Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SarahBell

More brexit in court

Recommended Posts

What about the people saying the economy would collapse, world war 3 etc.

In the end we got 20p on marmite and adulterated toblerones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DEATH said:

In the end we got 20p on marmite and adulterated toblerones.

That definitely needs referring to the CPS.

Talk about 'enemies of the people'.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm truly sick of this one and I know I'm preaching to the mostly converted but what the hell.

Here's the picture:

103540912-battle-bus-2-large_trans++vcbZ

Here's the caption beneath: "The Vote Leave bus with the disputed claim that the NHS would get an extra £350 million if Britain left the EU"

The claim that the Vote Leave campaign said that the NHS would get an extra £350 million is a lie, and is easily provably so. However, anyone who needs it proving to them must firstly be getting fundamentally confused between 1) a government and 2) a campaign group in a single issue referendum. For anyone not keeping up with me at this point, governments make decisions on public spending on things like health services, while campaign groups try to persuade people to support the point of view that they are campaigning for. Campaign groups do not make spending decisions over public finances.

Anyway, back to the proof:

For something to be "a lie", it must be a statement in the first place. For example, I could say "I'm wearing blue socks". That's a statement; it may or may not be true and I know what colour socks I'm wearing so if I'm not wearing blue socks then I'm lying. Another example of a statement could be "We will fund the NHS instead".

"Let's fund our NHS instead" is not a statement; grammatically speaking it's an imperative. An alternative wording could be "Fund our NHS instead", while another example of an imperative could be "Wear blue socks". These are imperatives, or commands. The "let's" form of an imperative is considered more polite than an outright order, but it is nonetheless a command and not a statement.

I'll tell you now I'm wearing black socks. So, if I say "Let's wear blue socks" - is that a lie? How can it be? Obviously it isn't; I'm calling on people to wear blue socks not telling people that I am wearing blue socks.

Back to the confusion. I'm pretty sure that the Vote Leave campaign didn't think they were the government and didn't believe that they had responsibility for making decisions on public spending. I'd hazard a strong guess that they knew they were a campaign group in a single issue referendum. That being the case, they might make a call for more NHS spending, but they couldn't actually increase the spending themselves. People who state that the message on the bus said that NHS spending would be increased therefore are either showing that they don't understand the difference between a government and a campaign, or if they do, then they themselves are lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blobloblob said:

I'm truly sick of this one and I know I'm preaching to the mostly converted but what the hell.

Here's the picture:

103540912-battle-bus-2-large_trans++vcbZ

Here's the caption beneath: "The Vote Leave bus with the disputed claim that the NHS would get an extra £350 million if Britain left the EU"

The claim that the Vote Leave campaign said that the NHS would get an extra £350 million is a lie, and is easily provably so. However, anyone who needs it proving to them must firstly be getting fundamentally confused between 1) a government and 2) a campaign group in a single issue referendum. For anyone not keeping up with me at this point, governments make decisions on public spending on things like health services, while campaign groups try to persuade people to support the point of view that they are campaigning for. Campaign groups do not make spending decisions over public finances.

Anyway, back to the proof:

For something to be "a lie", it must be a statement in the first place. For example, I could say "I'm wearing blue socks". That's a statement; it may or may not be true and I know what colour socks I'm wearing so if I'm not wearing blue socks then I'm lying. Another example of a statement could be "We will fund the NHS instead".

"Let's fund our NHS instead" is not a statement; grammatically speaking it's an imperative. An alternative wording could be "Fund our NHS instead", while another example of an imperative could be "Wear blue socks". These are imperatives, or commands. The "let's" form of an imperative is considered more polite than an outright order, but it is nonetheless a command and not a statement.

I'll tell you now I'm wearing black socks. So, if I say "Let's wear blue socks" - is that a lie? How can it be? Obviously it isn't; I'm calling on people to wear blue socks not telling people that I am wearing blue socks.

Back to the confusion. I'm pretty sure that the Vote Leave campaign didn't think they were the government and didn't believe that they had responsibility for making decisions on public spending. I'd hazard a strong guess that they knew they were a campaign group in a single issue referendum. That being the case, they might make a call for more NHS spending, but they couldn't actually increase the spending themselves. People who state that the message on the bus said that NHS spending would be increased therefore are either showing that they don't understand the difference between a government and a campaign, or if they do, then they themselves are lying.

Very nicely put. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, blobloblob said:

I'm truly sick of this one and I know I'm preaching to the mostly converted but what the hell.

Here's the picture:

103540912-battle-bus-2-large_trans++vcbZ

Here's the caption beneath: "The Vote Leave bus with the disputed claim that the NHS would get an extra £350 million if Britain left the EU"

The claim that the Vote Leave campaign said that the NHS would get an extra £350 million is a lie, and is easily provably so. However, anyone who needs it proving to them must firstly be getting fundamentally confused between 1) a government and 2) a campaign group in a single issue referendum. For anyone not keeping up with me at this point, governments make decisions on public spending on things like health services, while campaign groups try to persuade people to support the point of view that they are campaigning for. Campaign groups do not make spending decisions over public finances.

Anyway, back to the proof:

For something to be "a lie", it must be a statement in the first place. For example, I could say "I'm wearing blue socks". That's a statement; it may or may not be true and I know what colour socks I'm wearing so if I'm not wearing blue socks then I'm lying. Another example of a statement could be "We will fund the NHS instead".

"Let's fund our NHS instead" is not a statement; grammatically speaking it's an imperative. An alternative wording could be "Fund our NHS instead", while another example of an imperative could be "Wear blue socks". These are imperatives, or commands. The "let's" form of an imperative is considered more polite than an outright order, but it is nonetheless a command and not a statement.

I'll tell you now I'm wearing black socks. So, if I say "Let's wear blue socks" - is that a lie? How can it be? Obviously it isn't; I'm calling on people to wear blue socks not telling people that I am wearing blue socks.

Back to the confusion. I'm pretty sure that the Vote Leave campaign didn't think they were the government and didn't believe that they had responsibility for making decisions on public spending. I'd hazard a strong guess that they knew they were a campaign group in a single issue referendum. That being the case, they might make a call for more NHS spending, but they couldn't actually increase the spending themselves. People who state that the message on the bus said that NHS spending would be increased therefore are either showing that they don't understand the difference between a government and a campaign, or if they do, then they themselves are lying.

I'd say it's not even a command - it's a suggestion.  So somehow a suggestion has morphed into a broken promise....from campaigners who had no manifesto to begin with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, Vote Leave was a cross-party campaign between Labour, the Tories and UKIP.  Last time I checked Labour, The Tories and UKIP weren't a single political party that could set a manifesto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ill_handle_it said:

EU lawyer suggests referendums should be banned. 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/23/lawyer-ban-referendums-save-eu/

This piece references another written at the tine of the Dutch referendum on Ukraine.
 

Quote

 

It is hardly democratic that 30% of voters in one member state can block a policy approved by 27 member states, writes Fraser Cameron, a former European Commission official

Referenda are becoming a huge problem for the EU. The latest result in the Netherlands on the Association Agreement with Ukraine is probably the worst possible outcome. If the turnout had been below 30% the Dutch government could have safely ignored the vote. But with just over 30% voting, and rejecting the Association Agreement with Ukraine by 64-36 the government will have to consult with parliament about how to proceed.

 

 

I think in fact this argues the case for referenda. EU one-size fits all policies clearly don't and referenda provide necessary checks and balances. The numbers don't tell a story about democracy: there are 27 different countries with as many different reasons for voting on this issue. And referenda in many of the other countries would have produced the same result as in the Netherlands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

I'd say it's not even a command - it's a suggestion.  So somehow a suggestion has morphed into a broken promise....from campaigners who had no manifesto to begin with. 

The lie isn't the suggestion, it's the claim that there is £350m a week to reallocate to begin with, as we've done ad infinitum.  It doesn't take account of the rebate which is already part of the UK government pot that they can do what they like with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, copydude said:

Have it your way. It's actually 347m 12 shillings and sixpence three farthings.

It's still millions.

Which is why the leave campaign ran it persistently despite being told by the ONS that it was misleading.  They knew that arguments about the precise amount just cemented in people's minds the idea that we send loadsamoney to the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

The lie isn't the suggestion, it's the claim that there is £350m a week to reallocate to begin with, as we've done ad infinitum.  It doesn't take account of the rebate which is already part of the UK government pot that they can do what they like with.

The fuss has always about a "broken promise" - hence "we've been mislead". 

As for the rebate, it's not guaranteed to last, especially when more countries will require bail-outs (of which the UK has already paid £5Bn to Ireland and Portugal) - and/or our contribution to the UK is likely to increase drastically if/when bailouts are called for.  Essentially, you can't trust the EU on that score. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎09‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 9:15 AM, DEATH said:

What about the people saying the economy would collapse, world war 3 etc.

In the end we got 20p on marmite and adulterated toblerones.

Harder to argue because those things - however unlikely - could arguably happen if we left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

The lie isn't the suggestion, it's the claim that there is £350m a week to reallocate to begin with, as we've done ad infinitum.  It doesn't take account of the rebate which is already part of the UK government pot that they can do what they like with.

It didn't say we will spend a particular amount and it didn't say let's spend a particular amount. It just didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, blobloblob said:

It didn't say we will spend a particular amount and it didn't say let's spend a particular amount. It just didn't.

It did say we currently spend a particular amount on EU membership when actually we spend less than that.  A lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

Which is why the leave campaign ran it persistently despite being told by the ONS that it was misleading.  They knew that arguments about the precise amount just cemented in people's minds the idea that we send loadsamoney to the EU.

What happened to the promised interest rate rise by our then standing chancellor  ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

It did say we currently spend a particular amount on EU membership when actually we spend less than that.  A lie.

It equates to our gross contribution. Everyone knows that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, blobloblob said:

It equates to our gross contribution. Everyone knows that.

It doesn't.  We have a rebate deducted at source.  It doesn't make any sense to pretend that this money will become available after leaving the EU since we already have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

It doesn't.  We have a rebate deducted at source.  It doesn't make any sense to pretend that this money will become available after leaving the EU since we already have it.

I'd say it's somewhat misleading,  but not really a lie.

If I say I earn £20k I wouldn't say that's a lie,  even if I actually only earn £15k because £5k tax is deducted at source.

They said we send £350 million a year to Brussels..   well,  yeah that's our gross contribution,  sure we actually get a bit of a rebate.  I guess you are basically arguing the toss over whether it is technically accurate to say that rather than sending the full amount and part of it being returned,  we actually just send a smaller amount.  Checks and balances..   I don't think it would have made any difference to the outcome of the referendum because I don't think people would have comprehended the difference even if it had been accurate.  Further more,  since the advert clearly doesn't state that £350m is going to be given to the NHS,  just that they should receive more,   it seems like a bit of a fuss over nothing to be honest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2016 at 9:15 AM, DEATH said:

What about the people saying the economy would collapse, world war 3 etc.

In the end we got 20p on marmite and adulterated toblerones.

They must be kicking themselves they missed the Toblerone one - it might have swung enough votes to have prevented WW3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   40 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.