PoshinDevon wrote: To be honest I have read so much about the 350million on the side of the bus slogan.....ranging from 350million net, 350million gross, it was more than 350million, it was less than 350million......plus numerous other ways of translating the figure. You can do a simple search and find lots of different theories, figures etc on just this one slogan.
What we pay into the EU and what we receive back in grants is not a matter of 'theories' , it is just hard plain facts.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-7886
The only way to get to a figure of 350 million a week is to take the annual figure we 'pay' before the rebate and before the direct cash funding the EU pays back to the UK annually and divide it by 52. If you take that figure and deduct the rebate (and we never pay the higher amount and get the rebate back later, we just pay in the net figure) then the weekly amount is £250 million. If you deduct the cash the EU then sends back to the UK, then the weekly figure is 171 million. This then is what we pay in to the EU after deducting what we get back in cash. Even then if the bus had put this figure on the bus with the implication that this is how much 'extra' money we will have after leaving and could spend on things like the NHS, this would still be grossing misleading because it would imply that we will not have to spend a single penny to replicate functions nationally as a result of leaving the EU.
That someone as grounded and sensible and plainly not stupid as you seems to be 'unsure' as to what the actual figures are and appears to think there are competing 'theories' as to what the actual number are such that a normal person can not make head nor tail of them, disturbs me to be honest as does the idea that this then is the environment in which we made the biggest decision of the last 40 years that will effect generations to come, in the UK and outside of it.
PoshinDevon wrote:My point is that throughout the referendum campaign the information put out by both sides was; let’s say, distorted. However it was the remain side that kept pushing the whole “whatever the leave side said was all lies” - this is simply not true. Then there is the constant accusation that has been repeated often and even on this thread suggesting that those that voted leave must somehow be either stupid, dim or rascist which again is simply not true.
I voted remain and I never claimed everything the leave side is lies. I claim those things it said that are clearly and blatantly lies are lies but that is not the same thing. Nor have I ever said or suggested that anyone who voted leave must therefore be stupid, or dim or racist. As far as this did happen from some of those who voted remain, and it certainly did from some, it is for me little different to some on the leave side categorising all those who voted remain as 'liberal elites' or 'un patriotic' or 'fear mongers' or any number of other derogatory terms.
PoshinDevon wrote:The ballot paper was very clear, in fact it could not have been clearer. Remain or Leave the EU.
The question asked was very simple and clear. Just as the asking a MM customer do you want to subscribe to the gold package or the platinum package is a very simple and clear question. However if you do not know what the differences and consequences are of the choices offered it is simply not possible to make an informed decision. Not knowing or understanding what the differences and consequences are between our gold and platinum packages does mean that person is stupid or dim. It means they need to be given proper honest and factual information as to what the differences are so they can make an informed decision. This did not happen as far as I am concerned with the referendum vote,
PoshinDevon wrote:That was the choice. It was also made very clear that this was a once in a generation vote and we the public will decide. No second vote, no second referendum.
I remain undecided about if I want a second referendum or not. I certainly do understand the arguments that having such before we have even implemented the result of the previous asks serious questions about our democratic process. However I do also believe that not allowing the 'people' to change their minds also asks serious questions about our democratic process. The issue for me is one of 'how soon' should the 'people' be given the opportunity of changing their minds. If we could leave and then rejoin at a later date on the same terms as when we left then I would with no doubt or reservation not support the idea of a second referendum before the result of the first was implemented. I might argue a 'confirming' referendum after say 3 or 5 years to remain out or not, similar to the 75 referendum that was three years after we joined the EEC but I would not support one before that. Yet the reality is should we leave and it prove a clear mistake we will not be able to rejoin under the same terms as when we left, even if 100% of the 'people' want such and it may not even be possible to rejoin under any terms let alone the same as when we left.
PoshinDevon wrote: I have said it before that if things were not clear or anyone was undecided then surely the sensible option would have been vote remain.
My view is that those who were 'marginal' as to which way to vote were simply more likely to influenced by the lies being told by the extremes on each side according to which struck a particular resonance or annoyance with them. So had I been marginal I may have voted remain simply because of the egregious lies on the bus, as others may have voted leave simply as a reaction to the bullying threats from the likes of George Osborne.
PoshinDevon wrote:Whilst the discussions on the mechanism of leaving etc may not please everyone on both sides the fact is we will be leaving the EU.
This is where personally my main concerns are. If once we decided by referendum to leave our politicians (and by extension us as the people) had put aside party and personal needs and ambitions and buckled down to finding the best way to leave for the UK as a whole then I would be 100% certain in my opposition to the idea of a second referendum even though the result had not been my personal choice. It is the
way in which we have collectively gone about implementing the 'will of the people' post the referendum that leaves me less than 100% certain we should not have a second referendum more that anything else. The whole process has imo been captured by those not seeking what is best for the UK but by those seeing it as an opportunity to gain narrow benefits and gains in an irreversible or near irreversible manner for themselves regardless of what the wider cost to the UK generally may be. For me the whole thing was a balls up from the beginning. Triggering article 50 before we had started any negotiations with the EU as to what kind of exit we might be able to agree was the stupidest thing that could have been done (unless your objective was to try and use the process to gain parochial benefits regardless of the wider cost). After the referendum result we should have said to the EU, lets talk about how we can best implement this democratic decision of the British people for both the UK and the EU and if the EU had responded with 'we can not start such negotiations until you trigger article 50 we should simply have said, ok then we will veto everything we possibly can within the EU until you change your mind. Triggering article 50 before we had any idea as to what might be achievable in exit negotiations was to me like agreeing to have your roof redone by a particular company before negotiating what either the final price or timescale will be. From there on things did not get any better in my view. I sincerely believe that there are those on the extreme end of the leave side of things that have no sincere interest in 'the will of the people' or in the UK leaving the EU per se but whose objective is to leave in such a way that there can be no way back whatever the 'will of the people' might be in 10 years or 40 years or 100 years time and regardless of how leaving in that particular way rather than other alternatives which would also represent having fulfil the will of the people expressed in the referendum might be damaging to large numbers of those in the UK for generations to come but that they themselves will be largely isolated from. I think both the conservatives and labour, by seeking to 'exploit' the leaving process for narrow party reasons have played in to the hands of these tiny minorities on the extremes as well as others like the DUP.