Even that depends on how long the rebate lasts. The EU cut it under Tony Blair and have been trying to get rid of it ever since.
Whilst any increase in, and good use of, funding for the NHS is both beneficial and a vote winner, we were supposed to leave in 2019 and stop paying £350million per week from then.Many people would then question why it would take 4/5 years to see the £350million benefit for the NHS, when Boris splashed it on the bus in 2016?
Correct, but in 2016 when Boris chose the figure to use, the rebate was there.
Well the judge disagrees with you and believes there is a case to answer.
If I tell the tax man I’m earning £250 a week but actually earn £350 when it’s in my pocket, I am lying.
If I say I’ll probably earn £250 but as it happens I earn £350 then it was a prediction.
The case is based on the fact Boris knew the real figure after the rebate as he quoted it in an interview
Correct, and why it's so dodgy to include something that can easily disappear.
That's not really a legal get out though.Income tax law could have been different 5 years ago (for example) but if I fiddled my taxes then, I'd still be liable for the law as it was at the time.
Nope.
1. It's a private prosecution.
2. The prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, he committed the alleged offence(s).
He said..
“We send £££ to the EU ..”
He didn’t say.,
“We predict to send £££ to the EU ..”
Exactly, but before it goes to court there were two hearings to understand if there was a potential case to answer. It so far has passed these tests.
I think the main aim is to tarnish him now so he won't be voted in as next Tory PM by members (too risky).