Although there were outright lies, such as the infamous £350m - the Remain side weren't squeaky clean either, with their exaggerations, like an emergency budget, and up to 3m jobs lost, for example.

 

While I can't speak for other Leavers, I like to think that I, personally, can see through most propaganda, even though I only went to college, rather than uni. ;)

 

As for scapegoating, sometimes I feel like I've been made one here, on behalf of the 17.4m other Leavers who don't post here. :coffee:

How many more times do you need to be reminded of the tens of billions of pounds spent by the Bank of England in order to avoid an emergency Budget? Just because you keep forgetting it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Although there were outright lies, such as the infamous £350m - the Remain side weren't squeaky clean either, with their exaggerations, like an emergency budget, and up to 3m jobs lost, for example.

 

While I can't speak for other Leavers, I like to think that I, personally, can see through most propaganda, even though I only went to college, rather than uni. ;)

 

As for scapegoating, sometimes I feel like I've been made one here, on behalf of the 17.4m other Leavers who don't post here. :coffee:

 

When you say "remain side" you mean the tosspots Cameron and Osbourne. And the Brexiting governments own data. 3m jobs lost? I dont recall anyone saying there would be 3m jobs lost the day after the referendum or before we had left..... and it remains to be seen what effect it has on jobs depending on what sort of deal we get.

 

Yet you don't give firm examples of propaganda nor concrete reasons to hate the EU, just talk in vague "cos I think so"s. I mean, I could do a fairly good job of playing devil's advocate and come up with a half-decent case of problems with the EU (nothing is perfect in politics and life, not anything, it's impossible to ever reach perfection, there is only the least bad choices)....

 

You aren't a scapegoat, you just have a teflon bottom that keeps on sliding back again and again when it gets a bit burnt and others don't..... :P

lots of lols today. Rees-Mogg demanding instant Hard Brexit on march 31st 2019 and the government caving in to the EU demands for an interim period under EU laws. Result!!!!! We get to see all those tax-dodging individuals and companies (see private Eye for a full rundown on which Ports are owned by foreign tax haven companies who avoid tax (clue: most of the bigger ones), for example, as our trade makes rich foreigners richer and pays peanuts to UK workers).

 

SOOOOO looking forward to autumn of 2019....

lots of lols today. Rees-Mogg demanding instant Hard Brexit on march 31st 2019 and the government caving in to the EU demands for an interim period under EU laws. Result!!!!! We get to see all those tax-dodging individuals and companies (see private Eye for a full rundown on which Ports are owned by foreign tax haven companies who avoid tax (clue: most of the bigger ones), for example, as our trade makes rich foreigners richer and pays peanuts to UK workers).

 

SOOOOO looking forward to autumn of 2019....

 

Oh is there a new Private Eye out..? I'll have to pick that up tomorrow.

 

Great news re:transition deal. I think reality is beginning to catch-up with May and co.

"Method used in latest pro-brexit economic work is "absurd" apparently (tweaking the number until they say what you want them to say)."

 

Lol x

 

https://www.ft.com/content/9bddba54-16ea-11...9c-25c814761640

 

Financial Times mathematical enough for ya?

Maybe my maths-based degree makes me more inclined to look at actual evidence.

 

There was no shortage of evidence around during the referendum campaign, but it wasn't convincing enough to swing enough people to the result you wanted.

 

How many more times do you need to be reminded of the tens of billions of pounds spent by the Bank of England in order to avoid an emergency Budget? Just because you keep forgetting it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

But the BoE is independent, so you cannot equate their actions to that of the government.

 

When you say "remain side" you mean the tosspots Cameron and Osbourne. And the Brexiting governments own data. 3m jobs lost? I dont recall anyone saying there would be 3m jobs lost the day after the referendum or before we had left..... and it remains to be seen what effect it has on jobs depending on what sort of deal we get.

 

You aren't a scapegoat, you just have a teflon bottom that keeps on sliding back again and again when it gets a bit burnt and others don't..... :P

 

IITC the actual claim was 'up to 3m jobs would be at risk if we left' - a craftily worded statement that could be claimed to be correct, whatever the actual numbers turned out to be.

 

 

"Method used in latest pro-brexit economic work is "absurd" apparently (tweaking the number until they say what you want them to say)."

 

Lol x

 

https://www.ft.com/content/9bddba54-16ea-11...9c-25c814761640

 

Financial Times mathematical enough for ya?

 

Conveniently for you there is a paywall, so I cannot check...

There was no shortage of evidence around during the referendum campaign, but it wasn't convincing enough to swing enough people to the result you wanted.

But the BoE is independent, so you cannot equate their actions to that of the government.

IITC the actual claim was 'up to 3m jobs would be at risk if we left' - a craftily worded statement that could be claimed to be correct, whatever the actual numbers turned out to be.

Conveniently for you there is a paywall, so I cannot check...

 

1. Lies from the Brxiteers over-ruled the truth

 

2. No it isn't. If the Government says do it they do it.

 

3. Then it's not yet a lie and not yet proven true, and we have not yet left the EU.

 

4. Then you will have to take it on trust..... you seem very keen to do that usually....

So - EU net migration is down. There would be cheering in the streets, except, oops, net migration from the rest of the world is up to compensate. One excuse is it's student numbers returning after a drop, but that seems unlikely to cover most of the numbers.

 

Also, more UK citizens are leaving the country than returning.

 

So, immigration remains high.

 

It's almost looking as if there aren't enough people to do all the work, doesn't it? Look forward to Freddy Bloggs filling in for Dr. Chakrabarti in the NHS with his GCSE in woodwork....

 

bang goes another promise - we DO actually have control over non-EU immigration and yet it remains as high (or higher) than EU immigration, so perhaps Tories might like to explain that......

1. Lies from the Brxiteers over-ruled the truth

 

2. No it isn't. If the Government says do it they do it.

 

3. Then it's not yet a lie and not yet proven true, and we have not yet left the EU.

 

4. Then you will have to take it on trust..... you seem very keen to do that usually....

 

1. Perhaps the Remain campaign just didn't try hard enough to expose them?

 

2. Do you have evidence that the Gov't told the BoE to intervene?

 

3. That's my point - it was so vaguely worded, that almost anything can be claimed about it.

 

4. Or someone with an FT sub could copy/paste it...

'Conveniently'

 

Riiight

 

Simpy put, that Brexit study is bogus. Sorry.

There was no shortage of evidence around during the referendum campaign, but it wasn't convincing enough to swing enough people to the result you wanted.

But the BoE is independent, so you cannot equate their actions to that of the government.

IITC the actual claim was 'up to 3m jobs would be at risk if we left' - a craftily worded statement that could be claimed to be correct, whatever the actual numbers turned out to be.

Conveniently for you there is a paywall, so I cannot check...

How does that make any difference. The simple fact is that the BoE spent tens of billions of pounds in mitigating the effects of the referendum result. One of the consequences was that an emergency budget was not necessary.

1. Perhaps the Remain campaign just didn't try hard enough to expose them?

 

2. Do you have evidence that the Gov't told the BoE to intervene?

 

3. That's my point - it was so vaguely worded, that almost anything can be claimed about it.

 

4. Or someone with an FT sub could copy/paste it...

 

1. If someone calls you a liar on headline news and front gutter press pages it's hard to get boring facts out there when people would rather believe the outraged mouth-frothers who continue to act the same way week after week. People who read the Mail, The Sun, The telegraph, the Express and others exclusively wouldnt have a clue what was fact because it doesnt get reported and they dont go looking for it.

 

2. Errr, the banking crisis which was allowed to happen. The appointments are made by the government. If the government doesnt like the way things are going they can fire you. Lots of reasons. Gordon Brown "saved the banking system of the world" apparently. Nothing to do with the Bank Of England, he came up with the idea (having had a huge hand in allowing it to happen). So I have no doubt that whoever is in power has control over vitally important issues like stopping the forthcoming catastrophic run on the pound. Has anyone SAID that? No.

 

3. Then stop repeating it as if it's a proven lie by the Remain side. That's how the discussion came up.

 

4. Fair enough...not me I dont have access either and I havent read it either.

IITC the actual claim was 'up to 3m jobs would be at risk if we left' - a craftily worded statement that could be claimed to be correct, whatever the actual numbers turned out to be.

 

3. Then stop repeating it as if it's a proven lie by the Remain side. That's how the discussion came up.

 

Be fair - I didn't claim that it was an outright lie, only that it was carefully worded so that people would take the worst-case scenario as the most likely consequence of voting Leave.

Be fair - I didn't claim that it was an outright lie, only that it was carefully worded so that people would take the worst-case scenario as the most likely consequence of voting Leave.

 

Therefore it's correct, unless jobs increase as a consequence of Brexit. So, not a lie, a warning of a worst-case scenario.

 

A lie is "The EU will give us full access to the Single Market with no consequences" or "We pay 350m to the EU weekly" or "We can strike better trade deals with the rest of the world as soon as we vote to Leave"

 

I think you can agree those are all proven lies? If the Leave campaign didn't want to be proven liars they could have campaigned along similar lines:

 

"we may be able to use up to 250m a week on the NHS (once we stop paying out to farmers in subsidies - whatever that is - or stop the subsidies to struggling parts of the UK - whatever that is. We don't have the exact figures available but it could be as much as £3.50 a week if we don't cut out those annoying subsidies)"

 

the bit in brackets would be the response to the claims, but they could have stopped with the "up to" and managed to avoid lying. Not our fault they were dumb ass liars.

Therefore it's correct, unless jobs increase as a consequence of Brexit. So, not a lie, a warning of a worst-case scenario.

 

A lie is "The EU will give us full access to the Single Market with no consequences" or "We pay 350m to the EU weekly" or "We can strike better trade deals with the rest of the world as soon as we vote to Leave"

 

I think you can agree those are all proven lies?

 

1. Which is why it was listed as part of 'Project Fear' by the Leave campaign.

 

2. Not unequivocably - The first was unprovable at the time as nothing like it had ever been tried before, the second was admittedly a lie, and the third is also unprovable as yet.

 

The prospects of the EU giving us full and unfettered access to the Single Market without being expected to abide by its rules (including paying for it) were always exactly the same as the chances every Briton being given a live unicorn every Christmas in perpetuity.

1. Which is why it was listed as part of 'Project Fear' by the Leave campaign.

 

2. Not unequivocably - The first was unprovable at the time as nothing like it had ever been tried before, the second was admittedly a lie, and the third is also unprovable as yet.

 

1. Exaggeration (at worst) is not a lie. It remains to be seen how damaging it is but the government figures suggest it will be very damaging in the scenario the liars push now (note not the scenario the liars promised we could have)

 

2. the EU stated before the referendum what their position was ("non'negotiable") and everything they said they would do they have done. Not lies. The liars chose to call them liars lying that they would cave in just because Tory liars and UKIP liars said so, knowing full-well that to do so would end the EU, so it was never going to happen. Liars ignoring facts.

 

RE better deals: Liam Fox is claiming he has 21 deals lined up - note he doesn't say "better deals" and he doesn't give any details on what has been agreed. This is against EU rules, so he's either ignoring EU rules and regulations or he's lying or everyone is just saying "sure sure, we'll do a fab deal with you when you leave" knowing nothing is in writing (it's illegal) and they can get the upper-hand when it's too late and the UK is desperate to sign anything having cut off it's EU trade to spite it's face.

What a mess.

 

Does anyone have the recent poll numbers? Seems more and more are going off Brexit. Will Remain reach the 60%s? I think so.

No movement. Both camps are entrenching their views. Probably find a shift when we crash out sans deal

remember that piece about 40 anti-EU Brexit academics on the front page of the Sunday Times last week?

 

They have a much smaller article on a letter from 1400 academics in favour of the EU.

 

Now, would one call that bias?

 

If only I could find out who owns the Sunday Times....