You highlighted two lies, I gave evidence that they weren't lies; so you now fly off on a tangent.
Well done.
You have mistaken offering an unsupported assertion and completely irrelevant information published several years too late as 'evidence they weren't lies', and claimed pointing this out constituted 'flying off on a tangent'.
Well done.
Do you consider The Independent to be a peddler of pro-Brexit fake news btw?
Lie 1: ‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson
This claim by the Remain campaign was based on outdated data by the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR). The consultancy has since revised the figures: it says the figure is more likely to be around 17 per cent.
The problem with the original figure was that the Remain campaign compared the total number of manufacturing jobs, 2.55 million, with the 1.7 million jobs the CEBR had said were dependent both directly and indirectly on EU trade, including in other industries. The two figures are not comparable so the two-thirds number was wrong.
Your "evidence":
The first statement is true - it doesn't mean that all those jobs will go, but they are dependent on imports/exports to and from Europe.
Feel free to provide a rational, evidence based refutation of the above point. But simply asserting it's not a lie despite the evidence is the kind of thing you ideological blindness you criticise Brexiteers for.
Don't you agree that such a misleading claim is at least as problematic as the NHS one? (which was also based on a statistical sleight of hand)
Point 2: ‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne
George Osborne’s predicted “emergency Budget” full of tax rises and spending cuts after the Brexit vote never materialised – the Treasury has broadly stuck to Mr Osborne’s economic plans on spending from before the vote. It also has no significant plans to raise taxes or cut spending when Britain actually leaves the EU in March 2019.
It could be argued that Mr Osborne never had the opportunity to implement his emergency Budget, because he was replaced by Philip Hammond. But ignoring the fact that the two chancellors are from the same party and both campaigned for Remain, Mr Osborne did have nearly a month in office after the 2016 referendum, suggesting it wasn’t that much of an emergency.
Your evidence:
Not fake news, just irrelevant as I previously told you.
Multiple times in this thread remainers championing their rationality and objective reasoning have simply dismissed out of hand evidence that goes against their emotionally-driven worldview. Evidence from centre-left papers like The Guardian and The Independent, not Brexiteer shills or right-wing tabloids.
Why would you even expect
any highly partisan political campaign to feature one side who was completely fair and honest in their arguments? Particularly when that side contains lots of people you would likely not trust in the slightest if they were speaking as Tories rather than Remainers.
Sorry to break it to you, but politicians lie and make misleading statements. Even the ones who support your favourite causes.
