I love the way the 17.4 is quoted and the Remain number ignored.
If we had a Referendum on hanging I’m sure it would have a far bigger majority but I would hope we are never asked.
You do not think that false information was used. You do not think that dark money was deployed?
As for your attack on the article – why go for the man instead of the article? Why no challenge to the content?

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the-problem-with-the-english-england-doesn-t-want-to-be-just-another-member-of-a-team-1-4851882

Published in Jan 2017 and written by Nicholas Boyle, who is Emeritus Schröder Professor of German, University of Cambridge, and author of ‘Who are we now?’ (1998: University of Notre Dame Press; and, 2014: ‘How to Survive the Next World Crisis’ )

This article must be one of the most significant pieces of diagnostic information written in the past ten years. It is truly compulsory reading for everyone in Scotland, as well as the rest of the UK, although it is unlikely to be accepted by those suffering from English exceptionalism, like the three main Unionist parties, Tory, Labour and LibDems, and the Loyalist movements in NI and Scotland.

Here are some excerpts :-

“Brexit is the result of an English delusion, a crisis of identity resulting from a failure to come to terms with the loss of empire and the end of its own exceptionalism. ”

“Those who voted Leave in the referendum were not voting about globalisation or stagnating living standards or austerity and declining welfare payments, they were voting about the EU, and it is condescension to pretend otherwise. But they were not being asked by the Leave campaign to express a preference for a particular rationally argued and practically feasible economic and political alternative to membership of the EU – that is evident, for none was offered before the referendum and none has emerged since. They were being asked to express an emotion about membership, and the English, but not the Irish or Scots, felt so urgent a need to express it that they threw reason and practicality to the winds.

The emotion central to the Leave campaign was the fear of what is alien, and this trumped the Remainers’ Project Fear-of-wholly-foreseeable-damage. The true Project Fear was the Leave party’s unrelenting presentation of the EU as a lethal threat to national identity, indeed as the stranger and enemy who had already stolen it: give us back our country, they said, our sovereignty, our £350m a week, let us control our borders, let our population not be swamped by immigrants or our high streets by Polish shops – and to vote against the EU was to vote to recover what we had lost. The voting pattern, however, revealed that appeal to that emotion, and that vision of the EU, worked only in England.”

” For the English, the United Kingdom occupies the psychic space once filled by the empire: it is the last guarantor of their characterlessness, it is the phantom which in the English mind substitutes for the England which the English will not acknowledge is their only home. They will not acknowledge it lest they become just another nation like everybody else, with a specific, limited identity, a specific history, neither specially honourable nor specially dishonourable, with limited weight, limited resources, and limited importance in the world now that their empire is no more.

That is the terrifying truth that membership of the EU presents to the English and from which for centuries the empire insulated them: that they have to live in the world on an equal footing with other people. From that truth they seek shelter in the thought that really they belong not to England at all but to something more imposing, or at least different: the UK, or, less accurately, ‘Britain’, within which they can cocoon the non-identity they took on in 1707 as the imperial adventure was beginning.”

” England has never wanted to join in the process of growing together, not because it rejects the goal of a ‘super-state’, which exists only in England’s fearful imagination, but because it rejects the idea of collaborating with equals – it doesn’t want to be just another member of a team, for then it would have to recognise that it has after all an identity of its own.

The referendum vote does not deserve to be respected because, as an outgrowth of English narcissism, it is itself disrespectful of others, of our allies, partners, neighbours, friends, and, in many cases, even relatives. Like resentful ruffians uprooting the new trees in the park and trashing the new play area, millions of English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism.

Two pillars of the unwritten British constitution collapsed on June 23. The sovereignty of the Westminster parliament was seriously challenged, and possibly overturned, by a referendum that should never have been called. And the attempt of the Unions of 1707 and 1800 to create a single British nation to rule a global empire was finally shown up as a self-deceptive device by the English to deny the Scots and the Irish a will of their own.”

Do read the entire article and share it widely – you’ll be so glad you did.

Now for the cost, which is not the same thing as the payments.

May’s deal costs 80 bn a year.

13.5 bn a year in payments. No rebate.

100 bn to pay EU debts. Then send a bill, we pay it. No right to dispute it.

30 bn a year subsidising low paid EU migrants. A min wage migrant pays 13.11 a week in tax, cost 14.5K a year in state services. We have to pay that for their entire life. No right to say, sorry you aren’t good for the UK. No right for the people forced to fund thgat

8.8 bn tariffs, paid for by the mugs

Regulations come with cost. The lowest cost I have seen in 33.3 bn a year, the largest 240 bn.

The CAP costs

….

To put that in context the schools funding shortfall is 1.4 bn a year.

There needs to be a spending bill where remainers get to specify what gets axed to pay the EU.

If we remain, the costs are higher