Judges in Johnson case give ‘green light for every politician to lie to us about our money’

‘£350 million a week for the NHS’ – a Leave campaign lie endorsed by Boris Johnson.


According to Lady Justice Rafferty and Mr Justice Supperstone, Boris Johnson was well within the law to lie to us about the amount the UK sends to the EU every week, and the uses to which it cold be put instead.

They have not given a reason for this decision. That is to follow later.


I reckon they’ll probably say that the case was vexatious because it was politically-motivated – a plan to disrupt Brexit.

That’s what Mr Johnson’s lawyer said.

But the fact is that the case brought privately by Marcus Ball, is accurate.

Mr Johnson was both a member of Parliament and Mayor of London at the time he claimed that the UK gave £350 million a week to the European Union (it doesn’t) and that all of this money can be used to fund the NHS instead (it can’t).

In fact, the UK pays significantly less into the EU once rebates and the support this country receives back from the bloc are taken into consideration.

And the money could not be diverted solely into the NHS because it will be needed to ameliorate the adverse effects of Brexit on the economy.

That is, if any money is left. Estimates have suggested the weekly cost of Brexit is £800 million – more than twice the amount painted on the side of Mr Johnson’s silly red bus.

Mr Johnson would certainly have known that there would be a cost attached to Brexit, when he made his extravagant claim. And he would have known that the money the UK sends to the EU would have to be used to cover part of that cost.

We know that many people have said they voted ‘Leave’ because they were persuaded by the claim on the Brexit bus – and that they felt betrayed when they discovered it was false.

So it had a direct impact on public trust in the words of someone who, as Mayor and MP, was expected to conduct himself honestly.

That is exactly what Mr Ball’s lawyer said.

He has also said he’ll wait to see the judges’ reasons for throwing the case out before making his next move, but This Writer reckons an appeal is clearly on the cards.

Let’s hope we get clarity before the result of the Conservative leadership election is announced.

Source: Boris Johnson wins court challenge over £350m Brexit claims | Politics | The Guardian

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


17 thoughts on “Judges in Johnson case give ‘green light for every politician to lie to us about our money’

  1. trev

    I knew he’d get off with it, like I said previously the Establishment looks after its own.

  2. Julie Harrison

    I’m disgusted by this result. Its staggering what the judiciary is allowing public servants to get away with and somewhat frightening too.

  3. Carol Fraser

    Just in case there’s any confusion here this matter has been dismissed BEFORE IT EVER GOT TO COURT. This is a serious matter and is a serious attack on British Justice

      1. Chris

        No, the charge was said to be “vexatious” and “politically motivated”. Unlike the slogan, which was at least the latter.? No.

  4. Growing Flame

    Actually, Mike, perhaps it would be better if the real truth about Johnson’s claims only became well-known AFTER he is elected Tory Leader. Then what will they do!??

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      They won’t care.

      Or they’ll use it as an excuse for more delay.

  5. Andy Robertson-Fox

    Perhaps we should all wait and see what the reasons were that prompted the court to throw the case out before making a judgement and also, just possibly, to see who does actually become the next leader of the Conservatve Party and PM…rather than set hares running.

  6. Simon Tucker

    It is very simple: the law does not apply to the rich, the powerful or senior Tories, when they aren’t included in the first two categories. From my particular line of interests: you only have to look at the abject failure to stop fox and stag hunting by the police and judiciary; the continuing slaughter of protected birds of prey, so the rich and psychotic can slaughter millions of game birds every autumn / winter, to see that the law does not apply to them and their sort, or their minions.

    We need to overturn the establishment: so Corbyn needs to pull his finger out and make Labour the ONLY choice at the next election.

  7. Simon Cohen

    I think the lawyer’s defense of Johnson focused on the ‘vexatious’ argument and that ‘abuse of public office’ was based on Common Law (defined by tradition rather than legal statute) and also separated his function as a campaigner for leave from his official offices.

    The reality is that if we based abuse of office on playing fast and loose with statistics it would sweep away the whole Tory Party. Politics is often based on lying about financial matters. For example, when May said ‘there was no magic money tree’ she was lying. There is: The Government creates money via the Bank of England, there can be no money shortage. Of course you have to spend it wisely and only in proportion to resource availability but the notion that there is ‘no money’ for X,Y,Z is pure untruth.

  8. Barry Davies

    We got the right result a vexatious attempt to smear someone was thrown out due to there never having been a case, I hope as it can’t have cost him much he will be repaying all those people daft enough to donate to the crowdfunding.

  9. Zippi

    My understanding is that this wasn’t a matter of truth but of law, that is to say that the charge that was brought against him was the wrong one. Mr. Johnson’s lawyers can can call the case what they like but if the charge had been the right one, he mayn’t have had a leg to stand on. This may well not be the end of the matter. Nobody should be above the law, in this country, as severed heads of Kings will bear testament. It may require a change in the law but as I understand it, the charge which was brought is not applicable in this case; this is why it was thrown out.

  10. Simon

    You don’t understand how government spending works. Money is created by the act of spending it – i.e. the debiting of the government account and the crediting of a supplier. The government is the only authority allowed to create money (banks are licensed to by the government so they act as a proxy) which means they have an infinite supply. If you create something you can never run out of it. It’s like saying you as an author can run out of words. The belief that spending this money on the NHS means there is nothing left to mitigate Brexit damages is completely and utterly wrong.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      And the belief that a Tory government would ever wish more money into existence for the sake of the population at large, to replace cash it has squandered, is also completely and utterly wrong. You needed to consider that. Without it, your calculations fall short by many billions of pounds.

Comments are closed.