Brexit

[pegelli]

Ok, so which number is the truth then? 349? 299?

I don't know, but reading this reference I'd say Bart's estimate of 150 Million is still on the high side.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Something in the order of 150...

Even if so, does it matter? Most members of the public are not natural-born accountants, and simply read such big numbers as "hundreds of millions" or even simpler "a lot." And that is all that matters to them.

[AreBee]

Pieter,

The part that says "We send the EU 350 million pound a week"

If the value was expressed gross then it is the outright truth.

...income can sometimes be talked about "gross" (if you want to impress other people)...

In my experience, salary is expressed gross by the overwhelming majority of people. Not to impress others, but out of convenience.

Edit:

I'm not talking about the bus...

See what confusion that can arise when we assume?

[Manoli]

What, all those "highly educated" people? 

The interesting stat in the voting profile isn't the educated v uneducated percentage you seek to play on, Slobodan, but rather the 60% of the over 65's who voted to leave v the 65-ish% of those under 35 who wish to remain .

How many of the former category* will be pushing up daisies (dodo dead, in your parlance) by the next general election let alone at the end of a decade and what will the voter profile look like then ?  The one million odd majority starts to look paltry.

* (unemployed, pensioners, and others who depend on the welfare state for their income)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the 60% of the over 65's who voted to leave v the 65-ish% of those under 35 who wish to remain...

Those "under 35" WILL become "over 65" ... and then wish they voted differently.

[pegelli]

Pieter,

If the value was expressed gross then it is the outright truth.

Incorrect, the discount that Mrs Thatcher negotiated never gets sent to the EU. So there is no truth in the 350 M pound figure. For the sake of this discussion I'm not even arguing about the money the UK is getting back, I'm just arguing the part which is never sent.

See what confusion that can arise when we assume?

No confusion possible, the leave campaign promised the spend the 350 M pounds they "send" to the EU on the NHS as demonstrated by the poster I showed on the previous page. Maybe you were confused by only looking at the bus and not at other materials the campaign distributed on the subject. But it's a promise they made and can't keep, mostly because the money isn't there in the first place.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And on a lighter note, some comedy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGL5sDg7b8Y

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

Even if so, does it matter? Most members of the public are not natural-born accountants, and simply read such big numbers as "hundreds of millions" or even simpler "a lot." And that is all that matters to them.

Yes it matters to me, because it was used to exaggerate and deceive the public. I'm sure a lot of people are worried about the money spent on the EU (myself included) but you disqualify yourself from the argument by overstating it by a factor of more then 2.

[AreBee]

Pieter,

...the discount that Mrs Thatcher negotiated never gets sent to the EU...

The net amount sent to the EU is the gross amount less deductions. Hence, if the value was expressed gross then it is the outright truth.

No confusion possible, the leave campaign promised the spend the 350 M pounds they "send" to the EU on the NHS as demonstrated by the poster I showed...

Do you mean to say that you accepted at face value the content of a political campaign group poster?

By what date did the leave campaign commit to spend the money?

[pegelli]

Pieter,

The net amount sent to the EU is the gross amount less deductions. Hence, if the value was expressed gross then it is the outright truth.

Do you mean to say that you accepted at face value the content of a poster on the so-called 'battle bus' of a political campaign group?

By what date did the leave campaign commit to spend the money?

No Rob, the gross amount is what they send (so 350 minus reduction that is not sent). The net amount is what's left after you subtract what the UK gets back. Even Farage admitted to that and called it a mistake of the leave campaign (his synonym for a lie) .

And I never believed the poster or the campaign bus, I'm just pointing out they did promise to shift 350 Million pounds to the NHS (which you claimed they didn't) and which now proved to be a hollow promise. Maybe not a lie, but certainly a willful deception.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No Rob, the gross amount is what they send (so 350 minus reduction that is not sent). The net amount is what's left after you subtract what the UK gets back. Even Farage admitted to that and called it a mistake of the leave campaign (his synonym for a lie) .

And I never believed the poster or the campaign bus, I'm just pointing out they did promise to shift 350 Million pounds to the NHS (which you claimed they didn't) and which now proved to be a hollow promise. Maybe not a lie, but certainly a willful deception.

Well, actually it is a lie, because 'some' (or even a lot) of that money spent by Europe on e.g. development aid, or subsidies of also UK based farmers and research institutes and chemical industry, would otherwise have to be spent by the UK government. No way that that full amount could now be spent on the NHS, unless one stopped all those other collectively paid for projects.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I think some people are unduly obsessed with the literal.

Whether the number is this or that, absolutely correct or not, is less important (at least to the Leave voters) than the fact that the UK is contributing more to the EU than getting back. Whether whatever the number is is 100% re-routed to NHS, or 50%, or whatever, is also less important than the principle that voters want the UK, not Brussels, to determine where that money should go.

[AreBee]

Pieter,

No... the gross amount is what they send (so 350 minus reduction that is not sent). The net amount is what's left after you subtract what the UK gets back.

Thank you for the correction.

[pegelli]

I think some people are unduly obsessed with the literal.

Whether the number is this or that, absolutely correct or not, is less important (at least to the Leave voters) than the fact that the UK is contributing more to the EU than getting back. Whether whatever the number is is 100% re-routed to NHS, or 50%, or whatever, is also less important than the principle that voters want the UK, not Brussels, to determine where that money should go.

I agree that 52% of the voters want the UK government to spend that money and not the EU, and that's fine. Even if this 52% want that based on lies and deception is fine by me. We will only find out in a few years if it was a good or bad decision for the Brits (I think it will be bad, but only time will tell). But let's call a lie what it is : a lie. That's indeed literal but fully unobsessed

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I think some people are unduly obsessed with the literal.

Whether the number is this or that, absolutely correct or not, is less important (at least to the Leave voters) than the fact that the UK is contributing more to the EU than getting back.

But they were getting back more than they contributed from 2007 - 2013.

Whether whatever the number is is 100% re-routed to NHS, or 50%, or whatever, is also less important than the principle that voters want the UK, not Brussels, to determine where that money should go.

I agree, if they prefer to literally live on an island and throw up barricades for trade and finance, it's their right to do so. Not that it makes much sense, but they have the right to do so, even if it's about less money they can allocate themselves, their chosen political representatives that is ...

I do regret their leaving, because they were a good partner for my country (NL) to push back at some of the other EU member countries. So without them, I expect a division will be created in a fast lane group of members, and a slow lane group of member countries, not further exits.

Cheers,
Bart

[Manoli]

**Article 50 process on Brexit faces legal challenge **

Legal steps have been taken to ensure the UK Government will not trigger the procedure for withdrawal from the EU without an Act of Parliament. The case is being brought by leading law firm, Mishcon de Reya, on behalf of a group of clients. Following publication of articles on the subject this week Mishcon de Reya has retained Baron David Pannick QC and Tom Hickman to act as counsel in this action, along with Rhodri Thompson QC and Anneli Howard.

The Referendum held on 23 June was an exercise to obtain the views of UK citizens, the majority of whom expressed a desire to leave the EU. But the decision to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, the legal process for withdrawal from the EU, rests with the representatives of the people under the UK Constitution.

The Government however, has suggested that it has sufficient legal authority. Mishcon de Reya has been in correspondence with the Government lawyers since 27 June 2016 on behalf of its clients to seek assurances that the Government will uphold the UK constitution and protect the sovereignty of Parliament in invoking Article 50.

If the correct constitutional process of parliamentary scrutiny and approval is not followed then the notice to withdraw from the EU would be unlawful, negatively impacting the withdrawal negotiations and our future political and economic relationships with the EU and its 27 Member States, and open to legal challenge. This legal action seeks to ensure that the Article 50 notification process is lawful.

Kasra Nouroozi, Partner, Mishcon de Reya said:

We must ensure that the Government follows the correct process to have legal certainty and protect the UK Constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament in these unprecedented circumstances. The result of the Referendum is not in doubt, but we need a process that follows UK law to enact it. The outcome of the Referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 without the approval of Parliament is unlawful.

We must make sure this is done properly for the benefit of all UK citizens. Article 50 simply cannot be invoked without a full debate and vote in Parliament. Everyone in Britain needs the Government to apply the correct constitutional process and allow Parliament to fulfil its democratic duty which is to take into account the results of the Referendum along with other factors and make the ultimate decision.

Anyone wishing to support the action to ensure that the UK Constitution is upheld in this process should email Article50@mishcon.com

http://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_news/article_50_process_on_brexit_faces_legal_challenge_to_ensure_parliamentary_involvement_07_2016

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

But they were getting back more than they contributed from 2007 - 2013...

There is something very, very strange with that table. According to it, countries with a positive net contribution (i.e., paying more to the EU than getting back from it - if I am interpreting it correctly) are some of the poorest members: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Greece (!), Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain.

Chances are, and more logical, the minus sign indicates countries that are actually contributing more than they are getting back: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, U.K.

[Alan Goldhammer]

The alternative? Well there are plenty of countries outside of the EU wanting to do business with Britain but first of all the EU has got to climb down from its high horse and accept that they need to sort their act out, German industry won't be happy with the difficulties imposed in reaching one of their important markets and the relative silence of Ms Merkel is telling, she is letting the dogs of the commission do the barking while waiting to see what form the fall out takes. Expect change on that front over the summer as the god's of Brussels get their heads around what is happening. It is far from a black or white, in or out situation that many would pretend.

Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants?  Seriously, I see lots of German manufactured products here in the US but precious little from Britain.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There is something very, very strange with that table. According to it, countries with a positive net contribution (i.e., paying more to the EU than getting back from it - if I am interpreting it correctly) are some of the poorest members: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Greece (!), Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain.

Chances are, and more logical, the minus sing indicates countries that are actually contributing more than they are getting back: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, U.K.

You are probably correct, in which case the table heading is wrong (or misleading). If we look at the data from the EU itself, unfortunately I could only find it for 2013, it looks like there is a small net payment 0.46% of GNI for the UK (Here is some data about the Gross National Income of the UK). It is more logical that the wealthier members pay a bit more than the poorer members who have a positive net benefit.

The money contributed by member countries is mostly used to grow the internal market, so it indirectly should benefit all members by expanding the total trade volume and reducing trade barriers. It is also used to finance projects that a single member would not be able to achieve, e.g. the Galileo project (to reduce the dependency on the US military GPS system, increase accuracy, and improve coverage at the more Northern latitudes).

Thank you Slobodan for paying attention and thinking along.

Cheers,
Bart

[AreBee]

Pieter,

I agree that 52% of the voters want the UK government to spend that money and not the EU...

All that can be concluded is that 52% of the electorate that voted wish to leave the EU.