Boris Johnson’s £350m claim is devious and bogus. Here’s why | John Lichfield

The foreign secretary must find it necessary to distort statistics because the truth does not serve his case

There are lies, damned lies and Boris Johnson’s weasel sums.

By no honest calculation can Britain’s net payment to the European Union be estimated as £350m a week. Nigel Farage admits it. So does the Daily Mail.

Even Johnson admits it. In his “glorious Brexit” essay in the Daily Telegraph last Friday the foreign secretary said that we would “take back control” of roughly £350m a week when we leave the EU.

A reasonable person might assume that Johnson meant that the country would have that amount of extra money to spend post-Brexit. What a “fine thing”, Johnson wrote, “if a lot of that money went to the NHS”.

In his spat with the UK Statistics Authority Johnson now says he is shocked, SHOCKED that his words should be understood in this crassly simplistic way. To suggest that he was claiming that £350m might be “available for extra public spending” is a “wilful distortion” etc. In other words, the foreign secretary’s defence amounts to an admission that the slogan on his famous Brexit campaign bus – “We send the EU £350m a week: let’s fund our NHS instead” – was bogus all along.

I will leave the politics to others. Let’s just look at the £350m figure – and the foggy reality of the EU budget.

Some Brexiteers now cheerfully admit that the figure was fake. To others, perhaps even Michael Gove, it has achieved a kind of mystical importance. The arch-Brexiteer Tim Martin, the founder of the Wetherspoons pub chain, announced on the BBC that the net payment figure was indeed £350m if you include the tariffs on goods imported to the UK from outside the EU.

Martin’s back-of-a beer-mat calculation is incorrect. Three-quarters of those trade tariffs do go to Brussels. They are, however, already included in Her Majesty’s government’s official calculation of Britain’s net and gross payments to the EU.

The European Union is broadly funded in three ways. It takes most of the tariffs charged on imports from the rest of the EU; it takes a small sliver of VAT receipts; and it takes contributions from member states based on their gross national income (GNI). The sums involved are large – but tiny compared with national government budgets. The EU spends roughly 1% of the GDP of the 28 member states – compared with between 35 and 58% spent by their governments. About 40% of EU spending goes to farm and rural subsidies, about 40% to aid to poorer regions and member states.

The system, already complex, has become cosmically unfathomable since Margaret Thatcher won an (entirely justified) rebate for Britain in the 1980s. There is now a rebate on the British rebate and varying forms of mini-rebate for five other EU states.

Such complexity is an invitation to distortion, as Johnson well knows. The foreign secretary has been misrepresenting the EU since he was reporter in Brussels for the Telegraph in the late 1980s. (Full disclosure: I was a reporter for the Telegraph in Brussels just before he was. We have never met.)

Thus Johnson now says that he is not suggesting that the UK net contribution is £350m a week. How could anyone think such a thing? He is making the extremely subtle claim that, post-Brexit, Britain will have full “control” over how it spends the roughly £350m (actually £342m in 2015-6) which Britain “sends” to Brussels. In other words, we might decide to spend the money which Brussels now spends in the UK in other ways.

This is not a subtle claim. It is a misleading statement wrapped in a lie.

First, the lie. Britain, as Johnson knows, does not “send” £350m a week to Brussels. The rebate won by Thatcher in 1984 is deducted first. This reduces our net weekly payment to around £250m (some say £275m).

When EU spending in Britain is included – on agriculture subsidies, research and grants to poorer regions – the UK net payment comes down to about £160m a week. Post-Brexit, Johnson suggests, “a lot of that money” could go elsewhere, and specifically to the NHS.

This is misleading. The government has promised to keep farm subsidies at present levels until 2020 and probably beyond (although maybe in a different form). EU regional grants, for transport and other infrastructure projects, do not go on pet schemes drawn up by Eurocrats. The EU money helps pay for projects that have long been planned at local and national level (which are then accepted by Brussels as suitable for EU support). Presumably many of those projects would continue.

That leaves a notional Brexit “bonus” of around £160m a week. It is uncertain how much of this could “go to the NHS”. The government has proposed a labyrinth of post-Brexit customs and legal institutions which would swallow up some of the savings.

Presumably Johnson fears that reasonable people would regard £160m a week as an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of EU membership. Why, otherwise, would he persist in outright lies and weaselly distortion of the figures?

• John Lichfield is a journalist based in France since 1997. He is the author of Our Man in Paris

Contributor

John Lichfield

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Boris Johnson’s ‘super-Canada’ plan could never work. Here’s why | Gina Miller
I implore the Conservative party conference to start talking facts not fiction about Brexit, says Gina Miller, of End the Chaos

Gina Miller

30, Sep, 2018 @12:51 PM

Article image
What’s in Boris Johnson’s £100m no-deal preparation leaflets? Here’s a taster | James Felton
From eating pets to embracing martial law, here’s the advice that could help us survive a no-deal Brexit, says comedy writer James Felton

James Felton

30, Jul, 2019 @12:34 PM

Article image
Boris Johnson’s electoral gamble risks wrecking the Tory party | Jonathan Freedland
Proroguing parliament, expelling MPs: are these moves born of panic or all part of a cunning plan, asks Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

Jonathan Freedland

04, Sep, 2019 @10:28 AM

Article image
There’s nothing ‘super’ about Boris Johnson’s tired old Brexit ideas | Sam Lowe
The jargon is designed to impress, but the problems – chief among them the Irish border – remain the same, says Sam Lowe, of the Centre for European Reform

Sam Lowe

28, Sep, 2018 @2:47 PM

Article image
Ignore Boris Johnson’s bluster about Brexit. He wants a general election | Tom Kibasi
He knows a better Brexit deal isn’t possible, and that no deal could be blocked. He’s playing a different game entirely, says Tom Kibasi, director of the IPPR

Tom Kibasi

12, Jun, 2019 @11:57 AM

Article image
Boris Johnson’s threat of a no-deal Brexit will not break EU unity | Guy Verhofstadt
The UK government should instead seek an agreement that removes the need for the backstop altogether, says Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit coordinator for the European parliament

Guy Verhofstadt

31, Jul, 2019 @1:17 PM

Article image
Boris Johnson’s latest Brexit outburst combines madness and mendacity | Simon Jenkins
This is the worst way to stage a Tory leadership challenge, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

Simon Jenkins

03, Sep, 2018 @9:57 AM

Article image
‘Save Brexit’? No – Boris Johnson’s speech was about saving himself | Anne Perkins
The farewell statement was just part of a coup attempt by this desperate narcissist, says the Guardian’s deputy political editor

Anne Perkins

18, Jul, 2018 @3:59 PM

Article image
Boris Johnson’s ‘crazy’ remark is seismic: the cabinet Brexit split is out in the open | Steve Richards
Cameron and Major battled Tory rebels on Europe. But this prime minister can’t even rely on her own foreign secretary, says political columnist Steve Richards

Steve Richards

08, May, 2018 @5:45 PM

Article image
Here’s why Boris Johnson’s plans have every chance of falling apart | Tom Kibasi
The crucial question for MPs is, do they trust him to deliver?, says writer Tom Kibasi

Tom Kibasi

17, Oct, 2019 @12:04 PM