Official ONS Stats on what the UK gives to Brussels

Gross payment to Brussels: £18.9 billion a year, or £363 million a week.

net of rebate: £13.9 billion a year, or £267 million a week.

net of rebate and money returned to the UK: £9.4 billion a year, or £181 million a week

So Boris did lie, the figure is actually £363m a week!

I think you may have mis read your own link

when you say it refers to a "gross payment" of £18.9bn it actually says

In 2016, the UK’s gross contribution to the EU amounted to £19 billion. However, this amount of money was never actually transferred to the EU.

You know that we get stuff in return for the money we "send to the EU" right? Like when I send money to the supermarket, I get food to eat, and when I send money to EDF, I get to have electricity in my home? 

You're such a lazy troll, Flasheart. I think everyone knows and agrees that Bojo was telling porkies.

0.6/10. Try again.

I pointed out during the referendum campaign the basic maths failure that our liability to the EU divided by 52 wasn't £350m.

Tricky - I agree. But politicians frequently use valid-but-misleading figures (on both sides of all debates), seeing if the other side will make a fuss and take the bait. If one side misleads, the other side can call them liars and voters decide.

What Boris did was not unique, which is why it is this case is hypocritical....unless Marcus J. Ball plans on privately prosecuting all lying politicians

The level of rage about Bojo's statements (which were not valid so I'll skip going into misleading) should tell you that he crossed a line.

It is worth having a debate about where that line lies or should lie.

Personally my preference would be to have that debate in public and let the voters then take from it what they will.

Anna regardless of the actual amount paid it was a simple maths failure as if you took the headline liability figure and divided it by 52 it was more than the £350m a week which is what never made sense to me.

I don't agree that he crossed a line. The rage against him is because he supported Brexit (and won). Citing the "lies" about the £350m figure is simply an excuse to launch the action. If successful it sets a very dangerous precedent and he wont be the first politician in the dock.

The rage is caused by people feeling that the brexit vote was won because of the lies, this being one of the most flagrant ones.

If the UK would lose the world cup final because the referee was obviously corrupt and gave the other finalist two penalty kicks for no good reason, you would be angry too.

The number is incorrect but moreover, the effect of Brexit would NEVER be that the UK would have 350 mil a week to spend on the NHS. Boris knew that. He was telling porkies to win over voters.

P.s. And even if somehow after brexit the UK would have 350 mil a week to spend, it would not be up to Boris to determine it would only be spent on the NHS.

If you buy a car priced at £10,000 but negotiate a discount of £1,000 you do not pay £10,000 "gross" and £9,000 "net" you pay £9,000.  The argument that gross net is a valid distinction that justifies saying we would have £350m extra per week is nonsensical and those putting it forward (eg JRM) are making themselves look like prize arses.  I assume Boris' actual defence team (presumably better lawyers than some on this board) will realise that running this argument will have an entirely counter-productive impact.

If the car delaer booked that transaction as Credit £10,000 Debit £1,000, you would be perfectly justified in saying the car had cost £10,000.

The rage is 100% from people who lost and are raging about it. 

The lies from Remain were just as bad. e.g. I have not seen many zombies or Mad Max's so far in the post vote leave apockylips. 

Mind you we haven’t actually left yet so we aren’t in a post Brexit apocathingy.  I am considering purchasing a crossbow.

No We were promised that as soon as we votes the world would end. I for one an disapointed I have not been able to enact my zombie contingency plan. 

As this matter is now sub judice (see Mr Hargreaves' thread) it would be inappropriate to comment.

"If the car delaer booked that transaction as Credit £10,000 Debit £1,000, you would be perfectly justified in saying the car had cost £10,000."


No you wouldn't how the dealer keeps book has nothing to do with what you spent.


It seems people are really confused about this:


1.  It is a definite lie to say UK would have an extra £350m a week to spend, if we chose, on the NHS on leaving the EU.  A cold hard lie that is rightly being prosecuted.

2.  It is bollox to say we would have an extra £267 million to spend on the NHS because, even leaving aside the costs of brexit itself and the economic hit, the EU funds all sorts of things that the government would have to fund itself outside the EU.  It is misleading nonsense but is not an actionable cold hard lie because this is the actual amount we pay to the EU and in theory it could be done.


This is the difference -BJ was utterly stupid not to use the £267m figure (which frankly would have had no less impact on most voters anyway - its a big number) and he is getting his comeuppance for gilding the lily.

he didn't cross any line at all imo.  depending on your politics, we can all think of 100s of other political claims that we consider to be more dishonest

Tony Blair, this dossier establishes “beyond doubt” that Iraq holds WMDs.


But the bus! 

That doesn't make it even remotely OK. 

He knew it was a lie, he said it anyway, he induced loads of thick people to vote leave, and now we are all fucked as a result. 

Of course he was lying.  the assumption that the 350m lie moved the dial in any way is imo daft.  it was always ALWAYS going to be a  vote for out.  And would be again.

this is why wang thinks referenda are [email protected]

No its not "politics" Diceman - criticising the £270m for being misleading bollox is politics, £350m is simply a lie- what if he had said £1b  a week - would that have been "just politics"?  Or can candidates literally present any nonsense  at all as fact and get away with it because it is "politics"?

I agree incidentally that it didn't make any difference to the result but that is not the point- we have to fight a rear-guard action against moving to a post-truth era. 

Of course he was lying.  the assumption that the 350m lie moved the dial in any way is imo daft.  it was always ALWAYS going to be a  vote for out.  And would be again.


Absolutely magnificent example of use of hindsight with literally no justification whatsoever (given all the polls prior to the result pointed to remain).

As if (a) this will help and not make is worse  [see Trump] (b) you would have the same zeal if it did not fit your views. 


No I think you’re overestimating the intelligence of the voting public.  There have been interviews across numerous channels where people stated that while they presumed not all the money would go to the NHS at least there would be some extra.

My biggest issue with all of this is that Westminster don’t give a fuck about the UK outside of either London or their pet projects (northern powerhouse hs2 etc) and the EU while it has its faults did at least help modernise much needed facilities in areas that Westminster will simply ignore.

What pains me the most is that my own people are so desperate for any change that they’ve shot themselves in the foot by pinning their hopes on Brexit producing extra funding for wales.  Look at Cardiff bay and numerous other regional improvements for the effect that the money from the EU (which yes we gave them) distributed.  I don’t see that happening if/when that funding control is relinquished to Westminster.  

Its disaster for the most deprived areas in the UK and many of them really have been conned by these lies.

quite a few people I have spoken to who voted out did so on the basis that at least there would be more money to spend in this country

Don't be ridiculous Heffalump people like you and Lady P would never actually countenance speaking to a poor uneducated leave voter, perish the thought!


You have read about them in the Guardian though and that's how you know the poor darlings were fooled.

LA, even if we didnt know any leavers (and of course we all do) we only have to watch the BBC to see endless vox pops of leave voters in social clubs and in markets (always social clubs or markets for some reason) spouting their nonsense.

why snobby?  I go to a social club and love markets, my ire is the fact they spend at least 3x as much time interviewing leave voters as remainers

It just seemed a bit snobby as if to say that only proles who attend markets and social clubs get interviewed - my apologies if that was not the case.

I like a market and a social club too.  Man of the people me.

Well, I like those darling markets in France and Spain, Borough Market and the odd farmers market anyway ;)

Well quite and they are determined to show them as the ill educated thickos that you remainers look down your noses at.

Close to 50% of the people I work with voted leave and I work with some pretty bright people.

Riooiight. Lol.  I was more referring to the ones where you buy red spot super mature cheddar, duck eggs and choccy liquor boxes for a quid each ;)

LA i just don’t believe you. 

I know that’s rich coming from me but there we are. 

yeah I am a sucker for all markets- I especially like buying fruit and veg measured in the unit of plastic bowl....


where remainders=people who voted to leave

I'm a very stable genius, me

Very interesting Heff. That says that higher socio-economic status predicts a greater likelihood of voting leave, especially once you adjust for education.


Which suggests that a lot of these so-called higher educated remainers have either just got worthless degrees or have failed to use their education to any meaningfull effect.


Well educated with low socio economic status. What a waste


You do know this analysis is about how electoral wards vote not individuals?  Presumably not otherwise you would not have posted your ridiculous comment.

You do know that voting is a noymouse and these stats are based on samples only and often are very not accurate? 



PS all leave voters are fat thick racists who don't know enough to be really allowed to vote anyway. 


Yes Guy, that's the point .

Wards with a higher proportion of people with a degree and a high socio-economic status are more likely to vote leave, and wards full of people with an education but low SES are more likely to be remainers.

it does not say that "higher socio-economic status predicts a greater likelihood of voting leave, especially once you adjust for education"

it says:

"We do not know whether individuals of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to vote leave after adjusting for education. All we can say is that electoral wards with a higher proportion of people of high SES are more likely to vote leave after adjusting for the proportion of people in that ward with degree level education."

Of course, but that analsys for education is made on exactly the same basis "


They cannot say for sure whether individuals with a higher education are more likely to vote remain, just a ward with a higher proportion or higher educated people with low SES is more likely to be remain .

"You do know that voting is a noymouse and these stats are based on samples only and often are very not accurate? "

Hilarious demonstration by wibble yet again of the depths of his stupidity - the stats are based on how wards voted and the educational and social status make up of those wards - the fact that voting is anonymous does not impact on what the stats say one jot.

Any figures stated per/week are aimed at a certain crowd, the same that prefer to read footballer salaries per week. These are the people that themselves are paid weekly.

If BoJo had said £250m/week, Remain would have explained why this is justified. It would have received far less media coverage.

Instead, BoJo went high, Remain argued strongly that the figure was "Actually only £250m/week", and it amplified the Leave message, which was "Look at how much money we send to the EU".

£350m vs £250m, it's all the same to weekly paid Jo/Joe.  It made them angry and had the desired effect.

If this court case rumbles on over a Second Ref or Brexit-focussed GE, it will be the gift that keeps on giving for Leave.

"These are the people that themselves are paid weekly."

"weekly paid Jo/Joe"


Could be more of snidey cunt ?


"Could be more of snidey..."

Didn't mean to be.  I used to be paid weekly.

maybe I have spent too much time reading the passive aggressive crap from people on here.