ContinueWe use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website; if you continue without changing your settings - or dismiss this message - we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on www.theconferenceforum.co.uk

The Conference Forum

Return to front page

Newest article: Re: Belated Weekend Review Thread by DMNToday 11:46Today at 11:46:23view thread

Oldest article: FAO of Baldman by Meerkat25/6 09:03Tue Jun 25 09:03:46 2019view thread

MenuSearch

Next thread: Labour MP by BaldmanToday 07:23Today at 07:23:45view thread

£2.2m

By NWS11/7 11:53Thu Jul 11 11:53:03 2019

Views: 1324

That's the annual train fares being run up by brexit party MEPS. ..what a waste of our money!

reply to this article | return to the front page

Fao NWS

By Denzel (denzel ecfc)12/7 08:56Fri Jul 12 08:56:48 2019In response to £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 810

What do you think to this?

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/green-mep-pledges-not-take-3082832

I fundamentally disagree that stopping flying is the best thing you can do to stop climate change. Surely the best thing is not to have kids. (Not that I espouse that)

Also, getting to Gibraltar or Latvia or wherever by a combination of train and ferry must be just as bad if not worse that flying there, especially if its a full Easyjet flight on a modern fuel efficient aircraft.

Greens are starting to annoy me when they state this nonsense.

Edited by denzel ecfc at 08:58:04 on 12th July 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Fao NWS

By NWS12/7 15:29Fri Jul 12 15:29:54 2019In response to Fao NWSTop of thread

Views: 608

In short, Denzel. I don't know. It is certainly a bold statement. I don't have enough knowledge to know.

I am guessing that what you can give up to help the planet the most may vary from person to person, depending on the lifestyle they lead

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Fao NWS

By skippy12/7 11:06Fri Jul 12 11:06:24 2019In response to Fao NWSTop of thread

Views: 695

I like the proposal that if you take more than one flight in a year you pay a levy, so you can go on holiday but you have to pay extra to come back.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Fao NWS

By DesCartes12/7 15:25Fri Jul 12 15:25:23 2019In response to Re: Fao NWSTop of thread

Views: 607

'...so you can go on holiday but you have to pay extra to come back.'

Sound like a plan to me. Can we introduce it in a phased manner, initially focussing solely on holidays to Spain taken by those within the '52%'?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Fao NWS

By NWS12/7 15:27Fri Jul 12 15:27:20 2019In response to Re: Fao NWSTop of thread

Views: 595

Hang on I just booked to go to Spain

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Fao NWS

By cufc infinity (cufc_infinity)12/7 10:05Fri Jul 12 10:05:15 2019In response to Fao NWSTop of thread

Views: 701

Even the AEF (Aviation Environment Federation - doesn't seem to be an air industry sock puppet) show that a single person in a big car is worse than travelling the same distance by plane

http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Grams_CO2_transportmodesUK.pdf

I bus it to work and use the train to travel anywhere within the uk, so I can pretty much concorde it out of the country and have spare

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Fao NWS

By Meerkat12/7 15:16Fri Jul 12 15:16:48 2019In response to Re: Fao NWSTop of thread

Views: 593

Nice stats but not very relevant.
Only people like me are going to drive the kind of distances that they fly, and that’s just short haul flights.
If you are talking about driving to Cornwall or flying to the Maldives....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Fao NWS

By ncfc (moincfc)12/7 12:37Fri Jul 12 12:37:43 2019In response to Re: Fao NWSTop of thread

Views: 657

Can't we just concentrate on finding somewhere new to live? We can fuck this place up good and proper then.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By eye of the tiger11/7 23:22Thu Jul 11 23:22:06 2019In response to £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 833

Money well spent if it get us out of Europe.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS11/7 23:28Thu Jul 11 23:28:51 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 830

Nonsense. If we remained and the EU really believed the UK is committed to it then we would get some fantastic benefits. You need to believe in our negotiators more.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By eye of the tiger11/7 23:32Thu Jul 11 23:32:48 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 823

Spoken like a true remoaner.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS12/7 15:26Fri Jul 12 15:26:40 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 590

Read what I wrote and I was using leave propaganda in reversal.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Joe Hawkins11/7 13:26Thu Jul 11 13:26:55 2019In response to £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 995

That's why we're leaving mate.

Taking back control of train tickets....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS11/7 23:22Thu Jul 11 23:22:01 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 829

I'd be grateful if the brexit party MEPS left and some adults replaced them

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Ich bin12/7 01:31Fri Jul 12 01:31:01 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 796

I’d be grateful if you left to be replaced by an adult.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS12/7 15:30Fri Jul 12 15:30:40 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 581

That puts you out of the running as my replacement then

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Joe Hawkins11/7 23:46Thu Jul 11 23:46:39 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 799

But they were only recently elected.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Howard RMI11/7 12:41Thu Jul 11 12:41:36 2019In response to £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 1090

Instead of just reporting the cost of Brexit MEPs can you please advise the cost for non-Brexit MEPs as well for the sake of balance. If we had left in March then you wouldn't be so concerned about a Brexit Party. Can you also please advise the annual cost of transferring from Brussels to Strasbourg each month. Thanks in advance.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS11/7 23:20Thu Jul 11 23:20:34 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 825

Balance?
I report the Brexit Party figures because it highlights how much tax payers money they are prepared to spend complaint that they are...well...wasting taxpayers money. In addition to this, they are disengaged with the process of the Parliament. I wouldn't expect to take a £60k+ job and refuse to do it properly. If they don't like the institution then don't go to it. Utter hypocrisy

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By TomMc (D&R)11/7 12:44Thu Jul 11 12:44:20 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 1066

DYOR?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By MadFrankie11/7 13:24Thu Jul 11 13:24:54 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 994

It's ok for Brexiteers, flat earthers, climate change deniers etc to tell people to do their own research, but it's not allowed the other way round.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Chandampton (southampton)12/7 01:26Fri Jul 12 01:26:59 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 792

Or they just make some shit up like £350m instead of using truthful facts and figures. When you live in a world of fantasy your imagination is your only limit which is a much easier sell than saying if we remain in the EU everything will stay the same.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Meerkat12/7 09:00Fri Jul 12 09:00:50 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 732

If we remain everything will not stay the same, it will get worse and worse and worse

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)12/7 09:36Fri Jul 12 09:36:32 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 709

How.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Meerkat12/7 15:14Fri Jul 12 15:14:34 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 607

Increasing federalism, and power and money disappearing further into a bureaucratic undemocratic cesspit

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS12/7 15:38Fri Jul 12 15:38:49 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 578

Strangely, JRM, doesn't agree with you. Only a few weeks ago he was talking about us scuppering the EU budget and vetoing the EU army. I will agree with your surprise at our apparent levels of power because I thought we were slaves and oppressed. How wrong one can be.

Still, let's look forward to what the people wanted I. E. A no deal Brexit (I'm sure leave told us about a great and easy-to-get deal in 2016...). As we are told, it will be great because it won't be that bad and we got through the blitz.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Chandampton (southampton)12/7 18:36Fri Jul 12 18:36:13 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 534

Brexiteer logic: our neighbours want to build a hugely powerful army so it would be safer for us to let them do it but not be part of it.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By psg13/7 22:09Sat Jul 13 22:09:30 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 372

Remain logic: I’m annoyed I lost the vote so will pretend the EU is the epitome of democracy and sound governance to try to prove some point every is throughly bored of.

The EU is a sham. Take your partisan perspective out of the equation and look at it. I’d rather be poorer and out of it.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Chandampton (southampton)Yesterday 09:33Yesterday at 09:33:07In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 214

The EU is more democratic than the UK. Let's just have another vote so this can be put to bed once and for all and we won't have to talk about it any more. You didn't vote to be poorer, you thought we would be richer and you were wrong.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By MeerkatYesterday 09:37Yesterday at 09:37:02In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 214

Show your working?
Remainers are the greedy ones. Leavers arent so keen to sell their freedom

Edited by Meerkat at 09:37:13 on 15th July 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Chandampton (southampton)Yesterday 10:18Yesterday at 10:18:03In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 181

If you consider wanting more money for the NHS, education and transport greedy. I consider prosperity more important than national identity, I don't want people dying over jingoistic bullshit.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWSYesterday 11:45Yesterday at 11:45:51In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 169

He claims he wants to retain his freedom, his money and sovereignty while shoving out foreigners. Yet when we say we are willing to share our things and let others share our country we are being greedy. I think he doesn't understand what the word greedy means.

I'm also interested to know how restricting one's ability to travel to 27 national destinations is increasing freedom. Maybe he doesn't know what freedom means either.


Just to let you know, Chandampton, there is no point me replying to Meerkat because I am asking questions and presenting fact and he doesn't do that. He just shout vacuous slogans and untruths.


I still await details of the technology that solves the Irish border issue and I still await his facts on WTO and GATT 24 that defeat the head of the WTO and former WTO. I suspect I will not see them.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Joe HawkinsYesterday 12:58Yesterday at 12:58:02In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 147

Chill mate Big Bozza J & Mr Farage have it all in hand ready to play our get out of jail card on the 31st October....

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWSYesterday 14:11Yesterday at 14:11:01In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 113

It will be the first time a get out of jail card has put more restrictions on your freedom to travel.

Edited by NWS at 14:11:31 on 15th July 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By MeerkatYesterday 10:42Yesterday at 10:42:22In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 181

Prosperity for who? The EU pushes power and money further away to the big corporations. The money goes to them, and the jobs go to Eastern Europe.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWSYesterday 11:40Yesterday at 11:40:44In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 167

The jobs all go to Eastern Europe? I thought us losing jobs was 'Project Fear' and that our jobs are all lost to Eastern Europeans that are over here clogging up our NHS? Are people in Eastern Europe so magical they can be in two places at once to nick our jobs?

Anyway, jobs and companies disappearing. Rather than just make some pronouncement to appeal to emotion I thought I would put some published reports to back up the idea that the UK is losing companies to the EU and elsewhere.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-companies-leaving-uk-list-job-cuts-eu-no-deal-customs-union-a8792296.html

https://www.conferencecall.co.uk/blog/are-businesses-leaving-the-uk-because-of-brexit/

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/companies-leaving-threatening-leave-uk-15725311

Edited by NWS at 11:47:14 on 15th July 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS14/7 00:34Sun Jul 14 00:34:03 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 307

Not at all. I would not present the EU as the epitome of democracy. To me it has good points like proportional representation to vote MEPs and bad points like no form of direct electorate involvement in selecting Commission members.

Against that I would say that the UK FPTP system leaves many voters feeling disenfranchised and some parties getting no power despite having a decent level of support (Ukip getting 4m votes and one seat is an example). You could also argue that maybe the electorate should have a say in the selection of the cabinet (particularly Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Office Minister, Defence Minister, Education Minister and Home Office Minister.

To my eyes, the country could be a lot poorer without really experiencing any benefits. People at the bottom may find that they are worse off because there is nothing to check the ambitions of the wealthy. If Brexit happens, I just pray I am wrong.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Meerkat12/7 19:13Fri Jul 12 19:13:56 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 512

Better to have a useful army rather than one put together to save money but unusable due to vetoes by critical parts of it

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS12/7 19:20Fri Jul 12 19:20:01 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 505

What like the one our grateful government keeps cutting?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Leeds Sandgrounder12/7 19:34Fri Jul 12 19:34:35 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 502

Get it privatised. Bloody feckless civil servants wasting everyone's money.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Meerkat12/7 19:45Fri Jul 12 19:45:57 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 497

I would argue that a lot of peacekeeping should be privatised.
Saffer mercenaries do it a lot better than a bunch of corrupt, underpaid unmotivated third world soldiers sent to shitholes to make their president money and to get them out the country so they can’t start a coup.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Leeds Sandgrounder12/7 19:51Fri Jul 12 19:51:08 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 494

You'd never get corruption from South Africans.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Meerkat12/7 20:32Fri Jul 12 20:32:10 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 482

Did the business in Sierra Leone - motivated professional troops, quality aggressive leadership, and crazy Ukrainian air power

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Baldman13/7 01:33Sat Jul 13 01:33:17 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 428

You just have to give them leather jackets

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Leeds Sandgrounder12/7 20:41Fri Jul 12 20:41:42 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 468

ARMY GUYS GET THE JOB DONE.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)12/7 15:17Fri Jul 12 15:17:24 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 586

How?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Meerkat12/7 15:28Fri Jul 12 15:28:27 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 587

“Ever Closer Union”

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)12/7 15:45Fri Jul 12 15:45:18 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 582

Which we’ve had removed from the language, and made explicitly clear we won’t be involved with leave or not

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Meerkat12/7 17:29Fri Jul 12 17:29:17 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 565

It hadnt been removed from the language.
And that was just cheap words that simply isn’t going to work in reality

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWSYesterday 14:13Yesterday at 14:13:13In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 104

I prefer much more fulfilling and truthful words like, "we'll get a great deal", "we hold all the cards" and "they need us more than we need them"

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)Yesterday 10:03Yesterday at 10:03:16In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 203

So in summary, you've only got abject fear.

Fair enough.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWSYesterday 12:08Yesterday at 12:08:26In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 161

'You've only got abject fear'

Congratulations. You are the new brexit party spokesman.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)Yesterday 12:10Yesterday at 12:10:09In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 159

Brilliant.

Leaving will fuck us over - Project Fear
Staying will have us become minions of the Evil EU empire - abject fear.

reply to this article | return to the front page

'ever closer union'

By NWSYesterday 12:12Yesterday at 12:12:11In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 167

Why not have a little peek at the facts behind his abject fearmongering

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/


As per usual, he is making things up or bending the truth. Brexit in a nutshell.

Edited by NWS at 12:13:10 on 15th July 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: 'ever closer union'

By MeerkatYesterday 12:47Yesterday at 12:47:03In response to 'ever closer union'Top of thread

Views: 150

So the facts from your link are that it is a basic tenet of the EU.
The rest is irrelevant pedantry.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: 'ever closer union'

By NWSYesterday 14:09Yesterday at 14:09:23In response to Re: 'ever closer union'Top of thread

Views: 118

Ever closer union” isn’t specifically a call for political union

They even put it in bold for you.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: 'ever closer union'

By MeerkatYesterday 19:06Yesterday at 19:06:12In response to Re: 'ever closer union'Top of thread

Views: 79

What other sort of “union” is there?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: 'ever closer union'

By NWSToday 10:47Today at 10:47:49In response to Re: 'ever closer union'Top of thread

Views: 28

There are some extracts for you below although it would help if you just read things for yourself. To answer your question, there could be all sorts of unions....trade union (single market?), tax union (harmonisation of rates), legal union (ECJ), defence union (EU army) to name a few. If you can agree them then you don't need to be a superstate to have them. You have the ability to opt out of the EU so there is no 'superstate' and, on several fronts we have retained the right to opt out. As Tara said, the idea of further political integration was written out for the UK and would be/has been written out in treaties. You don't want to believe that FACT though, as it would stop the peddling of another lie to further your cause.


So for example, one of the main EU treaties currently refers to:
“the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s also important to read the phrase “ever closer union” with the rest of the sentence. This links ever closer union, as the original draft of the EU deal stated, with a desire to “…promote trust and understanding among peoples living in open and democratic societies…”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was notably absent from the court’s landmark judgments, such as the Costa decision, which set out the principle of supremacy of EU law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, the UK could be formally exempted from the aspiration to “ever closer union,” which could be confirmed by treaty change down the line.
That’s just what the EU deal does:
“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”
What’s actually achieved by this?
Given the fact that the phrase “ever closer union” doesn’t imply a move to a federal EU, and isn’t a legal basis for any increase of EU power, exonerating the UK from a commitment to achieving ever closer union will not change the UK’s relationship with the EU.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Couvre la

By Joe HawkinsToday 10:50Today at 10:50:27In response to Re: 'ever closer union'Top of thread

Views: 29

Once we've taken back control at the end of October it'll all be a moot point.

#moreexitintheBrexit

Edited by joe hawkins at 10:52:42 on 16th July 2019

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Couvre la

By DesCartesToday 10:55Today at 10:55:47In response to Re: Couvre laTop of thread

Views: 24

'Taken back control' of what, m8?

What is it that we don't currently have control of?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Couvre la

By Joe HawkinsToday 11:00Today at 11:00:26In response to Re: Couvre laTop of thread

Views: 23

We don't have control on the freedom of movement for one, and if we don't control that then we can't control our housing, health care and schooling needs, but I won't go on...

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By MeerkatYesterday 10:39Yesterday at 10:39:17In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 183

So in summary you just have blinkers on.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)Yesterday 11:31Yesterday at 11:31:12In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 173

How so? I just refused to be scared by the daily mail.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By DesCartesYesterday 12:54Yesterday at 12:54:17In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 141

Would any level-headed person genuinely believe anything said in the Mail, let alone be scared by it?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By MeerkatYesterday 12:43Yesterday at 12:43:53In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 146

You don’t see what the EU is, and where it is going.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)Yesterday 13:23Yesterday at 13:23:00In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 125

I've looked at as much evidence as I can and cannot find anything to back up your abject fears.

I can find plenty of evidence to show your "project fear" as being correct.

With every week that goes by, it's harder and harder and harder to find invoice finance. Why? Very simple - Brexit. People do not want to invest in the UK, let alone the Construction sector due to the high costs, low percentage profits and high level of insolvencies.

The economy is grinding to a halt, and it's hitting the construction industry the hardest.

We are getting what we deserve, and what we voted for.

The EU is far from perfect, but the best way to get "control" is at the heart of it, not having to take their rules come what may to trade.

10 weeks and counting......

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By MeerkatYesterday 18:52Yesterday at 18:52:24In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 83

We have very little control inside the EU
The problem for business is the uncertainty- if we just get on with it the business will rapidly adapt

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Tara (ProgressiveTara)Yesterday 19:07Yesterday at 19:07:23In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 73

It will - it’ll fuck off and deal with Europe, just as it is now, more and more week by week that we look like leaving until we eventually do

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWSYesterday 11:50Yesterday at 11:50:58In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 162

Please don't attack the Express as well. He may never recover.

Anyway, what are you blathering on about. All the media is against Brexit. I was told so on the Maidstone forum. The geezer even had a go on Article 24 of GATT. He seems to have given up after just one post.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS12/7 18:22Fri Jul 12 18:22:27 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 524

What like £350m...or...we'll get a great deal...or...German car makers will March into merkel's office...or...we could be just like Noway...or...will of the people. ..or unelected bureaucrats. ..or...technology will solve it. ..or GATT 24...or leave means leave...or...take back control...or...get our sovereignty back?

You are priceless.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS12/7 15:40Fri Jul 12 15:40:19 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 564

So what policies of the EU do you dislike and which UK ones are you really looking forward to replacing them with?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By NWS11/7 23:24Thu Jul 11 23:24:00 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 816

It's obvious they don't or can't. Anyone with a functioning cortex who has researched brexit would not support it

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By ncfc (moincfc)12/7 09:38Fri Jul 12 09:38:16 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 697

Not necessarily. It will make financial services a lot better with the de-regulation, lowering of costs, etc, that wasn't possible as part of the EU.

I personally can see an upside for me, which is all that really matters.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By Howard RMI11/7 12:48Thu Jul 11 12:48:10 2019In response to Re: £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 1036

I could but would like the figures to come from NWS.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: £2.2m

By DesCartes11/7 11:54Thu Jul 11 11:54:53 2019In response to £2.2mTop of thread

Views: 1122

Let's just hope that it becomes 'annual'

reply to this article | return to the front page

Previous thread: Was Yesterday... by JonnyJYesterday 13:42Yesterday at 13:42:21view thread