Boris. £350m for the NHS if we leave EU. Again.
Discussion
KrissKross said:
Am I the only one who doesn't see any of this as a big deal, why has this been spun to become something it's not?
If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
Upset Remainers were hoping you'd ignore the slogan was near meaningless as it was made by a cross party campaign group. Further disappointment set in after the referendum, when for some reason, Remainers thought everyone was going to change their mind on the referendum by saying this would never happen. The failure of this would seem to suggest that large payments to the EU were the unpopular part which won votes, rather than the idea all Leavers want to shovel money for the NHS to burn. If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
KrissKross said:
Am I the only one who doesn't see any of this as a big deal, why has this been spun to become something it's not?
If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
But the UK isn't, wasn't, and wouldn't have been paying that £350m in the first place.If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
The figure is simply b
ks, even before you go near the "NHS" end of it.https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris...
https://fullfact.org/blog/2016/apr/uk-statistics-a...
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-...
Even St Nige of the Farridge said it was a lie and he never believed it in the first place...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-r...
mx5nut said:
If the alternative costs you more, that doesn't leave any to spend on something else.
The alternative is that you are better off, not worse of. It's a fact that we are a net contributor to the EU, no one is denying that, are you?
There is no other "present moment" alternative and ifs, buts, maybes are not a coherent argument.
KrissKross said:
mx5nut said:
If the alternative costs you more, that doesn't leave any to spend on something else.
The alternative is that you are better off, not worse of. It's a fact that we are a net contributor to the EU, no one is denying that, are you?
There is no other "present moment" alternative and ifs, buts, maybes are not a coherent argument.
rscott said:
KrissKross said:
Am I the only one who doesn't see any of this as a big deal, why has this been spun to become something it's not?
If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
Not really. If I tweak your analogy a bit..If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
I send £1000 a week to someone and they give me £300 back each time. I then stop sending them that money. How much better off am I each week? If you're Boris, then you're £1000 a week better off. Most others would say £700.
However, if I am £1000, £700, £500 or £200 better off, I am still better off.
Does it really matter how it gets explained?
Eddie Strohacker said:
KrissKross said:
mx5nut said:
If the alternative costs you more, that doesn't leave any to spend on something else.
The alternative is that you are better off, not worse of. It's a fact that we are a net contributor to the EU, no one is denying that, are you?
There is no other "present moment" alternative and ifs, buts, maybes are not a coherent argument.
You cannot argue with facts, but many of you on here see to want to try, it's rather odd.
rscott said:
KrissKross said:
Am I the only one who doesn't see any of this as a big deal, why has this been spun to become something it's not?
If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
Not really. If I tweak your analogy a bit..If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
I send £1000 a week to someone and they give me £300 back each time. I then stop sending them that money. How much better off am I each week? If you're Boris, then you're £1000 a week better off. Most others would say £700.
KrissKross said:
What preconceived ideas do you mean, I am an extremely open-minded person, very happy to change my views if presented with evidence and facts.
You cannot argue with facts, but many of you on here see to want to try, it's rather odd.
Those two sentences are contradictory.You cannot argue with facts, but many of you on here see to want to try, it's rather odd.
KrissKross said:
rscott said:
KrissKross said:
Am I the only one who doesn't see any of this as a big deal, why has this been spun to become something it's not?
If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
Not really. If I tweak your analogy a bit..If you send money to someone, and then stop paying someone said money, you can then spend it on something else.
Isn't this simply the point?
I send £1000 a week to someone and they give me £300 back each time. I then stop sending them that money. How much better off am I each week? If you're Boris, then you're £1000 a week better off. Most others would say £700.
However, if I am £1000, £700, £500 or £200 better off, I am still better off.
Does it really matter how it gets explained?
B'sides, of the £700 you've ACTUALLY saved, you may actually need to spend £250 of it on the things that it was already being spent on by the other end... So we're down to £450 actually saved. But shout about a grand if you like...
Deptford Draylons said:
Upset Remainers were hoping you'd ignore the slogan was near meaningless as it was made by a cross party campaign group. Further disappointment set in after the referendum, when for some reason, Remainers thought everyone was going to change their mind on the referendum by saying this would never happen. The failure of this would seem to suggest that large payments to the EU were the unpopular part which won votes, rather than the idea all Leavers want to shovel money for the NHS to burn.
We have two options in business, a good deal, and a bad deal.The remainers have been presented with a good deal but want to turn it into a bad deal, it's rather crazy if you ask me?
rscott said:
Not really. If I tweak your analogy a bit..
I send £1000 a week to someone and they give me £300 back each time. I then stop sending them that money. How much better off am I each week? If you're Boris, then you're £1000 a week better off. Most others would say £700.
Your analogy fails because we aren’t given the £300 to do with as we want. I send £1000 a week to someone and they give me £300 back each time. I then stop sending them that money. How much better off am I each week? If you're Boris, then you're £1000 a week better off. Most others would say £700.
I agree that if you think that we’d choose to spend that £300 exactly as it is spent currently, then you are right, we are net £700 better off. Conversely, it you think that much of that £300 is poorly spent and could be better spent elsewhere, then you might argue we’d be up to £1,000 better off!
The way any sensible person would see it is that giving £1000 to get £300 back is losing £700. So the gain is £700.
But what if you stop getting £300 back? Can we be sure we'll always get £300 back? There's a potential benefit in not giving the £300 as well. Less straightforward perhaps but still a benefit.
Then there was £200 we were given back to spend as we're told, so maybe it's only £500, but more control over the other half.
I can accept that the message might have been misleading, but not to the extent that remainiacs like to pretend.
I do enjoy that people are still talking about it, particularly as most leavers weren't interested beyond there being a net payment.
But what if you stop getting £300 back? Can we be sure we'll always get £300 back? There's a potential benefit in not giving the £300 as well. Less straightforward perhaps but still a benefit.
Then there was £200 we were given back to spend as we're told, so maybe it's only £500, but more control over the other half.
I can accept that the message might have been misleading, but not to the extent that remainiacs like to pretend.
I do enjoy that people are still talking about it, particularly as most leavers weren't interested beyond there being a net payment.
KrissKross said:
mx5nut said:
If the alternative costs you more, that doesn't leave any to spend on something else.
The alternative is that you are better off, not worse of. It's a fact that we are a net contributor to the EU, no one is denying that, are you?
Where's the free money to spend on other things coming from?
KrissKross said:
We have two options in business, a good deal, and a bad deal.
The remainers have been presented with a good deal but want to turn it into a bad deal, it's rather crazy if you ask me?
I haven't seen any deal at all, much less a good one. Where is the deal that's been presented?The remainers have been presented with a good deal but want to turn it into a bad deal, it's rather crazy if you ask me?
paulrockliffe said:
I do enjoy that people are still talking about it, particularly as most leavers weren't interested beyond there being a net payment.
Pretty much - they would glaze over a little when they had to think about what we got from that payment.It was all a bit "big numbers scary. slogans not. take control".
mx5nut said:
And once we've left, we'll have to pay for many of the things our membership provided - without the economies of scale.
Where's the free money to spend on other things coming from?
The civil service jobs created from the bodies that will be required to replace anything the EU provided will be paying tax in the UK and spending the money they recieve post tax in the UK economy. Most of the money gets recycled in UK PLC.Where's the free money to spend on other things coming from?
The current EU civil service costs are a total loss for those based in Brusells and a partial loss for those that were based in the UK, because even those based in the UK working for EU bodies didn't pay UK tax, they paid EU tax.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff