INFORMATION
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.
For further information, see our
Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
-
coffee
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm
#121
Post
by coffee » June 20th, 2019, 4:24 pm
Latest post of the previous page:
WATCH | @Jacob_Rees_Mogg puts Philip Hammond in his place over his no-deal Project Fear scaremongering: "The Treasury has been consistently opposed to Brexit. It forecast there would be a loss of between 500-800,000 jobs purely on a vote to leave. How wrong it has been!"
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/sta ... 3987041282
=========================================
Mr Hammond is wrong. Leaving the EU without signing the Withdrawal Treaty will make us better off. We can spend all the money we save on our priorities instead of paying all that tax to Brussels
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/ ... 3307468800
=========================================
.@ABridgen "...it's interesting that the European Union have now announced and made public, they're looking at these alternative arrangements for the border, which they claimed didn't exist only a few months ago"
https://twitter.com/BrexitCentral/statu ... 0616384512
===========================================
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#122
Post
by Alan H » June 20th, 2019, 5:05 pm
The propaganda machine is in overdrive today, coffee!
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?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#123
Post
by Alan H » June 20th, 2019, 7:44 pm
coffee wrote:Richard Tice
Verified account
@TiceRichard
My first day in Brussels as a new MEP was enough to get a taste of the astonishing privileges that go with the job. Ultimately, MEPs are just window dressing - an inconvenient but necessary doff of the cap towards fig-leaf democracy.
Read more by me here https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9304815/w ... ssels-now/
RICHARD TICE Why we must quit Brussels now – the sooner we leave this grotesque temple of excess the better
By Richard Tice, MEP for the East of England
https://twitter.com/TiceRichard/status/ ... 1262119936
Oh, and did no one tell him he doesn't actually take office for another three weeks? Is he just too stupid not to know? Surprised they even let him in the building...
Claire Fox and the ‘gravy train’ – a rebuttal by Molly Scott Cato MEP
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?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#124
Post
by Alan H » June 20th, 2019, 7:58 pm
Tell us all about GATT Article XXIV, coffee.
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?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#125
Post
by Alan H » June 21st, 2019, 7:11 pm
Let the Governor of the Bank of England help you there, coffee:
Brexit: Carney rejects Boris Johnson's no-deal trade claim
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?
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#126
Post
by Alan H » June 22nd, 2019, 12:37 am
So, coffee, what happens on 1st November if there is no deal at <pick any border crossing between Ireland and Northern Ireland>?
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?
-
coffee
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm
#127
Post
by coffee » June 22nd, 2019, 8:21 am
Michael Heaver
Verified account
@Michael_Heaver
On 31st October we will know if the next Prime Minister is just another Theresa May: all talk, no Brexit.
The Brexit Party is developing policy, selecting candidates and will be ready for a General Election.
https://twitter.com/Michael_Heaver/stat ... 4243824640
-
Alan H
- Posts: 24067
- Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm
#128
Post
by Alan H » June 22nd, 2019, 1:25 pm
coffee wrote:Michael Heaver
Verified account
@Michael_Heaver
On 31st October we will know if the next Prime Minister is just another Theresa May: all talk, no Brexit.
The Brexit Party is developing policy, selecting candidates and will be ready for a General Election.
https://twitter.com/Michael_Heaver/stat ... 4243824640
Policy #1: Brexit whatever the cost and damage.
Policy #2: See policy #1.
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?