Brexit Deal

GeoffCapes

Member
Messages
14,000
So you are stating his guilt ahead of the judiciary Mark? Careful as that is libelling him and could land you in hot water.

If posting on SM that everyone knew the 350m quid was a lie is going to get me into hot water then the country really has gone to pot!
 

2b1ask1

Special case
Messages
20,220
If posting on SM that everyone knew the 350m quid was a lie is going to get me into hot water then the country really has gone to pot!

Dafter things have happened Mark; just saying, editing it with an allegedly wouldn’t be onerous but it might expose the timing of the ‘story’
 

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,107
I am truly humbled to find that I have misjudged so many politicians over the years.

There was me thinking that lies and spin were part and parcel of politics when all the time we must have been told the truth, otherwise the courts would be full of 'people in public office' explaining their conduct to judges.

Shame on me for being so cynical; next time a dodgy dossier appears or a party manifesto offers utopia I'll believe every word.

PH
 

midlifecrisis

Member
Messages
16,102
What is misconduct in public office?
  • It's an ancient offence with roots back to the 13th Century
  • It can only be brought against someone who is exercising some kind of official function - such as a civil servant, a prison officer or someone else entrusted to carry out a public role
  • Someone is guilty of the offence if a prosecution can prove that the official wilfully neglected to perform their duty - or "misconducts" themselves - to such a degree that it amounts to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder
  • The offence can lead to life imprisonment
Surely we could lock up half the politicians, but it would be funny if he was elected Tory Leader and subsequently PM, then get locked up for this... I love this country, this sort of stuff makes foreigners wonder why we had the biggest Empire ever!
 

GeoffCapes

Member
Messages
14,000
What is misconduct in public office?
  • It's an ancient offence with roots back to the 13th Century
  • It can only be brought against someone who is exercising some kind of official function - such as a civil servant, a prison officer or someone else entrusted to carry out a public role
  • Someone is guilty of the offence if a prosecution can prove that the official wilfully neglected to perform their duty - or "misconducts" themselves - to such a degree that it amounts to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder
  • The offence can lead to life imprisonment
Surely we could lock up half the politicians, but it would be funny if he was elected Tory Leader and subsequently PM, then get locked up for this... I love this country, this sort of stuff makes foreigners wonder why we had the biggest Empire ever!

Easy to understand why that is in the past tense!
 

2b1ask1

Special case
Messages
20,220
But then surely this article is libellous as well then?


No, they are stating selected points in the case, or reporting things as allegations.

What you did was state a named individual was guilty of something (ahead of any hearing) which is libellous.

If later he is found to be guilty you could then state he was guilty without deformation.

I remember a couple of months ago how upset you were at someone claiming your work as their own, an individual has crowd funded sufficiently to raise a private trial of a politician’s actions, questioning a moment in time. Be patient and bask in glory if they win but as it stands you have exposed yourself to a potential libel on a public forum, personally I’d exercise caution.
 

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,110
I think this is potentially a good exercise, and I wish someone responsible had done this about three years ago!

But (at risk of going off on a tangent) I think one of the areas where the whole debate failed was this focus on 'up/downsides to the UK'. Most of my arguments on the EU issue have always been rooted some sort of absolute (and abstract) 'right thing to do', not just narrow UK self interest. And I think the Remain campaign made a big mistake by essentially campaigning on 'you will be worse off'. The best argument for Remain, to me (notably promoted by Eddie Izzard) was that "The EU is a bit cråp, and probably a bit bad for the UK on balance, but it is good for Europe in general, and so it is our duty to join in and make it work a bit better." (See School Governors thread - it's a pain in the donkey, but a valuable service.)

So on 'Free Movement', I think it is immoral and unwise to have free movement of labour across the EU, even though I think it is largely beneficial to the UK, as it has negative effects on Eastern Europe:
  • it denudes those countries of many of their best people (many confident, energetic and skilled people come to work in the West)
  • it is parasitical on the education and training investment of those countries, which pay (for example) to train nurses, and then lose them
  • it allows some Western European industries to stay based in the West, importing labour from the East, rather than locating their production in the low-wage areas
  • it distorts the Eastern economies and societies, making them heavily dependent on remittances (or cash-rich returners), due to people working in the West

I completely agree and commend you for your detailed response.

The hope for this exercise is that we know the EU is not all good, but if those on either side of the argument can show an understanding of the views on the other side their view is more likely to be respected by their opposite numbers.

Wattie has a crack at it, what I would love to hear is a detailed argument from someone who wants to leave as to the benefits of the EU. I can think of a few that, even without going near the flash points of the argument, are pretty unequivocal.
 

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,110
To be fair it does seem to be an open and shut case. The judge seems to have stated that Boris said in an interview that the cost of EU membership was £10 billion a year and then went out and said we could have £350 million a week for the NHS.

So the argument is really about whether he is catastrophically bad at maths (I don’t think so) or that it was cynical attempt to influence the electorate (more likely). That then being the case it is then whether it amounts to an offence.

That this is might be politically motivated is largely beside the point to me, if he did do it he should be held to account, as should everyone else. That the authorities haven’t done this is to anyone, is the real scandal to me.
 

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,107
To be fair it does seem to be an open and shut case. The judge seems to have stated that Boris said in an interview that the cost of EU membership was £10 billion a year and then went out and said we could have £350 million a week for the NHS.

So the argument is really about whether he is catastrophically bad at maths (I don’t think so) or that it was cynical attempt to influence the electorate (more likely). That then being the case it is then whether it amounts to an offence.

That this is might be politically motivated is largely beside the point to me, if he did do it he should be held to account, as should everyone else. That the authorities haven’t done this is to anyone, is the real scandal to me.

It's not that simple; the official figures confirm the UK's net contribution to the EU as £6.55bn, but to get to that figure all sorts of factors and variables must be taken into account and that's where the debate will be if it actually gets to court. I think any decent statistician could make a case for or against Boris's figures and it's a fatuous exercise which will serve nothing other than political purpose. According to one report today, senior judges are said to be appalled that one of their colleagues saw fit to call Boris on this.

If every politician who exaggerated or told porkies ended up in court we'd quickly run out of judges, and Westminster would grind to a halt. The fact that it's tolerated might be scandalous, but that's politics for you.


PH
 

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,110
It's not that simple; the official figures confirm the UK's net contribution to the EU as £6.55bn, but to get to that figure all sorts of factors and variables must be taken into account and that's where the debate will be if it actually gets to court. I think any decent statistician could make a case for or against Boris's figures and it's a fatuous exercise which will serve nothing other than political purpose. According to one report today, senior judges are said to be appalled that one of their colleagues saw fit to call Boris on this.

If every politician who exaggerated or told porkies ended up in court we'd quickly run out of judges, and Westminster would grind to a halt. The fact that it's tolerated might be scandalous, but that's politics for you.


PH

Well, let’s see what was said. The chair of the U.K. Statistics Authority wrote to Boris expressing his disappointment that he had repeated the claim after it was debunked.

“I am surprised and disappointed that you have chosen to repeat the figure of £350 million per week, in connection with the amount that might be available for extra public spending when we leave the European Union.”—Sir David Norgrove

Boris replied, not by disputing that the figure was wrong but that it wasn’t what he said.

“You say that I claim that there would be £350m that “might be available for extra public spending” when we leave the EU. This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said and I would like you to withdraw it.

“[What I said] is very different from claiming that there would be an extra £350m available for public spending and I am amazed that you should impute such a statement to me.”—Boris Johnson

For the record what he said was:

“And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS”.

So now for the semantics. He said “take back control” which many thought mean’t we could spent it. The £350m is the amount of money paid to the EU without the rebate. So he isn’t saying we could spent it, but that we would control it. But then he said it would be nice if a lot of that money (a lot of which doesn’t exist) could be spent on the NHS. And then someone paraphrased it and wrote it on a bus. Which he stood in front of.

A statistical case there isn’t, a play on words and slight of hand there is.
 

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,110
Oh, and if Westminster ground to a halt because any politician who told a porky on either side was hauled in front of a judge, it would be fine by me. I think they would very quickly start telling something a lot closer to the truth.
 

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,107
The following is a direct quote from a letter sent to the Rt Hon Tom Brake MP and copied to the Prime Minister by Sir David Norgrove in June 2018:

“Any effect on the UK’s growth (and therefore tax receipts) from leaving the EU is not a matter for UK Statistics Authority. For economic forecasts, we recognise that there are a wide range of potential assumptions and methodologies, and that different forecasters can arrive at quite different conclusions.”

So, the gentleman in question would appear to agree with my point that different analyses of the same subject can result in different conclusions. If the court case is about the figure of £350m that’s one thing and clearly arguable, if it’s about the semantics of Boris’s actual statements he already seems to have stated his position on that, so good luck to anyone who wants to take him on.

You say

“A statistical case there isn’t”

I think that could be easily challenged.

and

“a play on words and slight of hand there is.”

I agree with you, but since when has that put politicians in the dock?

If the question is simply one of integrity, why do we not have politicians in court for promising but failing to deliver Brexit by 29th March 2019? (FWIW I still think Boris’s case is a waste of court time.)

We do at least agree on the performance of our politicians which is pretty lamentable. Perhaps we should recall Wattie to stir them up a bit.

PH
 

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,110
The following is a direct quote from a letter sent to the Rt Hon Tom Brake MP and copied to the Prime Minister by Sir David Norgrove in June 2018:

“Any effect on the UK’s growth (and therefore tax receipts) from leaving the EU is not a matter for UK Statistics Authority. For economic forecasts, we recognise that there are a wide range of potential assumptions and methodologies, and that different forecasters can arrive at quite different conclusions.”

So, the gentleman in question would appear to agree with my point that different analyses of the same subject can result in different conclusions. If the court case is about the figure of £350m that’s one thing and clearly arguable, if it’s about the semantics of Boris’s actual statements he already seems to have stated his position on that, so good luck to anyone who wants to take him on.

You say

“A statistical case there isn’t”

I think that could be easily challenged.

and

“a play on words and slight of hand there is.”

I agree with you, but since when has that put politicians in the dock?

If the question is simply one of integrity, why do we not have politicians in court for promising but failing to deliver Brexit by 29th March 2019? (FWIW I still think Boris’s case is a waste of court time.)

We do at least agree on the performance of our politicians which is pretty lamentable. Perhaps we should recall Wattie to stir them up a bit.

PH

I don't think those statements regarding predicted growth and tax receipts is related to this matter, which seems to be related directly to the EU contributions. If you tell me how I will happily take a look at it.

Boris himself, in response to a suggestion that he had misrepresented the statistics, did not respond by sighting his own - or someone else's - maths. He responded by saying that it wasn't what he had said. I have to admit to being surprised by this, I expected him to say "based on the amount we pay the EU, with additional tax income and an increased revenue stream from blah blah blah, I believe my statement to be correct". This would be part of the general cut and thrust of political statements where numbers are cherry picked and understanding skewed. But he didn't, he just said that he mean't something else.

He may well successfully defend the charge, but if his defence takes the form of "that wasn't what I said" then we should look at his statements in future with a thesaurus in hand.

As to the delivery of Brexit by the 29th, the was a statement of intent which, lamentably, wasn't delivered. It wasn't a representation of previously occurring events which misinterpreted their significance, so its not really apples for apples. Its similar to me saying that I am going to eat fish on Friday of week 10 of 2021, but then having chicken instead. If I said that I had eaten fish every friday for the last 20 years, but if I stopped then I would be in control of two portions of fish every friday, that would be a better comparison.

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, a judge has suggested there may well be a case to answer, I watch the arguments with interest.
 

jluis

Member
Messages
1,703
Boris is in trouble for his Brexit bus! Finally the truth is coming out.
Well, we all knew it was a lie in the first place. But some people still believed it!

Can politicians in the Uk get into trouble for outright lies? I thought being a liar was part of the job description.
Where I come from if this was the case, all our politicians would be jailed following the election
 

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,107
I don't think those statements regarding predicted growth and tax receipts is related to this matter, which seems to be related directly to the EU contributions. If you tell me how I will happily take a look at it.

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, a judge has suggested there may well be a case to answer, I watch the arguments with interest.

There ya go Zep:

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180617_Letter_from_Tom_Brake_NHS-and-Brexit.pdf

https://www.statww isticsauthority.gov.uk/correspondence/response-on-statements-made-on-nhs-funding-and-a-brexit-dividend/

I think a lot of folk will be watching the case if it goes ahead, and for many I suspect it will be with a degree of trepidation.

PH
 

Wattie

Member
Messages
8,640
I think this is potentially a good exercise, and I wish someone responsible had done this about three years ago!

But (at risk of going off on a tangent) I think one of the areas where the whole debate failed was this focus on 'up/downsides to the UK'. Most of my arguments on the EU issue have always been rooted some sort of absolute (and abstract) 'right thing to do', not just narrow UK self interest. And I think the Remain campaign made a big mistake by essentially campaigning on 'you will be worse off'. The best argument for Remain, to me (notably promoted by Eddie Izzard) was that "The EU is a bit cråp, and probably a bit bad for the UK on balance, but it is good for Europe in general, and so it is our duty to join in and make it work a bit better." (See School Governors thread - it's a pain in the donkey, but a valuable service.)

So on 'Free Movement', I think it is immoral and unwise to have free movement of labour across the EU, even though I think it is largely beneficial to the UK, as it has negative effects on Eastern Europe:
  • it denudes those countries of many of their best people (many confident, energetic and skilled people come to work in the West)
  • it is parasitical on the education and training investment of those countries, which pay (for example) to train nurses, and then lose them
  • it allows some Western European industries to stay based in the West, importing labour from the East, rather than locating their production in the low-wage areas
  • it distorts the Eastern economies and societies, making them heavily dependent on remittances (or cash-rich returners), due to people working in the West
That is very good and exactly what i had tried to write before I got sarcy.....very quickly.

I would also add that "free movement" can be used for economic purposes which may not be in the public interests, but can be in the interests of members of the public.

By way of an example, many countries in Europe, lets say Cyprus, never used to stamp people from European countries in or out of the country.....perhaps it was asssumed everyone would be leaving after their holiday. This allowed a friend of mine to live in one such country, (lets use Cyprus again for consistency) to effectively disappear for years without paying tax as he officially wasn't there......or indeed anywhere. The benefit to the Uk of this is that lots of money was invested in the Uk housing market- boosting the UK economy....while Cyprus went bankrupt....

Many other European countries are probably implimenting the same practice at their borders......the economic opportunities for the Uk just need to be investigated....

No sarcasm, just fact.
 
Last edited:

Zep

Moderator
Messages
9,110

Sorry, I’m still not seeing it. How does this justify Boris saying he didn’t say the £350m could be spent?

It’s the UKS saying they deal in statistics not predictions. The statement from Boris said we would “take back control” of £350m a week, so it implied it existed, which I suggest means it comes under the remit of the UKS.

Is there a link to show how the £350m was calculated from the existing EU contribution?