Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
I'd say he'd probably right, pretty crass admission to, basically saying they hoodwinked the vote
|
I kind of prefer his honesty in this respect over Boris's approach. Then again, he's not seeking re-election whilst Boris probably will be and may even run for PM.
---------- Post added at 10:14 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
Oh now you throw in the "Done to death" issue, when it suits I suppose.  |
Not really, it's constructive debate ie focusing on the issue in hand and trying to analyse both sides rather than revisiting some general argument about Remain v Leave from 18 months ago!
---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
The £350 million claim is highly misleading at best and a lie at worst. We don't send that and we control the money we do not send. The only people who claim it to be true are the Brexit camp.
Full Fact say it's false: https://fullfact.org/europe/350-mill...hority-misuse/
The UK Statistics Authority say it's false.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies say it's false: https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...-week-brussels
Even the Brexit-supporting Telegraph weren't defending it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu...-fact-checked/
Now Boris chose his words carefully to say 'control' rather than the 'spend' they used in the referendum but I think that's just a typical weasel way politicians word things in order to seem like they're promising something they're not. 'Controlling' this money means nothing if 1) it's not really there and 2) you can't spend it. |
In a face-to-face discussion, if someone raised this amount of evidence then the person arguing against it would concede that they are wrong and we'd shake hands, be friends and prepare our ground better for the next discussion.
I really find it a bit awkward that this doesn't seem to happen on online forums