerated figure X. The EU brings wishful rounded up figure Y to the UK in jobs. All of them are lies, some contain more truth than others, but again it boils down to this whole thing being a farce. We're reducing the arguments to such a simplistic level to get as many people as possible to understand that the truth is lost.

It's ludicrous.

[blandy]

I also really don't like the implication of stupidity directed at us by Cameron and Osborne and Co. re all the dangers of leaving Yurp.

I mean if leaving Yurp is such a catastrophic notion, why the eff are we having a referendum to leave Yurp? It doesn't make sense. Why would a responsible Gov't open up a nation to major risks?

So either the risks are nowhere near the scale presented, or Cameron and Osborne are utter effwits

(It's alright, it's rhetorical) 

[tonyh29]

46 minutes ago, blandy said:

Deliberately misleading you say? 

A lie: something intended or serving to convey a false impression. An inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

So it's a lie.

But regardless, this deliberately misleading type of thing (in this instance from the Out camp) should be illegal. it's not an opinion, it's not a viewpoint or speculation, it's a falsehood repeated over and over, despite the speakers knowing it to be untrue, to mislead and to create a false impression that the EU is more expensive than it truthfully is.

I mean why don't they concentrate on truthful flaws and aspects of the EU that help their case (and there are many)?

 

but talking of deliberately mislead or lies  (depending on your definition )   ..  tax to rise by 8%  is the latest one to come out today 

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

talking of deliberately mislead or lies  (depending on your definition )   ..  tax to rise by 8%  is the latest one to come out today

Worse than that there's a picture of Osborne and some other numpties stood in front of a big sign saying "£4300 per year" cost to UK families of leaving the EU.

That is a clear lie. The treasury report he's talking about says that the economy would be smaller if we leave the EU by an amount that equates to an average of £4300 per household. Which is a completely different thing.

Liar.

[HanoiVillan]

While we're talking about misleading falsehoods, I see Boris has been quoted (eg here) recently as saying '77 million Turks could be coming here'. 

Somebody needs to head into the dictionary and check on 'could' - poor modal verb has been abused to within an inch of its life there. 

Edited April 18, 2016 by HanoiVillan

[tonyh29]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

I also really don't like the implication of stupidity directed at us by Cameron and Osborne and Co. re all the dangers of leaving Yurp.

I mean if leaving Yurp is such a catastrophic notion, why the eff are we having a referendum to leave Yurp? It doesn't make sense. Why would a responsible Gov't open up a nation to major risks?

So either the risks are nowhere near the scale presented, or Cameron and Osborne are utter effwits

(It's alright, it's rhetorical) 

desperation to stay in power  ?

I guess there was a  time when UKIP were just a fringe party of nutters lead by that Nigel bloke who used to tell it as it was and would enjoy a pint down the pub and hold court whilst he blamed everything on Johan foreigner ... but when they started beating the big 2 parties into third place in some areas  , mainly on an anti immigration ticket but partly on a EU ticket as well ... Both Ed and Dave suddenly wanted to talk tough on how they were the party of immigration , how a vote for Labour / Conservative would stop those bloody foreigners stealing our jobs ..borrowing catchy slogans  like British jobs for British workers as the BNP Gordon Brown said  ... which somehow became we can't stop "them"  because it's the EU 

well on the plus side I guess the promise of a referendum  stopped those UKIP nutters filling the House of commons , but on the negative side , we now have this audition for leader of the Tory party ....

you'd have thought they could have found an easier way  ... nobody held Labour to account when they promised a referendum  and then didn't deliver it , Dave could have easily said " only kidding"  , it's not like he hasn't broken loads of other manifesto promises  ... 

 

P.s

(It's alright, it's rhetorical) 

is it just me who always wants to answer anything with the word rhetorical in it with " no it's a potato" .. damn you baldrick

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I also really don't like the implication of stupidity directed at us by Cameron and Osborne and Co. re all the dangers of leaving Yurp.

I mean if leaving Yurp is such a catastrophic notion, why the eff are we having a referendum to leave Yurp? It doesn't make sense. Why would a responsible Gov't open up a nation to major risks?

To be honest Pete I am actually suprised they kept their promise on this. i really thought this was going to be another government lie. Fair play to Cameron for keeping his promise here, he has balls to put his reputation on the line thats for sure. 

[MakemineVanilla]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

While we're talking about misleading falsehoods, I see Boris has been quoted (eg here) recently as saying '77 million Turks could be coming here'. 

Somebody needs to head into the dictionary and check on 'could' - poor modal verb has been abused to within an inch of its life there. 

The actual quote is (from your own link): '77million Turks could enter the UK'

Compare and contrast the meaning of the two different quotes and explain why one has more rhetorical weight than the other. 

 

[omariqy]

Not sure if I can vote the same as Nigel Farage.

[blandy]

Just now, omariqy said:

Not sure if I can vote the same as Nigel Farage.

I know. It's a big part of the problem - by and large, the people doing the campaigning n'that (on both sides) are easy to loathe (with a few exceptions).

[HanoiVillan]

26 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The actual quote is (from your own link): '77million Turks could enter the UK'

Compare and contrast the meaning of the two different quotes and explain why one has more rhetorical weight than the other. 

 

It's absolute dribble either way. 

[mjmooney]

I will blindly obey the instructions of my glorious leader Comrade Corbyn.

Or possibly spoil my ballot paper, can't decide.

 

[Chindie]

This will probably be the first thing I haven't spoilt my ballot on, I think, conversely.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's absolute dribble either way. 

Indeed. It's the same sort of fatuous guff as the UKIP brochures about Romanians and Bulgarians of a couple of years ago.

[darrenm]

When you look at all of the worker and consumer protection laws we've had from the EU over the years, it seems like they've protected us against ravenous neoliberalism. I wouldn't like to take my chances with a Tory government without check.

[OutByEaster?]

Just as an aside - why aren't the EU campaigning for us to stay in the EU? Where is the voice of the continent?