This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
In matters of the defence of the realm I expect what the rpyal family and the government to be shrouded in secrecy. But where it is a public matter, involving public funds to a public service - secrecy should not be involved. However, I suppose Charlie is as entitled to any of us to write, in a private capacity, to any MP or minister. If the minister chooses to allow a letter from royalty influence their decisions on such matters then he or she should be sacked for being a brown nosed toadie.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015
A few years ago Jeremy Hunt signed a pro-homeopathy EDM. He now admits that was a mistake and that he does not support homeopathy.
Listen to him on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning (it's just one minute long).
He says he must follow the science and the evidence. Good, and that removes a lot of support homeopaths might have been counting on, but pity he couldn't apply the same rigour to other areas.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
The next video will look at the recent Advertising Standards Authority's adjudication against the Society of Homeopaths.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Blog post also very good (You must invest a lot of time and effort)
I don't know how you tolerate the apologists, especially Avijit whom it seems thinks s/he's clever by posting your real name.
Pleased to see most of the comments are positive though.
The latest video from CoolHardLogic demolishes the 'evidence' that the Society of Homeopaths submitted to the ASA to support the claims they were making. It's very, very good.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
