Does truth matter any more ? (Brexit but not really)

[erol]

I voted for the UK to remain within the EU in the referendum. I thought and still think, on balance, that remaining within the EU was the better option for the UK and its citizens. A majority, all be it a slim one, voted otherwise. Whilst I would have preferred the vote to have gone the other way, for me, it not having done so is not some kind of cataclysmic end of the world scenario. I think there will be both positives and negatives for the UK and its citizens as a result of leaving the EU.

My concern at what the medium and long term effects of the UK leaving the EU will turn out to be however, pale in to near insignificance, when compared to my concern at what the medium and long term effects will be of the mainstream and systematic assault on and contempt for actual factual reality that, in my opinion, has and continues to characterise the debate to date. It would seem that the 'passion' of many, both ordinary citizens and even more so political leaders, on both sides of the debate, is so great that truth and reality are just irrelevant when compared with trying to achieve and maintain the particular outcome they seek. This trend does worry me.

Of course there have always been those for whom factual reality is irrelevant when compared with their desire to convince people of some belief or other but such an approach has, I would argue, traditionally been on the margins of public debate and argument in the UK. What concerns me is the way such an approach to 'national debate' has become mainstream and normalised rather than being an exception, to a degree which I have not seen before in my lifetime. I see this mainstream contempt for actual factual reality from both 'camps' leave and remain. Indeed if this 'assault on truth itself' were just coming only from one side of the argument my concern at the phenomenon would be considerably less.

[niceone]

I read this post two or three times and did not understand it, probably because of the three glasses of wine I have enjoyed, will try again in the morning lol

[waddo]

Erol, I share your concerns. This current situation has been growing for many years but of late it has become fairly obvious and it is now apparent to all that it is not about being fair and honest but about winning at all costs. Two old sayings often spring to mind when I hear politicians speak, the first being "If you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie" and the second - one that is practised by the RoC without even the smallest twinge of remorse - "If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth". The sad part is that the majority of people either do not see it happening or do not care, as they live in the hope that all things will get better in time.

I to voted to remain as I could see no real advantage in a "dream" of things being better outside of the EU. Maybe I put my faith in "Better the devil you know" in the sure and certain knowledge that "The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence". The advantage I had was that I was not subjected to either sides - Leave/Remain - rhetoric on how much better it would be to stay/leave, I got to make my own mind up following my own research.

They say there is no such thing as bad publicity! I think they are correct in that statement but the current trend of changing facts to support lies and saying it is the truth has become obscene in many ways. I can see no end to it really as it has gone too far to be recovered.

[PoshinDevon]

Agree with the earlier posts.

I voted to leave and fortunately was not in the U.K. during the months prior to the vote taking place, so was not subject to the tv bombardment of rhetoric from politicians and so called “experts” on both sides of the debate. My decision to vote leave was again from my own research, experiences and also “gut” feeling. I am old enough to remember how EU membership was originally “sold” to the U.K. - back in the day it was about supposedly all about the trading of goods but as we have found out the influence of the EU and it’s politicians is much wider. In my opinion the U.K. has never fully embraced the European dream, it did seem at times that we were not in control of our own destiny and historically I still think we as a country have a dislike to being administered from afar and obeying laws, rules and regulations not of our own making.

Now the vote is over both sides continue to grab sound bites to prove how they were right and the other side was wrong. Like other posters have said it seems never ending and for me it’s now more about politicians and “experts” ensuring they get into/hold onto power and retain their job for as long as possible.

However one good thing coming from all of this is that rightly or wrongly the decision to leave the EU has been made by the British people and not imposed upon us by some mad lunatic dictator.

[Keithcaley]

... not imposed upon us by some mad lunatic dictator.

Don't worry, I'm sure that one will pop up and get elected once that nice Mrs. May gets her marching orders...

[Mowgli597]

....
However one good thing coming from all of this is that rightly or wrongly the decision to leave the EU has been made by the British people and not imposed upon us by some mad lunatic dictator.

Following the subject title of this thread that statement is not factually correct
The electorate (which did not include ALL “British people”, only those eligible and willing to vote, expressed a wish in a referendum to leave the EU.
The DECISION to leave will be a matter for parliament.

[erol]

I read this post two or three times and did not understand it, probably because of the three glasses of wine I have enjoyed, will try again in the morning lol

What I am saying / suggesting is that it seems to me that something has changed in the course of the Brexit 'national debate'. What has changed I suggest is the degree to which rhetoric,exaggeration, hyperbole and plain simple lies has replaced and become dominant over factual reality and truth. Not just in some fringe sections of society but at the core and almost across the board, from political leaders to the man in the street, from remainers to leavers to the indifferent. I am saying it is this trend that concerns me much more than worries over what the impact of Brexit on the UK will end up being. Truth, objective factual reality, just does not seem to matter any more.

I see examples of this contemptuous disregard for actual factual reality every where within the brexit debate, from all sides, and fear that it has become normalised and I fear for what the consequences of such will be going forward.

The claims that were plastered on the brexit battle bus are just one example of this disregard and contempt for reality. If that was the 'exception' then ok but I see that as the 'rule' and not just from political leaders but everywhere.

another example

At a social gathering not so long ago I found myself in discussion with a gentleman. Clearly we had very different perspectives and world views on everything from brexit to corbyn and much else besides, which is all fine. However at one point in the discussion the claim was made that the UK was one of only two net contributors to the EU budget. The claim just was not and is not factually true. The UK is the second largest net contributor to the EU budget after Germany but this had been turned in to one of only two net contributors to the budget. This should have been a simple matter of fact , yet for what must have been well over an hour my protagonist insisted that something that plainly and factually was not true was the case. Evidence in the form of resorting to the internet and even sources like the daily telegraph would not convince them. What suited their position was the claim that the UK was one of only two net contributors to the EU budget and that therefore was the 'reality'. My protagonist was an intelligent and charming and entertaining individual and indeed had in the past been a member of parliament in the UK but that we 'argued' about something that should have been a simple matter of fact as if it was a matter of 'opinion' let me rather dazed and bemused.

Is see this 'phenomenon' in casual and generally unchallenged claims posted on this forum. Claims like (to paraphrase) 'EU membership has been ruinous for the UK'. Just think about that for a moment. Not that EU membership has been bad for the UK, or more negative than positive but 'ruinous'. Seriously ? Dictionary definition of 'ruin' - 'the physical destruction or disintegration of something'. Look at the state of the UK in the period leading up to its entry in to the EEC, economically, socially politically and then compare it to the state of the UK in the years leading up to its exit from the EU, and ask yourself does the evidence support the claim that in that period the UK was 'ruined', that is physically destroyed ? Do you remember the state of the UK in say 1970 ? Economically ? Socially ? Politically ? The strikes, the social unrest, the power cuts, the label of the UK as the 'sick man of Europe', race riots, sectarian violence in NI, rampant inflation and on and on. For me the claim that the UK has been 'ruined' during the period in which it has been a member of the EEC/EU, if based on the factual evidence of its state as it entered the EEC compared to its state as it prepared to leave the EU, is clearly and undeniably just hyperbole and rhetoric divorced from actual reality. Yet this is exactly the kind of claim that is repeated over and over, on the television, in the press, in pubs and on fora like this one, by 'leaders' and the 'man in the street' alike. Such claims divorced from actual reality, on both sides of the debate, have become the norm and this seriously worries me.

I will when I have time, I am afraid, give some more examples later. Again they will be examples of typical 'leavers' claims but they could just as easily be claims of 'remainers'.

[erol]

However one good thing coming from all of this is that rightly or wrongly the decision to leave the EU has been made by the British people and not imposed upon us by some mad lunatic dictator.

It is interesting to me that our entry in to the EEC was not made as a result of a referendum. We were taken in to the EEC without a referendum by the conservative Heath government of 1970-74 who's electoral victory was a shock result at the time. The previous Wilson labour government had also tried to gain entry to the EEC for the UK, again with no recourse to a referendum, only to be vetoed by De Gaul (twice I think ?). At the time we joined both major political parties were seeking EEC entry for the UK, without any referendum and generally against the will of the people if polls of the time are to be believed. The referendum on EEC entry came in 1975 two years after we had already joined and was driven I would argue , somewhat ironically, more by the Labour Wilson government need to end divisions within his own party rather than any sincere desire to 'give people their say'.

[PoshinDevon]

....
However one good thing coming from all of this is that rightly or wrongly the decision to leave the EU has been made by the British people and not imposed upon us by some mad lunatic dictator.

Following the subject title of this thread that statement is not factually correct
The electorate (which did not include ALL “British people”, only those eligible and willing to vote, expressed a wish in a referendum to leave the EU.
The DECISION to leave will be a matter for parliament.

On the day of the Brexit vote there were around 46.5M who were eligible to vote. Of that number the number who turned out and voted was 72%. In any election the figure of 72% would be impressive. Of course I agree that not “all” the British people voted, however the onus for the outcome falls on those who are registered but did not vote for whatever reason. They are stuck with a decision which they did not choose but whose fault is that. Then there are those who are eligible to vote but did not register. Both of these categories cannot really complain about the final outcome.

Parliament will I am confident exercise the will of the people and the U.K. will leave the EU (Eventually).

[PoshinDevon]

Erol, whilst we voted differently re the Brexit referendum, I do agree with a lot of your points in message 7 with regards the rhetoric from both sides of the argument.

There is a long way to go yet but as someone who voted leave I am reasonably happy that “project fear” has to date not impacted heavily on the U.K. For each negative statement coming from those who want to remain in the EU, there is a counter positive statement from the leave side which just goes to show that this discussion will continue. Maybe in 10, 20 or 30 years time will we be able to look back and fully understand whether the decision to leave was the correct one. Who knows maybe the groundswell of opinion in the future will be that we really should be in the club and so the cycle will start again.

[Mowgli597]

Parliament will I am confident exercise the will of the people and the U.K. will leave the EU (Eventually).

The question now has become: what is meant by “LEAVE” the EU?
i.e. (in simplistic terms) a “hard” or a “soft” Brexit
I think this is at the heart of what the OP meant in this thread. What exactly did “the people” vote for?

[Keithcaley]

Or - what did they THINK that they were voting for?

[erol]

Erol, whilst we voted differently re the Brexit referendum, I do agree with a lot of your points in message 7 with regards the rhetoric from both sides of the argument.

As I say my concerns as to what the effects of Brexit itself may end up being are tiny compared to my concerns as to what the effect of the 'assault on truth' that has and continues, as far as I am concerned, to define the whole period.

[Keithcaley]

... and Mr Trump isn't helping, is he?

[pakora]

The truth is that it is easy to sell a phantasy when the reality is so bad, food banks, child poverty stagnant wages etc. a country ripe for the cure all snake oil salesmen to thrive. I don't blame people for being taken in by their vision of a land of milk and honey if only we leave the EU.
Now what we are beginning to see is the difficulties of isolating our selves from the rest of the world. Two of the themes from the leavers were the regulations coming from the EU and the Country being forced to obey the European Court rulings. Then look at a trade deal with another Country such as America. They have there own regulations ie Frankenstein food, hormone injected beef and chlorine washed chicken, and remember the USA when they tried to do a deal with Europe wanted secret courts to decide on rulings. What we see now from the British Government is a constant stream of vacuous comments trying to mask the reality of the impending chaos.

[erol]

another example of 'the assault on factual reality'

The idea that once we leave the EU will be finally able to 'secure our boarders' and deal with issues of 'immigration' that hitherto we had wanted to deal with but had been unable to tackle because of our membership of the EU.

The implication is that up until the point the UK joined the EEC in the 70's the UK, when it had total 'control of it's boarders', immigration in to the UK was limited and strictly controlled and it was only once we joined the EEC and we 'lost control of our boarders' did mass 'uncontrolled' immigration in to the UK start along with all problems and tensions that this caused in its wake. The very notion is entirely divorced from actual factual reality and yet it is a relentless and common theme, repeated over and over again. We must take back control of our boarders in order to be able to effectively manage and control immigration in to the UK.

It is undoubtedly true that the free movement of EU citizens implicit in EEC/EU membership has played a (relatively recent) partial role in terms of immigration in to the UK and the pressures and problems such causes but the idea that it was EU / EEC membership that caused such immigration in to the UK and the implicit corollary notion that therefore UK exit from the EU and 'taking back control of our boarders' is a fundamental requirement for us to be able to deal with the issue of 'immigration' is so divorced from actual factual reality that it is, to me, almost embarrassing to have to put down in text how divorced such notions are from factual reality. I say almost because that is what I am going to do.

Large scale immigration in to the UK and the pressures and social tensions it caused did not start when (and because) the UK joined the EEC in 1973. It started decades before that at a time when the UK had total and absolute control over its boarders. Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech was made in 1968, five years before the UK joined the EEC. In regards to all the major waves of post war immigration in to the UK all the way through to 2007 the UK had total control of its boarders, either outside the EEC/EU or inside it in regards to the waves of immigration from non EU countries, yet immigration continued none the less along with all the problems and pressures it created. Yet despite this patent reality the idea that once we 'leave the EU and take back control of our boarders' we will finally be 'free' to deal with the 'problem' of immigration in the UK is a dominant theme in the Brexit debate. An alien visitor listening to such claims could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that other than for the UK joining the EU in 1973 and 'loosing control of it's boarders' there would be no immigration problem in the UK at all - despite this clearly being patent nonsense totally divorced from actual reality.

Mass immigration in to the UK started long before the UK joined the EEC and 'lost control of its boarders'.

Mass immigration from non EU countries in to the UK continued throughout the period in which the UK was part of the EU/EEC despite the fact that we had total control over such immigration.

Is it really credible then to suppose that once we leave the EU such immigration will enter some new era of restriction and control and limitation the like of which has not ever been seen before in the UK ?

[turtle]

As you can see from these figures "mass" immigration as Erol says started long before 1973 ?.....Possibly more untruths being told here.?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statis ... statistics

[Keithcaley]

I'm sorry turtle, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say, as the link that you posted does not show immigration figures (as opposed to 'net migration' figures) for any year prior to 1991.

Could you please explain the point that you are making?

Thanks!

[erol]

As you can see from these figures "mass" immigration as Erol says started long before 1973 ?.....Possibly more untruths being told here.?

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statis ... statistics

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/path ... ration.htm

[turtle]

Keith, the graph shows net migration to the UK from 1975 which at the time was below the zero line,...from the late 80's to today there has been significant migration to the UK which Erol disputes (I think)?

[erol]

Keith, the graph shows net migration to the UK from 1975 which at the time was below the zero line,...from the late 80's to today there has been significant migration to the UK which Erol disputes (I think)?

I do not dispute that there has been significant net migration in to the UK from the late 80's to today. I dispute the notion that the kind of problems and social tensions caused by mass immigration in to the UK are a result of the UK 'loosing control of its boarders' on joining the EEC in 1973 and can only be solved by it 'regaining control of its boarders' by leaving the EU. I accept that membership of the EEC / EU and its principals of free movement of EU citizens within the EU has compounded the problem but it is a problem that was there long before we joined the EU and one that I personally have no doubt would still exist within the UK today if we had never joined the EEC in the first place

[Keithcaley]

Keith, the graph shows net migration to the UK from 1975 which at the time was below the zero line,...from the late 80's to today there has been significant migration to the UK which Erol disputes (I think)?

Hi turtle, I understand what you're saying, but I think that we must be interpreting the graphs differently...

Erol was talking about immigration, not 'net migration' - which subtracts the number that leave from the number that arrive, and gives you no idea at all of the numbers of fresh immigrants.

If I could just illustrate this, the top graph shows that in 1993 for instance 'net migration' was minus 1000 - does this mean that there weren't any immigrants in that year, and that the 'minus 1000' figure means that 1000 foreigners actually left the shores of Blighty?

Well, no - it doesn't!

If you take a look at the bottom graph, which shows immigration and emigration separately, you'll see that in 1993, there were in fact 266,000 immigrants - foreigners from abroad coming to live and work in the UK, and the reason that the top graph doesn't show this is that almost the same amount of people left, so that the 'net migration' figure really gives no indication of the number actually arriving in any particular year.

I would be interested if you can show me figures which do actually give immigration for 1973 or earlier.

[turtle]

Erol, how can you say that mass immigration started well before we joined the EU even your graph is in line with mine that shows the problem really took hold in the late 80's & 90's and that fits with my own experiences growing up around that time in a big city.
I think your analysis of the changing of demographics and social issues which in your words are compounded by the EU was going on long before we joined the EU is somewhat fanciful.

Can I also add my vote to leave had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration however I do believe its a problem that needs attention.

[erol]

And a final (for now) example. From Stephen Day's recent Cyprus Today article.

"an independent Britain, free from Brussels bureaucracy, free to return to its historically successful roots, once again trading freely across the world, will be one of the 21st century's great success stories"

On reading this I have to ask the question, exactly in what period of history has England or Britain or the UK ever 'traded freely accross the world' such that we can. once free of the EU, return to it again ?

Is he perhaps talking of the period from post world war II to when we joined the EEC in 1973 ? A period that indeed saw some remarkable economic success in the UK from the late 50's to mid 60's but that ended with the UK being described as the 'sick man of Europe' and an economic 'basket case' and which in any case could hardly be describe as a period when the UK 'traded freely across the globe', as during this period the UK maintained many tariffs and import duties on many commodities from countless countries across the world.

Or perhaps he is harking back to pre WWII times when the UK was a colonial power ? When our idea of 'free trade' meant being free to take control of over countries entirely, decimate their manufacturing industries to the advantage of British manufacturers ? Or the 'free trade' that involved capturing people in their 10s and 100s of thousands from Africa and shipping and selling them as slaves to work on plantations around the world ? Or the 'free trade' of compelling china to allow unhindered the import and sale of vast quantities of opium in to China by British commercial companies, by sailing gun boats up their river and threatening to shell entire towns if they did not agree to such trade? Is this the kind of golden age of Britain 'trading freely across the globe' that he is harking back to ? If so I doubt such a return is actually possible.

I am no historian and maybe I am mistaken but it seems to me that the truth, if truth matters at all, is that Britain has NEVER 'tradely freely across the globe' if by 'free' you mean reciprocally without tariffs and restrictions and quotas.

Now I am not saying that once the UK leaves the EU it will not be able to replace all the trading arrangements it currently benefits from and was a party to negotiating as an EU member with bilateral deals of equal or better terms and add more new deals in addition to those. Maybe it can and will achieve such post Brexit, maybe it will not - I really do not know. I am however saying that this whole notion that we used to be some kind of exemplar nation of 'free trading globally' (with free meaning reciprocal tariff / barrier free trade) and that our joining the the EU ended this status and our leaving will and is a requirement to return us to such a status, is for me just another example of contempt for actual factual reality based on evidence that I have been talking about (and that is common from those on both sides of the Brexit debate as far as I am concerned).

[turtle]

I understand your point Keith but are you suggesting that upwards of 2m Brits came back to live in the UK from 2000-2017, yes some of that 2m will have but my money is on a small number not a large one.

I am sure Erol will tell us both the answer to the 1973 question.

Anyway I think I need to back off a little before I am accused of high jacking the thread I will read with interest and watch the rugby...

[turtle]

And a final (for now) example. From Stephen Day's recent Cyprus Today article.

"an independent Britain, free from Brussels bureaucracy, free to return to its historically successful roots, once again trading freely across the world, will be one of the 21st century's great success stories"

On reading this I have to ask the question, exactly in what period of history has England or Britain or the UK ever 'traded freely accross the world' such that we can. once free of the EU, return to it again ?

Is he perhaps talking of the period from post world war II to when we joined the EEC in 1973 ? A period that indeed saw some remarkable economic success in the UK from the late 50's to mid 60's but that ended with the UK being described as the 'sick man of Europe' and an economic 'basket case' and which in any case could hardly be describe as a period when the UK 'traded freely across the globe', as during this period the UK maintained many tariffs and import duties on many commodities from countless countries across the world.

Or perhaps he is harking back to pre WWII times when the UK was a colonial power ? When our idea of 'free trade' meant being free to take control of over countries entirely, decimate their manufacturing industries to the advantage of British manufacturers ? Or the 'free trade' that involved capturing people in their 10s and 100s of thousands from Africa and shipping and selling them as slaves to work on plantations around the world ? Or the 'free trade' of compelling china to allow unhindered the import and sale of vast quantities of opium in to China by British commercial companies, by sailing gun boats up their river and threatening to shell entire towns if they did not agree to such trade? Is this the kind of golden age of Britain 'trading freely across the globe' that he is harking back to ? If so I doubt such a return is actually possible.

I am no historian and maybe I am mistaken but it seems to me that the truth, if truth matters at all, is that Britain has NEVER 'tradely freely across the globe' if by 'free' you mean reciprocally without tariffs and restrictions and quotas.

Now I am not saying that once the UK leaves the EU it will not be able to replace all the trading arrangements it currently benefits from and was a party to negotiating as an EU member with bilateral deals of equal or better terms and add more new deals in addition to those. Maybe it can and will achieve such post Brexit, maybe it will not - I really do not know. I am however saying that this whole notion that we used to be some kind of exemplar nation of 'free trading globally' (with free meaning reciprocal tariff / barrier free trade) and that our joining the the EU ended this status and our leaving will and is a requirement to return us to such a status, is for me just another example of contempt for actual factual reality based on evidence that I have been talking about (and that is common from those on both sides of the Brexit debate as far as I am concerned).

Lets not forget Erol it does cost us £9b to trade freely at the moment !

[Keithcaley]

I understand your point Keith but are you suggesting that upwards of 2m Brits came back to live in the UK from 2000-2017, yes some of that 2m will have but my money is on a small number not a large one.

I am sure Erol will tell us both the answer to the 1973 question.

Anyway I think I need to back off a little before I am accused of high jacking the thread I will read with interest and watch the rugby...

The Rugby will probably be more illuminating!

Have a good weekend...

[erol]

Lets not forget Erol it does cost us £9b to trade freely at the moment !

Firstly thank you for using the net figure (what we pay in after the rebate and minus what is 'paid back' in terms of direct EU spending to and in the UK).

This approx net figure is not really just a payment 'for free trade' and of course for the UK to renegotiate bilateral agreements with the 50 or so countries needed to replace the trade deals we have as part of the EU will cost money. I do however accept that whilst part of that 9bn contribution is effectively to cover costs of things that the UK benefits from as an EU member, like the trade deals, some of it is also designed, as I understand it, to be a 'redistribution' mechanism. Much like all the tax income raised in say London is not spent exclusively in London but is spread to other areas. As far as a 'leave' supporters argument is 'we should leave the EU because being part of it as a richer member state means we pay some (not 9bn but some amount) as an effective 'subsidy' to less rich members states, I would say that is a valid argument that is not contemptuous of actual factual reality. Unlike for comparison the 'battle bus' claim that we send £350 million a week to the EU which to me was entirely contemptuous of actual factual reality.

[turtle]

Erol, I had you down as the voice of reason yet you only concentrate on the one sided argument of remain ?
I and many more leavers accept that lies, fibs , falsies were said on the campaign but you only concentrate on one side so here are 10 whoppers from the remain fibbers..... Care to comment ?

Leave Lies? Remainers Need To Look In The Mirror
Recently, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, blamed the Brexit vote on 40 years of lies and the lies of 'Leave' campaigners. Juncker is correct in one sense, there were many lies during the EU Referendum campaign, however these lies were from the 'Remain' side. The so-called lies from Leavers are a figment of the federalist's imagination.

The UK gives the EU a gross contribution of £350 million a week. This is not a lie, and it is an amount which could be spent on the NHS if the UK Government so wished. These are usually touted as lies, but this stems from 'Remain' campaigners being unable to tell the difference between the words 'gross' and 'net' as well as the difference between the words 'could' and 'will'.

In reality the lies came from the 'Remain' campaign.

European Council President Donald Tusk, said western political civilisation would be destroyed if the UK voted 'Leave'. As I am sitting here writing this article, and as you are currently reading this, it is safe to say western political civilisation has not ended. Therefore, we must conclude this was a 'Remain' lie.

David Cameron implied in a speech about the "serried rows of white headstones" that World War 3 would be upon us if Brexit occurred. The last time I checked the UK had not invaded Poland or any other country, and therefore we must conclude this was a lie.

- ADVERTISEMENT -
George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. To date, no changes to the planned tax rates or public spending have been implemented. So, another lie, and thankfully after his sacking Osborne is no longer in a position create his 'punishment budget'.

Despite Anna Soubry's claim to the contrary on a recent Question Time appearance, Remainers did suggest there would be an immediate Brexit recession. No recession to date, in fact the OECD now believes the UK economy will grow 1.8% this year, up 0.1% on its pre-referendum estimate. Even Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, now admits he is "quietly optimistic" about Brexit. Lie number four.

3 million people in the UK will lose their jobs was the fictitious figure banded about. However, in July the claimant count fell by 8,600 to 763,600, despite an expected rise of 9,500. Another lie.

"A dangerous fantasy" is how Nick Clegg described Nigel Farage's claim of EU plans to create an army. Barely three months on from the Referendum, Juncker has proposed an EU Army. I'm looking forward to Nick Clegg's next apology video like the one he made after his last whopper.

We were told companies would leave the UK in their droves, especially in the car industry. There is no sign of this, and UK car manufacturing achieving its 12th successive month of growth in July, with production passing one million units in seven months for the first time in 12 years. Lie number 7.

David Cameron said he wouldn't resign as Prime Minister if he lost the Referendum vote. Enough said.

The former Prime Minister also tried to claim the UK could manage its immigration policy while inside the EU. Why are 'Remain' campaigners insisting we start to control immigration in any Brexit deal then? Because we cannot control EU immigration now, proving Cameron was lying.

Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing. Our new Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place. Lie number 10.

This is 10 of many lies spouted by the 'Remain' campaign during the EU referendum. It is about time us Brexiteers challenged this ridiculous narrative of leave lies and remain truths. We voted 'Leave' for control over the laws of this country, and the patronising suggestion we are gullible idiots is quite frankly ridiculous. Remain campaigners should look in the mirror if they want to find a liar. The sooner we Get Britain Out of the EU, the better.

[erol]

Erol, I had you down as the voice of reason yet you only concentrate on the one sided argument of remain ?
I and many more leavers accept that lies, fibs , falsies were said on the campaign but you only concentrate on one side so here are 10 whoppers from the remain fibbers..... Care to comment ?

It is true that the specific examples I have given of 'contempt for truth' are all cases of 'leavers' doing so but the core 'point' I was and am trying to get across is indeed that such has been true from both sides of the argument, which is why I titled the thread '(Brexit but not really)'. The point I am trying to make and encourage discussion about is not really Brexit itself but how, as it seems to me, so much of the debate, not just from the margins but from the core, from all sides, has been and is seemingly divorced from factual reality. So whilst my specific examples have been one sided, in my defence I would also point out that I have consistently and from the opening post repeatedly said such behaviour is seen on both sides.

As far as commenting on the specific examples of 'remainer lies' as listed by Mattew Ellery that you have copied and pasted here I would agree that many (though not quite all) are indeed examples of the very point I was and am trying to make, that the whole 'debate' has been and continues to be characterised by a level of 'contempt for truth' the like of which I have never seen before, not just from the margins and not just from one camp or predominately one camp. So once again I find myself having to thank you Turtle for bringing the topic back to this core point for me. This is not about 'leavers lied more than remainers' (or visa versa), though I accept that my choice of examples may have given that impression. It is about 'what is the consequence of all sides being guilty of such 'lying'.

Now it may be that I am just mistaken in my impression that the whole debate over Brexit is characterised by a level of contempt for the truth (from leavers and remainers alike) that is greater than seen previously. Maybe such 'debate' has always been like this but for some reason or other I have only just noticed it now. That is possible but it does not feel that way to me. It does feel to me that something 'new' is going on.

It is also possible that my feeling above is essentially correct but that the 'phenomenon' is a temporary aberration and that once Brexit starts to happen and get implemented things will return to a more calm, more measured more rational level of debate that does not involve contempt for truth and factual reality to any where near the same degree at such a mainstream level from all sides. I certainly and sincerely hope this is the case.

However my fear remains that I am not mistaken that something new and different is going on here and rather than it being a temporary aberration that will in due course fade away it is actually a trend that will continue into the medium and long terms. This is my fear and my question is if this is the case what are the consequences of such a continuing trend ? To which my answer would be little to nothing good for anyone as far as I can see.

[waddo]

Erol, Do you not think that this growth of lies and rumours is exacerbated by news agencies throughout the country - and indeed the World - in an attempt to make their own particular headlines more "Juicy" to the general public and thereby sell more product? In the past 11 years, since I left the UK for good, I have seen the unprecedented growth of the use of Political Correctness (PC) become publicised in such a manner that it now appears that the common person in the street is reluctant to voice any form of opinion on any subject whatsoever - perhaps sport is still mostly free of this - for fear of being castigated by the press or indeed taken to court for a miss spoken word or two. The right to have freedom of speech is gone forever and has been replaced by the right to lie!

There are words in common use now, such as "redacted" that previously only appeared in Spy films or books, the coverall word for anything that needs to be hidden from plain view! The Freedom of Information Act (FOI) can now be used as a weapon to beat anyone with. Many people live in fear of sending email's and having their privacy invaded and all of their data made public. Social media is used as blackmail and puts pressure on it's own users - if the younger generation is "unfriended" by someone else then it causes extreme anxiety - it has become a computer driven World where nobody is willing to tell the truth for fear of retribution! It is used by those who can now hide in the shadows and invent "Facts" without fear of discovery!

I can personally see no end to it all and only growth of the current malaise that effects almost all people. Whilst there will still be debate on forums such as this people can still air their views but even those will be "monitored" and adjusted for fear that a casual visitor to any forum may take legal action against the forum owner for a word or phrase that the visitor feels has upset them - it is a sad situation.

[turtle]

Erol, Do you not think that this growth of lies and rumours is exacerbated by news agencies throughout the country - and indeed the World - in an attempt to make their own particular headlines more "Juicy" to the general public and thereby sell more product? In the past 11 years, since I left the UK for good, I have seen the unprecedented growth of the use of Political Correctness (PC) become publicised in such a manner that it now appears that the common person in the street is reluctant to voice any form of opinion on any subject whatsoever - perhaps sport is still mostly free of this - for fear of being castigated by the press or indeed taken to court for a miss spoken word or two. The right to have freedom of speech is gone forever and has been replaced by the right to lie!

There are words in common use now, such as "redacted" that previously only appeared in Spy films or books, the coverall word for anything that needs to be hidden from plain view! The Freedom of Information Act (FOI) can now be used as a weapon to beat anyone with. Many people live in fear of sending email's and having their privacy invaded and all of their data made public. Social media is used as blackmail and puts pressure on it's own users - if the younger generation is "unfriended" by someone else then it causes extreme anxiety - it has become a computer driven World where nobody is willing to tell the truth for fear of retribution! It is used by those who can now hide in the shadows and invent "Facts" without fear of discovery!

I can personally see no end to it all and only growth of the current malaise that effects almost all people. Whilst there will still be debate on forums such as this people can still air their views but even those will be "monitored" and adjusted for fear that a casual visitor to any forum may take legal action against the forum owner for a word or phrase that the visitor feels has upset them - it is a sad situation.

Top post Waddo.....and bang on the money.

[Mimi2]

Please just get over it! The majority voted to leave the EU. No amount of moaning will change that fact. We will make our bed and lie on it as usual. We are British we will survive!!!

[SatelliteCyprus]

Having been in business for more than 40 years (14 of them in Northern Cyprus), I have had to 'adapt' many times to new rules, laws and market conditions and many other 'external' factors that affected business owners.

Many of us moved from the UK to live in Northern Cyprus to get away from the 'conditions' that we were working/living/ under and/or experiencing and we 'adapted' to life here.

In control of my own future and confident of my ability to 'adapt', I am not worried and neither it 'seems', are the majority of people living in the UK who voted for a new future.

I am certainly not going to worry about what 'might' happen, or waste any time trying to convince others to look at things the way I do, or by trying to make myself look superior, or clever by dissecting what is mostly speculation and conjecture.

Naysayers need to get some self confidence and trust in their own ability to deal with whatever conditions are thrown at them, but of course, if they are nice and cosy in their seat on the European Gravy Train and coming out of Europe is going to make their seat uncomfortable, my advice to them is to stop whinging and better spend the time that they are wasting, worrying, eyeing up the empty seats that are available on the new BritRail Turbo Link to the rest of the World.

[turtle]

Lets not forget Erol it does cost us £9b to trade freely at the moment !

Firstly thank you for using the net figure (what we pay in after the rebate and minus what is 'paid back' in terms of direct EU spending to and in the UK).

This approx net figure is not really just a payment 'for free trade' and of course for the UK to renegotiate bilateral agreements with the 50 or so countries needed to replace the trade deals we have as part of the EU will cost money. I do however accept that whilst part of that 9bn contribution is effectively to cover costs of things that the UK benefits from as an EU member, like the trade deals, some of it is also designed, as I understand it, to be a 'redistribution' mechanism. Much like all the tax income raised in say London is not spent exclusively in London but is spread to other areas. As far as a 'leave' supporters argument is 'we should leave the EU because being part of it as a richer member state means we pay some (not 9bn but some amount) as an effective 'subsidy' to less rich members states, I would say that is a valid argument that is not contemptuous of actual factual reality. Unlike for comparison the 'battle bus' claim that we send £350 million a week to the EU which to me was entirely contemptuous of actual factual reality.

Thank you Erol for acknowledging that your comments about “lying” are generally a bit one sided and are suggesting that it’s the leave campaign who are the ones that are fibbing and is simply not true.
Yes I did copy and paste the 10 “Whoppers” the only reason for this is that I find it is sometimes harder to challenge what is written by a third party when trying to get a point across.
I don’t think personally that the political landscape has changed much at all over the last 20/30 yrs as all politicians bend and twist the truth to suit their own ends and I don’t think it’s any secret that I vote Tory but I will say honestly that I think they are not doing a particular good job at the moment but on the other hand we now have soundbites coming from Labour that we will all be living in utopia should they get in without telling us how it will be paid for….not a lie as such but shall we say not telling the total truth?
I have to agree that over the next few years and when all the hysterical statements have subsided things should return to a more balanced debate as truth will then be out and it will be harder to justify the lies when that happens.
I can see things changing in the political arena as over the last few years Labour have totally changed what it stands for and is far more left than it has ever been and there is lots of middle ground Labour MP’s that are waiting in the wings to throw the left out and I predict this will happen and also the Tories have never been more split which will create a much more open and challenging set of MP’s going forward…..whether it will stop them lying to us remains to be seen.

[kibsolar1999]

start with: it does cost us £9b to trade freely at the moment !”

And you think that is a lot? Obviously... but thats only (approx) 0,46% of the BIP and, in practical numbers, 50 eurocent per head a day. İ would be more then happy to pay 2,50 lira a day to get everything i need tax and customs free into the TRNC and... without hassle. And not counted here are the advantages the UK has ..here: exports. “free trade” also means, eg, free trade for financial services, access for airlines to the EU market.. and so on....
From this 50 cents a day , you even support, eg, the baltic countries.. which have a border to russia.

İ think there is a difference between the “lies of the brexiteers” and the “lies of the remainers”.
Very often the so called “lies from the remainers” are are out of context and or are fake news and or alternative facts by the brexiteers. Populism, which also made Trump happen. Usually brexiteers comment their own lies with “the other ones also lied” only.
eg,
- “ European Council President Donald Tusk, said western political civilisation would be destroyed if the UK voted 'Leave' .
it was not a “w”, it was a “c” . could. (bbc, 13.06.2016)
- “David Cameron implied in a speech about the "serried rows of white headstones" that World War 3 would be upon us if Brexit occurred”
when did he say that? İ only can see telegraph, 09.05.2016, David Cameron: Brexit could lead to Europe descending into war.
Again a “c” replaced by a “w”.
- To show a political will is.. good. Or not? but when you do not have support (any more)....what can you do? so, David Camerons resignation was not “a lie”.
- “George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. To date, no changes to the planned tax rates or public spending have been implemented”
No, not to date. Brexit did not happen yet. And if they (the gov) would, Brexit would be dead before an agreement with the EU is reached. Instead more and more debts.
- “Universities wanted the UK to remain in the EU because leaving would result in Horizon 2020 funding disappearing”
Horizon 2020 is EU funded and in case of Brexit this funding from the EU will disappear. That is a fact, not a lie. İf the new Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has agreed to keep this funding in place, then he surely also explained how much it will cost and who pays for it, see above: public spendings. (till end of 2016, the UK received 3 billion euros).
- "A dangerous fantasy" is how Nick Clegg described Nigel Farage's claim of EU plans to create an army. Barely three months on from the Referendum, Juncker has proposed an EU Army”.
Of course that was and is “dangerous”.. dangerous for the armaments group (because of, eg, pooling, sharing) . Thats why they keep lobbiying the “neccissity of the national independence”...
PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation.. is (for now) not an “european army”.. this is a long long way to go... Pesco is the answer to Brexit (and to Trump).
Btw, Pesco is open, even after brexit, for the UK to join. We will see.

Whom and how you elect in your country is your business. İ never was a supporter of our own gov (Merkel), nor iam a supporter of Juncker. But this, and much more, is no reason to vote against the EU.
That Erols “hints” about the position and the role of the UK in pre EC-EU times or pre WW2 times are obviously not worth a comment , seem to show that it is time that the whole of the UK
Need To Look In The Mirror
... and if you have time while doing so (or not) , pls tell the “rest of the world” : here EU, how to handle the Ireland problem. Not that, at the end, ireland ends up like cyprus with areas where “eu law can not be implemented”. 
Time passes by and the situation does not go any better... and nevertheless Erol mentioned “something new and different is going on here” (not to the good, i guess) , the UK seem to be stuck somewhere in 2014 or much earlier..
Just updating and reading the newest posts... to my opimion “things” will not return to a more balanced debate for a longer time.....

[turtle]

Excuse my ignorance but what is "BIP" ?
If you divide £9b with the UK population I think it's a little more than 0.50cents...correct me if I'm wrong please.

[kibsolar1999]

sorry. BIP is a more german term... GDP.
no, it is a little less.
9b devided by 65m = 138 (GBP) * 1,15 to the euro = 160 Euro per head per year, devided by 365 days = 44 eurocent per head per day.

[waz-24-7]

Democracy did not cease upon the result of the referendum.
Parliament will decide upon some key issues.

The clear debate within political circles is HARD or SOFT BREXIT.
Do we remain in the Customs Union? The single market economy?
What happens with the Irish border?

Continued uncertainty is damaging the Country and its prospects.
Remember that at this moment we are still in the EU and its business almost as usual except of course the decline in confidence and of sterling.

I remain of the opinion that many voted on things they did not really understand, some ignored advice, many were sold down the river on immigration and health service financial reform.
The cost to be outside the EU, customs union and single market will be massive.
The softer the Brexit the better.
I hope it goes to the vote.
Could be that labour get my vote as they now seem to be seeing the folly of a hard Brexit.