Liam Fox said it is more like 160million net going to EU, not 350million

(26 Posts)
Pangurban1 Sun 26-Jun-16 11:04:55

Can't believe Liam has changed 350million number to Ca160million net to EU. Neil did't even pull him up on it.

www.facebook.com/drliamfox/videos/vb.351694621698331/519065518294573/?type=3&permPage=1

IDS very vague on immigration this morning.

PattyPenguin Sun 26-Jun-16 11:43:37

Do you mean that Neil should have asked him "Why didn't you say this before the referendum?" If so, I quite agree.

Mind you, it was on the fact checking sites before polling day, like this one www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

The Telegraph is where Liam Fox got his £160 million from
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/eu-referendum-fact-checking-the-big-claims1/

Misnomer Sun 26-Jun-16 11:46:05

This information was out there before the election. Just not on the side of a bus.

RiceCrispieTreats Sun 26-Jun-16 11:46:07

Yes, and plenty of people who had looked up the facts were also saying that before the vote.

It's easy enough to research:

UK contribution of 350 million - (budget rebate + subsidies received by EU) = 160 million

Pangurban1 Sun 26-Jun-16 11:49:50

Liam Fox campaigned on that higher number. See his Facebook link.

Why isn't he sticking to it now?

RiceCrispieTreats Sun 26-Jun-16 11:53:37

Because he's a lying liar who lies, and will say anything to advance his own political aims?

Pangurban1 Sun 26-Jun-16 11:55:29

Or more pointedly, 'were you knowingly misleading the voters lying , before" or have you only found this out yesterday"?

RiceCrispieTreats Sun 26-Jun-16 11:56:07

What do you think?

Kennington Sun 26-Jun-16 11:57:46

This is fairly irrelevant since 160 million per week is also a lot! I doubt it would have changed voting patterns.
I thought the 350 quote was for before the rebate.

Pangurban1 Sun 26-Jun-16 12:00:21

Barefaced lying doesn't seem to be a deterrent at all now. Michael Howard sacked Johnson for lying. He was sacked in previous jobs for lying.

Now being publicly caught out lying doesn't even make the liar pause for breath. And doesn't in any way make them seem unfit for public office.

You could have knocked me down with a feather when Neil Hamilton was elected to the Welsh Assembly. He, who took cash for questions (and a few other shockers) and lost his seat to an anti-corruption candidate.

GiddyOnZackHunt Sun 26-Jun-16 12:01:20

More or Less on R4 debunked the number weeks ago too.
Quite frankly it's embarrassing to hear people getting all upset over stuff they were too lazy to check for themselves. Or even to question.

Politicians twist the truth to suit their purposes every day. How is that news?

Pangurban1 Sun 26-Jun-16 12:12:09

It was debunked by a lot more than R4. Liam Fox still maintained it as the correct number though.

If he lies so easily and purports that his figures are true, it would be amazing if he was one of the candidates throwing his hat into the ring.

smallfox1980 Sun 26-Jun-16 12:15:34

£160 million per week = £8.32 billion

Even now that figure is still incorrect, the £8.32 billion doesn't include or subsidies paid directly to private firms

The figure is about £7.6 billion, which if all given to the NHS would be a budget increase of 7.8%. Interestingly it only a 0.5% fall in GDP growth to wipe this amount of money from the net tax take.

Not going to happen.

Interestingly it only takes a

GiddyOnZackHunt Sun 26-Jun-16 12:18:55

Well yes, that's why I ended the sentence with 'too' confused
And Liam Fox had to resign from the Cabinet because he was dishonest. It's a matter of public record.
Lying liars tell some lies. Big shock.

RiceCrispieTreats Sun 26-Jun-16 12:19:23

This is fairly irrelevant since 160 million per week is also a lot!

It's less than 1% of GDP.
More than that is already being wiped out of the value of UK companies as markets fall due to Brexit.

gingerboy1912 Sun 26-Jun-16 12:21:09

And yet the BBC did a very clear presentation on this and said that 350 million a week went in but 160 million a week came out into the uk. They presented it a fact not a guesstimate. angry

MangoMoon Sun 26-Jun-16 12:29:10

£160 million a week isn't to be sniffed at, surely?

RiceCrispieTreats Sun 26-Jun-16 12:31:19

Well, people need to hold Boris to account to spend it well, then.

But since one half of his "Let's spend those 350 million on the NHS" statement is already a lie, I have little hope that the second part of that sentence was true either.

gingerboy1912 Sun 26-Jun-16 12:34:14

But did anyone actually think that the money we saved by leave the eu would go into the Nhs. The tories are still in power, they hate the Nhs, imo they would of had absolutely no intention of spending much of any of it on the Nhs.

MrsCookieMonster78 Sun 26-Jun-16 12:57:45

To be fair I think the point was always that we could spend that on the NHS if we wanted to as we would no longer be sending to EU (so UK could decide rather than EU). However they also said that they would keep all EU funding in place which means half of the £350m which is currently paid back to the UK would still go to those areas.
I voted remain but to be honest I have little sympathy with people who really thought that they were saying they would put £350m per week into the NHS. They aren't the government in any case and I would guess there will be an election in the next 6 months so people can vote on what kind of exit they want and what they want the money to be spent on (Cons & Lab) or even if they want to reverse the ref decision (Lib Dems).

MrsCookieMonster78 Sun 26-Jun-16 13:01:40

The Vote leave leaflet actually said

The EU costs us £350m a week. That's enough to build a new NHS hospital every week of the year. We get less than half of this money back and we have no control over the way it's spent - that's decided by politicians and officials in Brussels, rather than the people we elect here.

I understand it is nuanced and it was there in black and white.

lljkk Sun 26-Jun-16 13:13:45

tbh, I always thought nitpicking about 350 vs. 160 was a losing strategy because 160 miln still is a huge amount. Anyway, I guess it was indicative of the kneejerk strategy of Leave campaign.... didn't seem to put folk off, no matter how many times I heard the 350 figure objected to.

Kennington Sun 26-Jun-16 13:27:05

1 percent GDP is a lot of money. I fully a remained but for me 160 million is a lot of money.
I am more interested in how it is spent once in Brussels though.

smallfox1980 Sun 26-Jun-16 13:33:26

The BBC used fullfact to check their info. The figure the BBC comes up includes the rebate and money returned to.public. spending pots as well.as direct EU funding of public.projects. it states that it doesn't include subsidies paid directly to private firms as this is much harder to find out but estimates the figure to be about.7.6 billion.

debbriana Sun 26-Jun-16 14:22:20

Stupidly this was discussed before the voting. It was broken down and people understood the rebate was deducted before it left the country. If your surprised now, I absolutely, don't know where you've been. 160 million has been in the open.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now