Europe - in or out - RR Votes

[Banquo]

Are you saying the Remain campaign were telling the truth, the whole and nothing but the truth? They didn't. For example, Osborne cherry picked the Treasury forecasts - a department he stripped of those very powers and gave to the OBR as they couldn't be impartial - and sold the very worst of them, ie the highly unlikely worst case scenario, as fact and then span them to sound even worse. He then promised an emergency budget would definately be enacted should we vote for Brexit. If anybody fell for that then they were duped.

Fair point, but they were pretty clear on their position on the general economy, and backed up generally- and I was pretty clear they were forecasts rather than anything else. Brexit told outright porkies. Maybe that looked a marginal difference to you, but not to me- as I said clear to me, can't speak for anyone else.

Osborne's were porkies as he presented them as facts, which they weren't, and then span them even further to suit his argument. I'll agree that Leave and their £350 million was the biggest porky of the lot, though.

Let's be honest, it's been a skip full of **** from both sides with Leave's skip being slightly bigger and smellier.

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

[Mellsblue]

Fair point, but they were pretty clear on their position on the general economy, and backed up generally- and I was pretty clear they were forecasts rather than anything else. Brexit told outright porkies. Maybe that looked a marginal difference to you, but not to me- as I said clear to me, can't speak for anyone else.

Osborne's were porkies as he presented them as facts, which they weren't, and then span them even further to suit his argument. I'll agree that Leave and their £350 million was the biggest porky of the lot, though.

Let's be honest, it's been a skip full of **** from both sides with Leave's skip being slightly bigger and smellier.

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

[Banquo]

Osborne's were porkies as he presented them as facts, which they weren't, and then span them even further to suit his argument. I'll agree that Leave and their £350 million was the biggest porky of the lot, though.

Let's be honest, it's been a skip full of **** from both sides with Leave's skip being slightly bigger and smellier.

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn and Farron. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

d'accord. Fiddling while Rome burns, or Brussels, or in Bojo's case vanity. Dave may have shafted himself, but he's also shafted Corbyn, BoJo and Gove.

[Digby]

The public have been duped and sold short. Brexit leaders have lied. Its that simple. Shame on them but equally shame on the remainers who failed to properly confront the lies, misinformation and half truths.

The referendum is the low point of our politics in my life time. Its been utterly depressing.

There were valid reasons for both leaving and remaining, and goodness knows we needed an informed, intelligent debate about how we would make our way in the world. But that didnt happen.

Some of the public have been duped by Brexit, some didn't listen to Remain (who were pretty clear from where I was sitting), and some had a principled objection to the EU, imo failing to distinguish that whilst the EU is a shoddy organisation, being a member of it wasn't entirely a bad thing.

I'd also add the people who made real difference weren't voting FOR anything, they were voting AGAINST the establishment.

That's pretty much where I come down on it. I've all manner of objections to much of the EU structure, the areas it extends into and who runs it, but I'd rather have stayed and worked to fix the problem from within, and not the joke problems that Cameron wasted time on in his last EU talks. I'm also quite sure there some people who voted on the principle of the UK being sovereign, and whilst I don't on balance come to the same conclusion I can respect such conclusion, I'm also pretty confident that's not what drove the masses of the leave voters.

I don't think it's reasonable to try and avoid following through on a leave vote now, whether we can in future negotiate some alternative agreement with the EU and want shape that would take I don't know, but that's now the aim even if it be decades in the making.

[Banquo]

The public have been duped and sold short. Brexit leaders have lied. Its that simple. Shame on them but equally shame on the remainers who failed to properly confront the lies, misinformation and half truths.

The referendum is the low point of our politics in my life time. Its been utterly depressing.

There were valid reasons for both leaving and remaining, and goodness knows we needed an informed, intelligent debate about how we would make our way in the world. But that didnt happen.

Some of the public have been duped by Brexit, some didn't listen to Remain (who were pretty clear from where I was sitting), and some had a principled objection to the EU, imo failing to distinguish that whilst the EU is a shoddy organisation, being a member of it wasn't entirely a bad thing.

I'd also add the people who made real difference weren't voting FOR anything, they were voting AGAINST the establishment.

That's pretty much where I come down on it. I've all manner of objections to much of the EU structure, the areas it extends into and who runs it, but I'd rather have stayed and worked to fix the problem from within, and not the joke problems that Cameron wasted time on in his last EU talks. I'm also quite sure there some people who voted on the principle of the UK being sovereign, and whilst I don't on balance come to the same conclusion I can respect such conclusion, I'm also pretty confident that's not what drove the masses of the leave voters.

I don't think it's reasonable to try and avoid following through on a leave vote now, whether we can in future negotiate some alternative agreement with the EU and want shape that would take I don't know, but that's now the aim even if it be decades in the making.

If I wasn't pretty vested in getting this sorted out quickly and well (some hope), then the sight of Dave ducking pressing the article 50 button and handing it over to BoJo/Gove and them crapping themselves when they realise what that means, would be funny.

It's much the same hilarity I'd have felt if Scotland had voted for independence...that oh fck moment on Salmond's face when faced with the enormity of what needed to be done intellectually and actual work.

[Digby]

Some of the public have been duped by Brexit, some didn't listen to Remain (who were pretty clear from where I was sitting), and some had a principled objection to the EU, imo failing to distinguish that whilst the EU is a shoddy organisation, being a member of it wasn't entirely a bad thing.

I'd also add the people who made real difference weren't voting FOR anything, they were voting AGAINST the establishment.

That's pretty much where I come down on it. I've all manner of objections to much of the EU structure, the areas it extends into and who runs it, but I'd rather have stayed and worked to fix the problem from within, and not the joke problems that Cameron wasted time on in his last EU talks. I'm also quite sure there some people who voted on the principle of the UK being sovereign, and whilst I don't on balance come to the same conclusion I can respect such conclusion, I'm also pretty confident that's not what drove the masses of the leave voters.

I don't think it's reasonable to try and avoid following through on a leave vote now, whether we can in future negotiate some alternative agreement with the EU and want shape that would take I don't know, but that's now the aim even if it be decades in the making.

If I wasn't pretty vested in getting this sorted out quickly and well (some hope), then the sight of Dave ducking pressing the article 50 button and handing it over to BoJo/Gove and them crapping themselves when they realise what that means, would be funny.

It's much the same hilarity I'd have felt if Scotland had voted for independence...that oh fck moment on Salmond's face when faced with the enormity of what needed to be done intellectually and actual work.

I'd almost have enjoyed watching Salmond square his budget based on oil soaring in price with the deficit and trying to gain entry to the EU. Save yes it is actually peoples lives they're screwing around with rather than it being a Woody Allen film.

I can have great fun this week with my bank, and I'll remain in no way vexed that having won the vote they've no practical idea what they want to negotiate, and they'll not even start looking for weeks/months. For me they should have already sent of details to the EU saying what they want to negotiate on, and they should be ready to then start the talks within the next 10 days

[Eugene Wrayburn]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

WT I think the answer to your election fraud question is that this wasn't election so the relevant Act doesn't apply.

I've seen some interesting rumblings on the BBC about the Scottish Parliament and suggestions that it has to give it's consent. That could make things very interesting indeed because I can't see any way that they will or any political imperative for them to do so. I can't even see any levers that the Westminster Parliament could pull to make them.

[Banquo]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

WT I think the answer to your election fraud question is that this wasn't election so the relevant Act doesn't apply.

I've seen some interesting rumblings on the BBC about the Scottish Parliament and suggestions that it has to give it's consent. That could make things very interesting indeed because I can't see any way that they will or any political imperative for them to do so. I can't even see any levers that the Westminster Parliament could pull to make them.

Yep, there's a lot in Pandora's box, and that's the most worrying part for me.

[jared_7]

Osborne's were porkies as he presented them as facts, which they weren't, and then span them even further to suit his argument. I'll agree that Leave and their £350 million was the biggest porky of the lot, though.

Let's be honest, it's been a skip full of **** from both sides with Leave's skip being slightly bigger and smellier.

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

[Mellsblue]

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.
If he was telling the truth then he didn't do a very good job of getting his message across. As the details fall out, it seems the demographic that swung it was 'white van man', as Emily Thornberry would put it, and the long term unemployed. Osborne and Cameron shouting GDP etc etc at them wasn't going to win them over but the leader of the Labour Party may have......if he'd tried.

[Mellsblue]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

[Banquo]

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

correct....but the thought of power...

[Banquo]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

its at least half right...and I assume you mean the campaign headliners....even accepting your 'model' is what is being presented.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

It is potentially a fact. It's a prediction. It was presented as a prediction. That is not a lie. I can't be arsed to continue to argue the semantic difference because you either get it or you don't.

[jared_7]

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

Fair point, deep down doesn't want in the EU. He has had to go remain a) because its the Tories in power and them leading the charge out of Europe is a concern, and b) to pander to the Blairites, and even then it looks as though that hasn't kept the backstabbing vultures at bay.

On the first point he said as much, he was pretty open that most of the issues the Leave campaign was using as their reasons for leaving was actually due to the Tory government, not the EU. Austerity was a Tory choice.

My point was its a shame that non-hyperbolied opinions are counted as "useless" and "insufficient"

[Sandydragon]

I viewed the Leave campaign as being a lot more scabrous frankly, but that was just bias confirmation maybe. Leave told big lies and stuck to them. Remain presented a barrage of information, some of which was fact and some opinion, and it was possible to discern- though admittedly you'd need to have a lot of time and will to do so. Osborne's behaviour is meat and drink on here

It is and I've just picked him out as it was the piece of campaigning that most annoyed me from Remain. Then again at least he bothered, unlike Corbyn who was halfhearted, sorry 7.5/10, at best and Farron who went awol. I don't think any of the major players on either side have come out well from all of this. And unless they get their act together sharpish the country as whole won't either.

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Months ago I was concerned that this referendum was going to be less about fact and more about personality and spin. Nothing in the campaign changed my mind on that.

[Mellsblue]

There's a world of difference between pushing a worst case scenario and outright lying. Hitherto there's been very very little outright lying in British politics and it's tended to be very badly received. Now we can expect an awful lot more outright lying because it seems to work.

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

It is potentially a fact. It's a prediction. It was presented as a prediction. That is not a lie. I can't be arsed to continue to argue the semantic difference because you either get it or you don't.

I do get, trust me. It's down to perception, it's subjective. To me it was presented as a fact by the Remain politicians - would vs could - it was missing the crucial word, ie potentially. You and I both know that it's not a fact but then you and I are probably more engaged in this than the average voter and you and I probably did more research than listen to a few sound bites that made it sound like fact. Just as you and I both know that the £350 million a week is a truthful figure but was presented incorrectly to make it in to a lie.

[Mellsblue]

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

Fair point, deep down doesn't want in the EU. He has had to go remain a) because its the Tories in power and them leading the charge out of Europe is a concern, and b) to pander to the Blairites, and even then it looks as though that hasn't kept the backstabbing vultures at bay.

On the first point he said as much, he was pretty open that most of the issues the Leave campaign was using as their reasons for leaving was actually due to the Tory government, not the EU. Austerity was a Tory choice.

My point was its a shame that non-hyperbolied opinions are counted as "useless" and "insufficient"

It wasn't his opinions that were useless or insufficient it was his sheer lack of engagement. If he or indeed anyone from Labour had got the message across that they accept there are problems with the EU but that the time to vote against it was by voting Labour at the next election then there might not have been a vacuum for Farage and the £350 million lie to step in to.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It wasn't pushed it was presented as fact.

From the BBC:
'Writing in The Times on Monday, the chancellor says: "Put simply‎: over many years, are you better off or worse off if we leave the EU?
"The answer is: Britain would be worse off, permanently so, and to the tune of £4,300 a year for every household.'

'would be worse off' not 'could be worse off'. It's presented as fact when it's not and its therefore a lie.

I also vividly remember watching him on TV stating it as a fact.

I voted to remain, but to cast Leave as the Devils and Remain as the Angels is plainly wrong.

It is potentially a fact. It's a prediction. It was presented as a prediction. That is not a lie. I can't be arsed to continue to argue the semantic difference because you either get it or you don't.

I do get, trust me. It's down to perception, it's subjective. To me it was presented as a fact by the Remain politicians - would vs could - it was missing the crucial word, ie potentially. You and I both know that it's not a fact but then you and I are probably more engaged in this than the average voter and you and I probably did more research than listen to a few sound bites that made it sound like fact. Just as you and I both know that the £350 million a week is a truthful figure but was presented incorrectly to make it in to a lie.

No, the £350 million figure is a flat out lie.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Corbin was the only one who was honest. Maybe that just doesn't work in politics but everything he said was truthful and not full of hysteria. 7.5 out of 10 is a reasonable statement, he called Osborne out on lying about figures just as he called out the Leave campaign and said on balance he thought remain was a better option. He also said whichever way it went would not be the end of the world like others hand been implying.

Maybe if there were more people who offered reasonable, realistic examinations of the situation rather than everyone either being "LEAVE AND ITS THE END OF THE WORLD" or "REMAIN AND THE IMMIGRANTS WILL TAKE YOUR JOBS" we could have achieved a result, whichever way it went, based on reason rather than hyperbole and lies.

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

Fair point, deep down doesn't want in the EU. He has had to go remain a) because its the Tories in power and them leading the charge out of Europe is a concern, and b) to pander to the Blairites, and even then it looks as though that hasn't kept the backstabbing vultures at bay.

On the first point he said as much, he was pretty open that most of the issues the Leave campaign was using as their reasons for leaving was actually due to the Tory government, not the EU. Austerity was a Tory choice.

My point was its a shame that non-hyperbolied opinions are counted as "useless" and "insufficient"

He didn't have to go remain. He chose to go against what he believed in for political expediency and to further his own leadership. That's better than other cynical stances because...

[Digby]

Months ago I was concerned that this referendum was going to be less about fact and more about personality and spin. Nothing in the campaign changed my mind on that.

Just odd to me that people like the personality of a Gove, Galloway, Farrage, Johnson...

[Mellsblue]

It is potentially a fact. It's a prediction. It was presented as a prediction. That is not a lie. I can't be arsed to continue to argue the semantic difference because you either get it or you don't.

I do get, trust me. It's down to perception, it's subjective. To me it was presented as a fact by the Remain politicians - would vs could - it was missing the crucial word, ie potentially. You and I both know that it's not a fact but then you and I are probably more engaged in this than the average voter and you and I probably did more research than listen to a few sound bites that made it sound like fact. Just as you and I both know that the £350 million a week is a truthful figure but was presented incorrectly to make it in to a lie.

No, the £350 million figure is a flat out lie.

Again, perception.

[jared_7]

Was he honest? He has always wanted out of the EU as far as I know.

Fair point, deep down doesn't want in the EU. He has had to go remain a) because its the Tories in power and them leading the charge out of Europe is a concern, and b) to pander to the Blairites, and even then it looks as though that hasn't kept the backstabbing vultures at bay.

On the first point he said as much, he was pretty open that most of the issues the Leave campaign was using as their reasons for leaving was actually due to the Tory government, not the EU. Austerity was a Tory choice.

My point was its a shame that non-hyperbolied opinions are counted as "useless" and "insufficient"

He didn't have to go remain. He chose to go against what he believed in for political expediency and to further his own leadership. That's better than other cynical stances because...

He's the leader of a party, has certain responsibilities and working with others sometimes requires compromise. Do you think its good leadership to take a stance that differs from 95% of your fellow MPs? At a time when the Tories are so divided?

May as well just move to a system of Presidency?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I do get, trust me. It's down to perception, it's subjective. To me it was presented as a fact by the Remain politicians - would vs could - it was missing the crucial word, ie potentially. You and I both know that it's not a fact but then you and I are probably more engaged in this than the average voter and you and I probably did more research than listen to a few sound bites that made it sound like fact. Just as you and I both know that the £350 million a week is a truthful figure but was presented incorrectly to make it in to a lie.

No, the £350 million figure is a flat out lie.

Again, perception.

No it's not. We do not send £350 million to the EU.

[Mellsblue]

No, the £350 million figure is a flat out lie.

Again, perception.

No it's not. We do not send £350 million to the EU.

Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb filed a complaint to the UK Statistics Authority after Brexiteers kept using the £350m-a-week figure. Sir Andrew Dilnot replied saying the number was "potentially misleading".
So, not incorrect but potentially misleading. Just as Osborne's quotes are potentially misleading.