Has anybody changed their mind about how they voted?

[fakenamefornow]

It seems not many people have?

The £156 million per week is after the money paid to private institutions etc is taken off, not before.

No it isn't - the £156 million us from the Treasury, it doesn't keep the figures paid to private institutions.

news.sky.com/story/britain-made-weekly-net-payment-of-around-156m-to-eu-in-201617-10978129

If citizens don't want it published, does that mean they don't trust this government?

It’s not a case of not wanting them published, but rather that I’m not arsed one way or another as they wouldn’t be wholly objective.
No one can accurately predict the future & best guess is the best you can hope for - that means that any impact report would just be subjective opinion.

Don’t trust the govt?
Overall, I don’t have blind trust in anyone tbh.
I have zero trust for lots of politicians - from all parties & on both sides of the EU divide.

If citizens don't want it published, does that mean they don't trust this government?

The government (and civil service) is full of Remoaners, remember? Therefore they cannot be trusted to produce true assessments of the wonders of Brexit. These impact assessments will likely be full of gross lies reporting Doomaggeddon instead of the Sunlit Uplands that we know are coming. Therefore we need not pass a moment's thoughts on them.

Conversely, the government and civil service can be trusted to negotiate a successful Brexit that will fulfill 17 million disparate definitions, so much so that none of us need pass a moment's thought on the proceedings.

I would not change my vote (Remain). However some of the discussion around sovereignty have resonated with me.

I would have preferred to use what was our planned Chair-ship to start reforms or negotiate better than Cameron did. I think to leave now, with no plan, and in the hands of the hopeless politicians and messed up leadership we have is reckless and destructive.

Go, Vince!

they wouldn’t be wholly objective

In the many months since the Brexit referendum in June 2016, government departments have prepared impact assessments which detail the consequences of Brexit for the UK's economy in 50+ sectors. Why have these not been made public since it is the public at large that bears the risks

from petition page.^

Why would a government not publish its own report?

There's only one type of government which withholds information and breaks the law.

I think more likely Leaves don't want it published because they fear it won't be positive and fit their agenda. If it was all good news I have no doubt the Gov would publish it.

The U.K. ‘sends’ c£350m per week to EU.

In 2015/16 the UK sent £325 million per week before the application of the rebate.

‘Gets back’ subsidies etc (although technically it hasn’t actually moved anywhere). This means U.K. actually contributes c£270 per week.

The rebate means that we actually send £235 million a week, and then what we get back in EU spending on public projects in the UK reduces it to £156 million.

And then the private EU funding returns more of that payment to the UK - possibly up to around £1.4 billion per year (another £20 million per week).

And £1 billion of what we send to the EU goes on international aid and counts towards the UK governments foreign aid spending target.

Randomly, different news sources have reported the figures in different ways.

The take away figure of what we would ‘regain control’ over, however, remains at c£230m per week no matter which way you look at it.

This is the amount we pay into the EU after the rebate is taken into account but before other subsidies are applied.

This is worth reading:

fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

They have updated at the end re the most recent figures:

^Newer figures are available

You may also have seen reports that the amount the UK sends to the EU is actually half of the £350 million claimed during the referendum in 2016, or £156 million a week.

But that’s not comparing like with like.

The £156 million figure is calculated after the rebate has been applied and after the ‘public sector receipts’ for that year have been subtracted. The £350 million accounted for neither of these things.

Using these newer figures the amount we sent to the EU, after the rebate but before any money spent in the UK is counted, is £234 million per week. These figures also look at the 2016/17 financial year, rather than the 2016 calendar year we have discussed throughout this article.^

And we never sent £350 million per week - as was pointed out during the referendum campaign by the head of the ONS repeatedly at the time.

The £350 million figure was never correct, it is not the most recent figures, BoJo suggests that the whole amount could go to the NHS and ignores all the other funding that we get, ignores the foreign aid payment and ignores the private funding.

How you you defend such disingenuousness?

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9807

The bigger picture is that the forecast health of the public finances was downgraded by £15 billion per year — or almost £300 million per week — as a direct result of the Brexit vote. Not only will we not regain control of £350 million weekly as a result of Brexit, we are likely to make a net fiscal loss from it.

How you you defend such disingenuousness?

I didn’t, and I’m not.

I said this @ 0842 this morning:

“I agree btw that he’s being deliberately disingenuous by continuing to quote the gross figure - and it just undermines the overall point when he does it.”

Sorry Faith - missed that post!

I just get so pissed off at Boris and his flagrant lying (or "clear misuse of official statistics").

Ok so far I don't think anybody, other than BJ, has said £350m figure is correct. Why is it not illegal for politicians to tell out and out lies, that can be evidenced as untrue, to the public during a campaign?

Why is it not illegal for politicians to tell out and out lies

Case law prevents manifestoes having to be truthful.

But in subsequent elections, 'lies' can result in citizens voting out those they perceive to have lied.

Difficulty was that this referendum is being treated as a permanent decision on which no one is allowed a second vote.

So there's no legal come back for lies in a referendum campaign, yet.............

If citizens don't want it published, does that mean they don't trust this government?
I'd welcome the report being published woman, but no, I don't trust this government in any way, shape or form so would be wary of its transparency and integrity.

Just musing wittering but I think the biggest issue that's arisen since the referendum, which was a very close call, is the lack of compromise. This gung ho strategy of May and chums isn't doing the UK any favours. A think tank of moderate leavers and moderate remainers could have formulated a much better plan to exit the EU and would keep a majority of voters fairly happy, I think.

I agree michael

Morning rufus!

Hey michael

No worries Random

I just get so pissed off at Boris and his flagrant lying (or "clear misuse of official statistics").

Ok so far I don't think anybody, other than BJ, has said £350m figure is correct. Why is it not illegal for politicians to tell out and out lies, that can be evidenced as untrue, to the public during a campaign?

YY to both of the above posts.

And a massive yes to:

A think tank of moderate leavers and moderate remainers could have formulated a much better plan to exit the EU and would keep a majority of voters fairly happy, I think.

The vote was ‘won’ by Leave, so we should leave; however, the small margin made it clear that an extreme interpretation of Brexit would disenfranchise almost half of the voters.
Personally, I’d prefer a complete exit - but even as an ignorant bystander even I can see that this cannot happen all in one go, there needs to be a transition of possibly a good number of years.
Also, I accept that others don’t share my desire for a complete exit, so I understand that there will probably be a watered down version in the end so as to be broadly acceptable to a greater number of people.

A pragmatic Brexit would not appeal to extremes on either side, but would be sellable to the majority.

A pragmatic Brexit would not appeal to extremes on either side, but would be sellable to the majority

Yes, definitely. Might even go some way to restoring trust in politicians and reassure voters that their best interests were being protected, rather than appeasing extreme views.

A pragmatic Brexit would not appeal to extremes on either side, but would be sellable to the majority

And what would that look like? EEA?

EEA would be pragmatic - out of the EU and away from the ECJ, but the FOM issue will still be there - that seems to be a lot of people's red line.

A think tank of moderate leavers and moderate remainers could have formulated a much better plan to exit the EU and would keep a majority of voters fairly happy, I think.

Exactly this!

Why the hell didn't this happen in the first place? Why?