BoJo, don't misuse stats then blurt disclaimers when you get rumbled

Re: Words not stats

Control is the key

Maybe, but some of us - frankly - trust Westminster to do sensible things with the money even less than we trust Brussels. The amount of "objective one" (or whatever it's called this month) funding that has flowed into parts of the UK that will simply disappear (note there have been no clear promises from Westminster about carrying on this funding) post Brexit is embarrassing.

What I haven't seen yet is a proper calculation of the real net profit / loss of stepping outside the club, even one that makes assumptions about things like tariffs that haven't yet been decided (though I think More or Less did something around the time of the referendum?). Whatever the actual figure, one thing for sure is that it will be substantially less than £350M/wk. My guess is that it'll be below £100M, but I'm basing that on nothing more than a gut feeling.

M.

Re: Journalists

"real solutions and substance"

Are things he's not worried about in the slightest. He's involved in the classic power struggle, he wants to rule us like the kings of old. Executive power to amend the stuff he's "taking back control" of without asking either us, or parliament. And like the Kings of old, he's scheming, plotting, lying and cheating to get the crown. I'd like a general election please, early next year, before they ruin anything else : it's time for a change.

There are also various industries that are based in the UK because it is part of the EU. Other EU countries are now bidding to be their relocation centres. So there will be a loss of revenues and earnings that must also be factored in to the cost of leaving the EU.

Yes, but since we're told how to spend the money that comes back Johnson's wording is correct that we will have full control of that £350M

"The EU demands something more than £17bn a year of the UK. Divided by 52, that comes to £350m a week. In fact we have "rebates", and there is also EU spending back in the UK. That brings our net contribution to £200m."

And not forgetting that some of that net contribution pays for EU institutions that we used to have here and closed down in their favour and will now have to rebuild from scratch.

Agree - those additional costs to the taxpayer could easily be more than £350 million a week. Theres also the increased costs to private business of trading with the EU - those costs will be deducted off the tax take.

Extra costs?

Exactly - how much will it cost to create and run a Medicines approval agency, which will have to duplicate everything that the existing EMA does. At the moment we pay a proportion of the cost, now we'll have to pay the whole thing.

Apart from all of these concrete additional costs that you mention - and I have no idea how much they will add up to - unless we do manage to get all of these magical trade deals that offset the inevitable drop in our exports to the EU, the loss of inward investment in manufacturing that is currently predicated on our being in the EU, the loss of various jobs in the City and so on, it is likely that we will suffer a permanent drop in our GDP compared with what it would have been. IIRC, it would only need to be a 0.6% drop in GDP to wipe out the so called savings from our contributions.

Another worthless appeal to authority. Apparently because Norgrove was a civil servant when Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister, he's clearly far right. Actually, he was never 'her personal policy wonk' but her private secretary (think Bernard Manning in Yes Minister) responsible for organising her diary and personal correspondance.

Re: Orwellian logic

Except we won't "take back control" of anything, for a two key reasons he's well aware of:

1) We don't pay that much in the first place; it is well established to be more like £200m

2) His maffs don't take into account the net loss due to slowing growth, predicted by the OBR and IFS and built into the treasury's models (i.e. official government policy -> his official policy)

It would have been *technically* correct to say "we will no longer write a cheque to the EU to the tune of £200m a week" but that is not the same as "we will get control of that £200m back when we stop writing the cheque".

That is why this is misuse of official statistics, that is why this is a breach of the ministerial code.

Besides, we all know fine well what he was really saying - no one is here is so naive to believe Boris Johnson, famously sacked multiple times for presenting fabrications as fact, is a literalist and a technocrat.

Re: Orwellian logic

yes she was in advertising after all... Gruen would be proud !

Technically right?

Maybe I misread: I thought this wasn't Register saying that Boris is "technically right", it is Boris saying that Boris is "technically right". And he isn't.

The sticker price of British membership of the EU is/was, let's say, £350 million a week. At the same time, the EU spends money on benefits to British activities such as agriculture, so the money comes back to Britain.

That isn't the "rebate". The rebate is that we got a perpetual discount on the membership price, theoretically "thanks" to Mrs Thatcher but let's face it she probably spent the money on wars and abolishing British industry.

So there isn't a £350 million cheque being written to the EU in the first place. It's £275 million, which is still handy money but a lot less.

You can see why a careless or stupid person would think that the EU costs Britain £350 million that's the price tag. But it's not what we pay. Why a more intelligent and better informed person would keep saying that it's £350 million, is, clearly, that they expect to benefit by lying. For instance, by keeping up the lie, some people may believe, or may choose to pretend to believe, that it's the truth after all. Although it isn't. And then there's the "appearing to be careless and stupid" thing, that you acknowledge if you admit the mistake

I say Boris Johnson isn't as stupid as he seems, and that's rather frightening.

the 350m claim should have been scrutinised and explained that it was net

I think you mean gross - nett is the £200 million (and falling).