[ossi1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Osborne made a prediction of the future, that was wrong. Johnson et al deliberately twisted and hid facts that should not have been open to opinion or predictions. Two entirely different things.

So you don't think for a minute that the chancellors doom day scenarios were influenced by the Government stance on staying in the EU and thus an attempt to panic people ?

I'd argue that Osborne deliberately manipulated those predictions to suit the Govt agenda and that was the point of my post. Is that much different from what you allege Boris did (twisting and hiding facts)? The fact that nearly every prediction was wrong should raise questions and it has in many parts. We could argue that being chancellor he should have been an expert in the field.

[gr4z]

I don't think the question is whether you believe Boris again, but who would you choose out of the 10 leadership contenders that would give the Tories a fighting chance against Comrade Corbyn? As much as you don't like him, Boris might be the one who actually appeals to the voter and gains some votes.

Vote for another leader out of the 9 remaining and we could have another episode like William Hague where most of the population of this country didn't even know who he was and who had the charisma of a wet fish. The Tories were duly hammered in the GE.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

Apparently the rebate is deducted before payment is made, so we have never sent that amount in any way, shape or form. Deception at best, lie at worst.

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/so-how-much-do...in-pay-the-eu/

Nice one, that's a great find. In which case I withdraw what I said before and the 5% benefit of the doubt that I was giving them becomes zero

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by ossi1

So you don't think for a minute that the chancellors doom day scenarios were influenced by the Government stance on staying in the EU and thus an attempt to panic people ?

I'd argue that Osborne deliberately manipulated those predictions to suit the Govt agenda and that was the point of my post. Is that much different from what you allege Boris did (twisting and hiding facts)? The fact that nearly every prediction was wrong should raise questions and it has in many parts. We could argue that being chancellor he should have been an expert in the field.

You're absolutely right, I think Osborne knew exactly what he was doing in painting a picture far worse than what was likely to happen; the same sort of shock tactics had been used successfully in the Independence Referendum in Scotland so they tried it again.

I do agree what he did was slightly different from Boris but in some respects it was arguably worse. Johnson's crime was to present a headline figure which could be (and was) easily shot down but Osborne used his position as Chancellor to try to scare people into voting Remain by presenting a forecast which he knew was pessimistic but was impossible to refute objectively.

I suppose what we don't know is the extent to which the red bus figure and the comments from Osborne influenced the result but if anything I'd say the latter probably had more of an impact. How so? Well, for most who voted Leave I doubt it would have mattered whether the number was £350m or £35m, they'd still have voted Leave (and hence the exact figure on the side of the bus was largely irrelevant in terms of attracting voters). However, for those who were undecided, the thought of an immediate recession and an emergency budget might just have tempted them to opt for "better the devil you know" and vote Remain (which IMO was exactly the purpose behind Osborne's comments). Unfortunately for Remain, though, not enough people swallowed the line they'd been fed....

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by ossi1

So you don't think for a minute that the chancellors doom day scenarios were influenced by the Government stance on staying in the EU and thus an attempt to panic people ?

I'd argue that Osborne deliberately manipulated those predictions to suit the Govt agenda and that was the point of my post. Is that much different from what you allege Boris did (twisting and hiding facts)? The fact that nearly every prediction was wrong should raise questions and it has in many parts. We could argue that being chancellor he should have been an expert in the field.

Yes it is different. As you have stated in your own post. Predictions and facts are totally different.

Osborne may have been pessimistic with his predictions, but that's all they were, predictions. As did leave when they spoke about easy deals and how we'd be transformed into a world power with amazing trade deals witht the US and China.

What Boris and Leave did was manipulate known facts, and whether you agree or not, I personally think that is wholly different.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Leave predicted GLORY, Remain predicted DOOM.

The GLORY then became a "we all know there'll be a bit of pain first, we accept that", from voters and politicians alike. Where was that in the campaign? I just remember the make Britain great again. I don't remember anyone saying there'd be short term pain first. If you told everyone they had to hand over £500 a year for the next 5 years to vote Leave, do you think the result would be the same? Of course it wouldn't.

Leave lied about the reality of our existing relationship, did Remain lie about how much money we send them? That would be the equivalent. I don't think they did.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

You're absolutely right, I think Osborne knew exactly what he was doing in painting a picture far worse than what was likely to happen; the same sort of shock tactics had been used successfully in the Independence Referendum in Scotland so they tried it again.

I do agree what he did was slightly different from Boris but in some respects it was arguably worse. Johnson's crime was to present a headline figure which could be (and was) easily shot down but Osborne used his position as Chancellor to try to scare people into voting Remain by presenting a forecast which he knew was pessimistic but was impossible to refute objectively.

I suppose what we don't know is the extent to which the red bus figure and the comments from Osborne influenced the result but if anything I'd say the latter probably had more of an impact. How so? Well, for most who voted Leave I doubt it would have mattered whether the number was £350m or £35m, they'd still have voted Leave (and hence the exact figure on the side of the bus was largely irrelevant in terms of attracting voters). However, for those who were undecided, the thought of an immediate recession and an emergency budget might just have tempted them to opt for "better the devil you know" and vote Remain (which IMO was exactly the purpose behind Osborne's comments). Unfortunately for Remain, though, not enough people swallowed the line they'd been fed....

I agree, the number doesn't matter. What matters is everyone said there would be an immediate upside for the UK, and that was believed!

As per my previous post, the talk of pain before the gain was only mentioned post result. Because the result would have been different if the reality was allowed to be spoken.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Osborne may have been pessimistic with his predictions, but that's all they were, predictions.

He was Chancellor of the Exchequer - and had been for six years - yet you're asking us to believe he just happened to be wildly out with a prediction for the economy that was only looking a few months ahead? You're entitled to your opinion but personally I think he knew his forecast was grossly pessimistic and was hoping it would frighten floating voters across to Remain (which it probably did, albeit not in sufficient numbers for them to win). As I say, a tried and tested tactic from IndyRef1 but it failed to have the desired effect in the EU referendum.

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

What Boris and Leave did was manipulate known facts, and whether you agree or not, I personally think that is wholly different.

He quoted a gross instead of a net contribution figure which many (rightly) drove a coach and horses through throughout the referendum campaign. So the £350m was exposed for what it was by voting day but nevertheless Leave still won and that's because the precise figure was irrelevant to most Leave voters; it's only Remainers who continue to get excited about it three years later.....

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I agree, the number doesn't matter.

So after the best part of 3 pages debating how much we send to the EU each week - and whether or not it was a lie - we now have agreement that the number on the side of the bus was infact irrelevant all along - glad we got that sorted then!

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Leave lied about the reality of our existing relationship, did Remain lie about how much money we send them? That would be the equivalent. I don't think they did.

And I think here in lies the heart of the problem. Both made promises / predictions about the advantages / disadvantages of staying or leaving, some of which may or may not come true in the near or long term future.

The leave campaigned lied about existing, factual rules and practices, such as how much money we do or don't send, what controls we can put in place for immigration, how the EU is actually structured and elected, 'laws' that never actually existed (bendy banana's anyone) etc

The remain campaign was poor, but I do not recall it lying about a single fact.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

He was Chancellor of the Exchequer - and had been for six years - yet you're asking us to believe he just happened to be wildly out with a prediction for the economy that was only looking a few months ahead? You're entitled to your opinion but personally I think he knew his forecast was grossly pessimistic and was hoping it would frighten floating voters across to Remain (which it probably did, albeit not in sufficient numbers for them to win). As I say, a tried and tested tactic from IndyRef1 but it failed to have the desired effect in the EU referendum.



He quoted a gross instead of a net contribution figure which many (rightly) drove a coach and horses through throughout the referendum campaign. So the £350m was exposed for what it was by voting day but nevertheless Leave still won and that's because the precise figure was irrelevant to most Leave voters; it's only Remainers who continue to get excited about it three years later.....



So after the best part of 3 pages debating how much we send to the EU each week - and whether or not it was a lie - we now have agreement that the number on the side of the bus was infact irrelevant all along - glad we got that sorted then!

Firstly you're making out George Osborne was alone in thinking the economy would suffer post Brexit, like he was some kind of lone wolf. Plenty of economists and experts thought the same. And we have gone from the best performing G7 nation, to the worst. So let's say their predictions were exaggerated, but they weren't wrong.

And our economy is currently being propped up by a weak pound and companies making and storing product for a Brexit that no one understands yet. Our warehouses and trucks are full with storage that in the normal run of business just isn't required.

The number was important, but the fact that Leave campaigners said there'd be more money in our own economy if we stopped sending money to the EU, was they biggest lie of all.

You yourself said you're happy to take the pain of being less well off for a while in order to leave. Funny, I can't see mention of that in any Leave campaign material or any comments from any leave voter pre June 2016. Weird that. Accepting in hindsight.

Maybe just every one of the 52% just "knew" and didn't think it was worth mentioning.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Firstly you're making out George Osborne was alone in thinking the economy would suffer post Brexit, like he was some kind of lone wolf. Plenty of economists and experts thought the same. And we have gone from the best performing G7 nation, to the worst. So let's say their predictions were exaggerated, but they weren't wrong.

Very true, George Osborne wasn't the only one warning of the economic consequences of Brexit and I thought quite carefully about what some of the experts were saying (and in particular was very nearly persuaded to vote Remain by the thoughts of David Smith in The Sunday Times). However, the immediate recession - and especially the emergency budget - were pretty much all down to Mr Osborne as I recall.

As for the predictions being correct but exaggerated, perhaps I've missed it but where's the recession we were all promised? And in terms of our performance relative to the G7, an IMF report in January this year suggested the UK would be the best performing of the European economies post Brexit; if you're looking for evidence of economic malaise in Europe I suggest Italy would be a better place to start looking....

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

You yourself said you're happy to take the pain of being less well off for a while in order to leave. Funny, I can't see mention of that in any Leave campaign material or any comments from any leave voter pre June 2016. Weird that. Accepting in hindsight.

I did say there was every chance we'd endure some pain as a consequence of leaving and I said it before the vote in June 2016. The last time you made the "all in hindsight" comment I think I referred you back to one of my posts in one of the 2016 referendum threads to show that wasn't the case; however, I haven't got the inclination to go back and do it again....

[inkiboo]

Of course there were all the Brexiteers who said the pound would crash against the dollar and euro if we voted to leave.

My mistake, none of them did.

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by inkiboo

Of course there were all the Brexiteers who said the pound would crash against the dollar and euro if we voted to leave.

My mistake, none of them did.

Not to mention all those Brexiters who predicted the 30% decline in inward investment

My mistake, this was overlooked too

https://amp.ft.com/content/93c681ca-...mpression=true

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by inkiboo

Of course there were all the Brexiteers who said the pound would crash against the dollar and euro if we voted to leave.

My mistake, none of them did.

The exchange rate is an interesting one. There's no disputing the fact sterling's dropped significantly since the referendum and it's probably dropped further than would otherwise have been the case because of Brexit. However, there were those who were saying it was over-valued before the referendum and would have been down in the 1.20's against the US Dollar even if Remain had won (see link below).

No way of proving that one way or the other of course but arguably most of the devaluation of sterling would have happened anyway regardless of the result of the referendum....

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/us...cast-on-brexit

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by TodmordenLad

Not to mention all those Brexiters who predicted the 30% decline in inward investment

My mistake, this was overlooked too

https://amp.ft.com/content/93c681ca-...mpression=true

That link appears to be subscription only so I can't read it!

However, a recent article in the Economist suggested Foreign Direct Investment in the UK remains strong (albeit it also said it would probably be stronger still if we were staying in the EU). A report by EY also suggested FDI appeared to be holding-up quite well (although that was 2018 and I accept things could have changed given the way the Brexit negotiations have gone over the last 9 months).

[ossi1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Yes it is different. As you have stated in your own post. Predictions and facts are totally different.

Osborne may have been pessimistic with his predictions, but that's all they were, predictions. As did leave when they spoke about easy deals and how we'd be transformed into a world power with amazing trade deals witht the US and China.

What Boris and Leave did was manipulate known facts, and whether you agree or not, I personally think that is wholly different.

I give up mate. If you can't get your head around the fact someone with the backing of HM Treasury and the Government might choose to manipulate a prediction then I'll end it here.

As for 'easy deals' and 'amazing trade deals' - these weren't promised in the way you dress it up. Trade deals yes but please lets stick to the narrative.

[inkiboo]

Originally Posted by JNW1

The exchange rate is an interesting one. There's no disputing the fact sterling's dropped significantly since the referendum and it's probably dropped further than would otherwise have been the case because of Brexit. However, there were those who were saying it was over-valued before the referendum and would have been down in the 1.20's against the US Dollar even if Remain had won (see link below).

No way of proving that one way or the other of course but arguably most of the devaluation of sterling would have happened anyway regardless of the result of the referendum....

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/us...cast-on-brexit

But I thought all forecasts were nonsense?

[inkiboo]

Originally Posted by ossi1

As for 'easy deals' and 'amazing trade deals' - these weren't promised in the way you dress it up. Trade deals yes but please lets stick to the narrative.

EU trade deal 'easiest in human history'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-406...-human-history

David Davis

"The first calling point of the UK's negotiator immediately after #Brexit will not be Brussels, it will be Berlin, to strike a deal"

Bloody hilarious that people are trying to rewrite history.

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by JNW1

That link appears to be subscription only so I can't read it!

However, a recent article in the Economist suggested Foreign Direct Investment in the UK remains strong (albeit it also said it would probably be stronger still if we were staying in the EU). A report by EY also suggested FDI appeared to be holding-up quite well (although that was 2018 and I accept things could have changed given the way the Brexit negotiations have gone over the last 9 months).

ah, that's the FT paywall. I'm a subscriber. Opening paragraphs as follows:

Brexit uncertainty in the UK has boosted foreign investment into the EU’s other 27 countries in the three years since the referendum, according to a Financial Times analysis.
The total amount of capital invested in the EU27 surged 43 per cent in the three years to the first quarter of 2019, compared with the preceding three years, according to fDi Markets, an FT-owned database of cross-border investment. This is in sharp contrast to the UK, which has experienced a 30 per cent drop in investment.

[ossi1]

Originally Posted by inkiboo

EU trade deal 'easiest in human history'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-406...-human-history

David Davis

"The first calling point of the UK's negotiator immediately after #Brexit will not be Brussels, it will be Berlin, to strike a deal"

Bloody hilarious that people are trying to rewrite history.

Its bloody hilarious you are quoting stuff from 12 months after the vote when the subject is pre brexit vote.

[inkiboo]

Originally Posted by ossi1

Its bloody hilarious you are quoting stuff from 12 months after the vote when the subject is pre brexit vote.

Can get quotes from any period of time. They generally show Brexiteers trying to revise history, the biggest lie of all being that people voted for No Deal. They did not.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by inkiboo

But I thought all forecasts were nonsense?

Not all, just some!

Your comment was nobody said prior to the referendum the pound would crash against the dollar and I linked an article to show at least some said it was likely to happen (and indeed was likely to happen regardless of the referendum result). Sorry if that undermines your argument that a) nobody said prior to the referendum the pound would fall and b) the fall we've seen has all been because of Brexit.....