EU referendum June 23rd

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**richred_uk**

Stranger83 wrote:

But it is the fee - regardless of weather we get the rebate before or after the Gross fee for our being in the EU is £350mn - this is not a fraudulent claim, indeed this is supported by government figures.

Maybe it isn't what we pay, but it is the Gross cost of our being in the EU.

That's just nonsense - sorry but as an accountant, if I tried to argue that what we didn't pay was the cost, I'd be fired.

Stranger83 wrote:
There is an important difference between misleading and fraudulent. A Fraudulent claim could lead to the referendum being challenged in the event of a Brexit, whilst a misleading one cannot as people should have done their own investigation. Thus a Fraudulent claim would be the cost of EU membership is £500mn per week (which it isn’t) whilst a misleading claim is that it is £350mn per week (which it technically is but doesn’t take account of the rebate)

Even as an outer I agree that the claim is misleading, but it isn’t fraudulent as the Gross cost of being in the EU is £350mn per week

Can you point to anything that says that making a fraudulent claim could invalidate the referendum? I'm not aware of any facility to challenge this in any election (I am aware of the laws around false statements about election candidates, but not that those laws apply to any 'non-candidate' facts).

**AlmightyWalrus**

SirDonlad wrote:
It's not open to interpretation!

Yes, yes it is. The "confronting reality with utopias" can be read two ways, he's either arguing, as you claim, that the EU needs to remain true to its goals and push on, or he's arguing that the "we" in the speech are the ones responsible for having pushed these ideals of utopia despite reality, and that they might have to stop and take notice of context in order to do better. Sure, he's not arguing for the abandoning of the goal of European unity, you're right on that point, but he is (at least I'd argue he is) calling for a pause to review and reflect over the way things have been done so far.

**richred_uk**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So...fraudulent = making misleading but technically true claims that don't tell the whole truth? By that logic, the Remain side are also making "fraudulent" claims. After all, David Cameron is not above using spin and cherry picking facts that favour his arguments whilst ignoring others.

I've been mocked for using hyperbole, but isn't this hyperbole too?

At best, the £350m figure is misleading, because its not the whole truth. But it is not fraudulent.

It's not technically true. That's the issue.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Stranger83 wrote:
the Gross cost of being in the EU is £350mn per week

Gross means the full amount paid. Net means the full amount paid, with any cashback at a future point.

The Gross amount is not £350m because at no point do we actually hand over the money, as the Telegraph quote illustrates.

here is the Leave website,

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_cost

"The EU now costs the UK over £350 million each week - nearly £20 billion a year."

This is a fraudulent claim. In fact, it's even more misleading than saying "we pay" because the one fig-leaf behind "we pay" for the desperate is that somewhere in the calculations there's an invoice with the full amount. But what something costs us is the expenditure from our bank account.

**Herzlos**

There's no small print or anything about rebates either - that page is clearly stating that "cost" is £350million a week.

There's absolutely no way you spin that so that it's even technically true. We don't send that much at all. The cost is always £260million, or 25% lower than claimed. And that's only accounting for the membership fee, it's not factoring in any funding flowing the other way.

It's completely disingenuous to claim that it's not fraud. The ASA wouldn't allow it if it were an advert.

**reds8n**

...but.....I mean....

...but.....

Last week I was introduced to a FOAF who was going to vote leave for no other reason than he thought that side would win and " I always like to have voted for the winning side", which I'd thought was a hitherto new low.

But this...

feth me we are doomed.

Future of the country might depend on Daniel Sturridge's metatarsal

**zedmeister**

reds8n wrote:

Future of the country might depend on Daniel Sturridge's metatarsal

That's a lot of pressure on that toe

Sorry, I have to laugh. You can't make this up sometimes....

**Stranger83**

If I owe you £5 and you buy something for me for £15 and I agree to pay you £10 and let you off the £5 is the cost of the item only £10?

The simple fact is that nobody (as far as I can see) other than those here on this website has claimed that this is fraud, and the reason for that is because it isn’t, our fee is £350mn per week plain and simple. The fact that we don’t actually pay that fee because the EU agrees to give us a rebate doesn’t stop the fact that the fee is £350mn.

Again, it is fully misleading – but it isn’t fraud.

I believe (though I don’t have it to hand so could be wrong) that the Leave claim has always been that our membership fee is £350mn and not that we hand over £350mn. Thus the claim is not wrong, just misleading.

Incidentally, and I’m not an election lawyer so I’ll stand to be corrected, but it has always been my understanding that once you are deemed the official campaign then you are held to the same requirements as any other party with regards to making fraudulent claims in a referendum/election, which (as I understand it) means that there would be legal recourse in the event of fraudulent claims being made.

**Mr. Burning**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
SirDonlad wrote:

So not only has this meglalomaniac got ideas on bossing the world around at the expense of our security, he regards reality as needing to be 'confronted' with his 'united states of europeland' fantasy.

Because thats exactly what it is - a fantasy that we will have to pay for. literally.

He's saying that he's part of the people that are responsible for having tried to ignore reality in order to create a utopia, not that this should be the case.

Second, persistent in our commitment to fundamental principles, we must be guided in our political projects by common sense and a good sense of timing. It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world. A utopia of a Euro-Asian unity.

Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now. Today, Euro-scepticism, or even Euro-pessimism have become an alternative to those illusions. And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it. We need to understand the necessity of the historical moment. As the President of the European Council I want to start an honest and open debate on the subject. The sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome provides a good background for such a debate.

You can't just snip out the second part of the argument being made. When looked at together, Tusk is arguing that they've tried to hard to create a utopia and that this has led to a disconnect with reality. It's essentially the main issue the Leave campaign has with Europe, but you've somehow managed to misread it as though Tusk wants to ignore reality and keep going. I have no idea how you managed to do that, but it does you no credit.

lets have some clarity on what his vision for the EU is supposed to be then we can decided if we want in or not.

**Herzlos**

Stranger83 wrote:

I believe (though I don’t have it to hand so could be wrong) that the Leave claim has always been that our membership fee is £350mn and not that we hand over £350mn. Thus the claim is not wrong, just misleading.

Go and look at the page and see what leave actually say.

Stranger83 wrote:
If I owe you £5 and you buy something for me for £15 and I agree to pay you £10 and let you off the £5 is the cost of the item only £10?

Also, it's a broken analogy. EU doesn't owe us anything.

A better analog is if I buy something from you for £15, but there's a £5 discount, so I hand you a £10. Can you honestly say that it cost £15?

It's not misleading, it's an outright lie. If they'd said "Our membership fee is £350m/week" then sure, that's technically correct but misleading, but the quote is that the cost is £350m/week, which is just isn't.

**Future War Cultist**

I've heard some rumours that Sweden and Denmark are secretly praying for Brexit so that they can have their own referendums with confidence (Dexit and Swexit). Then the plan would be to get together with Britain, Norway, Iceland and maybe Finland (if they can be persuaded to leave too) to form a trading block of our own that's only about trade and is not a state building exercise.

This would be fantastic. And if it's true it's another reason for me to vote to leave. I understand Sweden and Denmarks hesitation. Making that first jump can be scary. That's why I'd like Britain to show a bit of leadership.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Stranger83 wrote:
If I owe you £5 and you buy something for me for £15 and I agree to pay you £10 and let you off the £5 is the cost of the item only £10?

Another tortuous analogy when the reality is clear.

I think this all started because of the term "rebate" so that some people got in their heads that the money was given back to us later (this is what Gove has tried saying). But it's not given back to us later, as the Telegraph quote earlier puts it, we never pay it in the first place. The £350m figure is one part in a calculation - but it's not what we pay, nor is it the cost, whatever definition (or tortured analogy) you choose.

Remember, what Leave says, under the heading "Fact", on its website: "The EU now costs the UK over £350 million each week - nearly £20 billion a year."

Try defending this one, instead: "Nissan, which says it would prefer Britain to remain in the EU, said it would be issuing legal proceedings on Monday in Britain's High Court to stop 'Vote Leave' from using its name and logo and to "prevent them making any further false statements and misrepresentations concerning Nissan."

Nissan is just one of several companies whose logos have been used in Leave leaflets, when in fact they're unequivocal about needing to stay in the EU, otherwise jobs will be lost.

**richred_uk**

Stranger83 wrote:
If I owe you £5 and you buy something for me for £15 and I agree to pay you £10 and let you off the £5 is the cost of the item only £10?

The simple fact is that nobody (as far as I can see) other than those here on this website has claimed that this is fraud, and the reason for that is because it isn’t, our fee is £350mn per week plain and simple. The fact that we don’t actually pay that fee because the EU agrees to give us a rebate doesn’t stop the fact that the fee is £350mn.

Again, it is fully misleading – but it isn’t fraud.

I believe (though I don’t have it to hand so could be wrong) that the Leave claim has always been that our membership fee is £350mn and not that we hand over £350mn. Thus the claim is not wrong, just misleading.

Incidentally, and I’m not an election lawyer so I’ll stand to be corrected, but it has always been my understanding that once you are deemed the official campaign then you are held to the same requirements as any other party with regards to making fraudulent claims in a referendum/election, which (as I understand it) means that there would be legal recourse in the event of fraudulent claims being made.

But the EU doesn't 'owe' us the rebate already, it is accepting a discounted membership fee.

The £350 million we give to the EU every week could pay for...

Taken from their homepage:

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/

Re: the fraudulent claims - I don't know of any laws against this in an electoral context, barring the laws about making false claims about a candidate (I was a lawyer before an accountant, but not an electoral one).

**Stranger83**

All sides are involved in misleading information – it’s the nature of politics to show the positive impact of your side and not the negative.

For example In claim that 3million jobs are dependent on the EU, when in fact AT BEST these jobs are dependent on trade with the EU and it assumes that ALL trade would end if we were to leave.

Misleading facts are part and parcel of an election/referendum and it’s the voters job to work out the truth for the information we are given – however there is an important line between misleading and fraudulent and I don’t think either side has made a fraudulent claim yet (the closest being from the IN side with the idea that a vote for out would lead to world war 3). I certainly don’t see the claim that our fee for the EU is £350mn is fraudulent, these figures come from the government after all and are part of the EU accounts. Again I’ve not heard anyone claim it is fraudulent other than the people on this page.

In tell us often we should listen to the experts, I suggest on this you follow the advice and call it misleading (which is how the experts refer to it).

**AlmightyWalrus**

Future War Cultist wrote:
I've heard some rumours that Sweden and Denmark are secretly praying for Brexit so that they can have their own referendums with confidence (Dexit and Swexit). Then the plan would be to get together with Britain, Norway, Iceland and maybe Finland (if they can be persuaded to leave too) to form a trading block of our own that's only about trade and is not a state building exercise.

This would be fantastic. And if it's true it's another reason for me to vote to leave. I understand Sweden and Denmarks hesitation. Making that first jump can be scary. That's why I'd like Britain to show a bit of leadership.

As a Swede, I'd put it the other way: we're fethed if the UK leaves. The UK is our biggest ally in the EU; without the UK, we'd lose a lot of influence.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Stranger83 wrote:
I don’t think either side has made a fraudulent claim yet (the closest being from the IN side with the idea that a vote for out would lead to world war 3).

It seems you're confused between facts and predictions.

The amount "we pay the EU" is a fact.

The possibility that our leaving the EU will destabilise the continent is a prediction.

Deliberately misrepresenting a fact is a lie.

Giving a deliberately pessimistic prediction is not a lie. It is a deliberately pessimistic prediction - rather like saying Turkey "will join" the EU" and that "12m Turks" will come here, many of them armed with knives and guns.

.

**Stranger83**

The EU accounts show that our contributions are £18bn per year and that we get a rebate of £8bn per year (give or take a little)

£18bn per year equates to (roughly) £350mn per week. Therefore if the claim that our payment to the EU is £350mn per week is fraudulent then the EU accounts are fraudulent. I don’t think that they are, you may disagree but if you do then do you really want to be part of an organisation that files fraudulent accounts?

**obsidianaura**

I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?

Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

obsidianaura wrote:
I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?

Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but even if a BREXIT left me worse off financially, I'd still vote to leave. Democracy trumps economy for me.

**reds8n**

http://news.sky.com/video/1714324/war-gamers-talk-eu-vote-tactics

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
I've heard some rumours that Sweden and Denmark are secretly praying for Brexit so that they can have their own referendums with confidence (Dexit and Swexit). Then the plan would be to get together with Britain, Norway, Iceland and maybe Finland (if they can be persuaded to leave too) to form a trading block of our own that's only about trade and is not a state building exercise.

This would be fantastic. And if it's true it's another reason for me to vote to leave. I understand Sweden and Denmarks hesitation. Making that first jump can be scary. That's why I'd like Britain to show a bit of leadership.

As a Swede, I'd put it the other way: we're fethed if the UK leaves. The UK is our biggest ally in the EU; without the UK, we'd lose a lot of influence.

And Sweden would lose out on money made from all those Abba records the UK buys

**obsidianaura**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
obsidianaura wrote:
I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?

Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but even if a BREXIT left me worse off financially, I'd still vote to leave. Democracy trumps economy for me.

How much of a hit are you willing to take though?

I don't want to lose my house, and not having a job worries me.

**Stranger83**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Stranger83 wrote:
I don’t think either side has made a fraudulent claim yet (the closest being from the IN side with the idea that a vote for out would lead to world war 3).

It seems you're confused between facts and predictions.

The amount "we pay the EU" is a fact.

The possibility that our leaving the EU will destabilise the continent is a prediction.

Deliberately misrepresenting a fact is a lie.

Giving a deliberately pessimistic prediction is not a lie. It is a deliberately pessimistic prediction - rather like saying Turkey "will join" the EU" and that "12m Turks" will come here, many of them armed with knives and guns.

.

If you truly are an account (I believe it was you who said this) you’ll know that there are many ways to calculate values in your accounts. Accountant is more an art form than a science. There is plenty of basis for the claim of £350mn per week, whilst it might not fit into the basis that you will use the claim that it is fraudulent is simply untrue as it is based on the account from the EU itself. This is why none of the major financial institutions that have spoken out about the claim have used the word fraudulent – because it simply isn’t.

It’s clear we are not going to agree – you believe that your interpretation is correct and you are free to do so. On this I will follow the interpretation of the majority of financial institution who simply claim it is misleading.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Anyway, I nearly forgot the original point I was going to make. There was a man on BBC news today, he was from the art world, and because of the EU's VAT charge on importing art from non-EU countries, London and the UK are losing out to New York as a centre for cultural excellence.

It's not just dealers buying and selling, but museums and art galleries the length of Britain who suffer from this VAT charge. As a connoisseur of culture, this is another reason to vote out, in my book.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

obsidianaura wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
obsidianaura wrote:
I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?

Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but even if a BREXIT left me worse off financially, I'd still vote to leave. Democracy trumps economy for me.

How much of a hit are you willing to take though?

I don't want to lose my house, and not having a job worries me.

Obviously, I don't want to see a fellow dakka member lose their house, but I don't think it would ever come to that. A shock to the housing system, say lower prices, could be good for the next generation trying to get on the ladder.

As for your job, we're the 5th largest economy in the world. We'd be fine. That's no consolation to anybody who loses their job, but even in the EU people lose their jobs all the time to recessions etc etc

The world was fine long before the EU existed. It'll still be here long after it's gone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
http://news.sky.com/video/1714324/war-gamers-talk-eu-vote-tactics

Talk about stereotyping our hobby

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
because of the EU's VAT charge on importing art from non-EU countries, London and the UK are losing out to New York as a centre for cultural excellence.
.

Anyone buying from outside the EU can reclaim VAT. They are probably talking about Artist Resale Rights, a tax of 0.25 per cent on large sums, which goes to the artist or descendant.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The world was fine long before the EU existed. It'll still be here long after it's gone.

True only if "engaged in war that killed millions" or "with half the population controlled by a totalitarian state with secret police and execution or exile of dissidents" is fine.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Future War Cultist wrote:
I've heard some rumours that Sweden and Denmark are secretly praying for Brexit so that they can have their own referendums with confidence (Dexit and Swexit). Then the plan would be to get together with Britain, Norway, Iceland and maybe Finland (if they can be persuaded to leave too) to form a trading block of our own that's only about trade and is not a state building exercise.

This would be fantastic. And if it's true it's another reason for me to vote to leave. I understand Sweden and Denmarks hesitation. Making that first jump can be scary. That's why I'd like Britain to show a bit of leadership.

The North Sea Economic Community?

awesome!

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
because of the EU's VAT charge on importing art from non-EU countries, London and the UK are losing out to New York as a centre for cultural excellence.
.

Anyone buying from outside the EU can reclaim VAT. They are probably talking about Artist Resale Rights, a tax of 0.25 per cent on large sums, which goes to the artist or descendant.

To say that the Third Reich will return without the EU is nonsense. Both sides are guilty of spouting nonsense, and from reading your earlier posts, which were quite balanced, I'm very surprised that you have written this.

Anyway, here's the link to that VAT on imported art story I was talking about, if anybody is interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36341472

**Future War Cultist**

@ AlmightyWalrus

Then come join us on the outside.

@ Do_I_Not_Like_That

That's similar to a link I posted pages ago that shows how the EU is destroying our artwork auctioneering business, among others. Petty over regulation is making us lose out to New York.

@ Do_I_Not_Like_That

We can dream right?

If Holland joined too it would be perfect.

**Herzlos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
obsidianaura wrote:
I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?

Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but even if a BREXIT left me worse off financially, I'd still vote to leave. Democracy trumps economy for me.

I see the EU as being more democratic than leaving the tories to run things (because lets face it, that's what's going to happen). So a leave vote (to me, at least) is going to result in a drop in both democracy and economy.

The only possible good I can see is if it triggers another indyref or we form a north sea trading coalition, neither of which can be banked on.

**obsidianaura**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
obsidianaura wrote:
I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?

Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but even if a BREXIT left me worse off financially, I'd still vote to leave. Democracy trumps economy for me.

I see the EU as being more democratic than leaving the tories to run things (because lets face it, that's what's going to happen). So a leave vote (to me, at least) is going to result in a drop in both democracy and economy.

The only possible good I can see is if it triggers another indyref or we form a north sea trading coalition, neither of which can be banked on.

I'm voting to stay in but even I'd have to disagree here. If the unelected EU is able to overrule and elected government then its not democracy.

I don't want the Tory's to remove rights and things but if we vote for them in, then that's what we should get.

Democracy can do good and bad things, but it's still democracy.