Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? " Why must it all be spent on the wasteful NHS, we have lots of areas that need funding. And if you really believed all of the rhetoric given out by both sides you must surely be at best a fool, or simply deluded | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Why must it all be spent on the wasteful NHS, we have lots of areas that need funding. And if you really believed all of the rhetoric given out by both sides you must surely be at best a fool, or simply deluded" Think he's being sarcastic  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Why must it all be spent on the wasteful NHS, we have lots of areas that need funding. And if you really believed all of the rhetoric given out by both sides you must surely be at best a fool, or simply deluded" so are you a deluded fool then as you're not saying its all bollocks and that we wont get that money, you're just saying spend it on something else! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Why must it all be spent on the wasteful NHS, we have lots of areas that need funding. And if you really believed all of the rhetoric given out by both sides you must surely be at best a fool, or simply deluded so are you a deluded fool then as you're not saying its all bollocks and that we wont get that money, you're just saying spend it on something else! "I'm what ever you think I am, happy Brexit xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bus stated we pay £50 million a day to the EU. (True if you take the gross figure) Under which it said "why not spend it on the NHS?" It made a suggestion. It asked a question. At no time was a promise made. Also the (then) government was in favour of remain.....it was never their idea/policy or anything else you wish to call it. It's just twisting words...it's fake news as some would now say!" It actually said We send £350 million per week to EU. Let's fund the NHS instead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bus stated we pay £50 million a day to the EU. (True if you take the gross figure) Under which it said "why not spend it on the NHS?" It made a suggestion. It asked a question. At no time was a promise made. Also the (then) government was in favour of remain.....it was never their idea/policy or anything else you wish to call it. It's just twisting words...it's fake news as some would now say! It actually said We send £350 million per week to EU. Let's fund the NHS instead. " Truthfully I don't care what it said how much it is or was suggested as being so long as we siege back control | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bus stated we pay £50 million a day to the EU. (True if you take the gross figure) Under which it said "why not spend it on the NHS?" It made a suggestion. It asked a question. At no time was a promise made. Also the (then) government was in favour of remain.....it was never their idea/policy or anything else you wish to call it. It's just twisting words...it's fake news as some would now say! It actually said We send £350 million per week to EU. Let's fund the NHS instead. " Indeed. And they didn't say *which* NHS we might fund. The Numpty and Hillbilly Society were very much looking forward to some cash. Why would ANYONE think they meant the National Health Service?! (No, you imagined those TV ads as well!) -Matt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Why must it all be spent on the wasteful NHS, we have lots of areas that need funding. And if you really believed all of the rhetoric given out by both sides you must surely be at best a fool, or simply deluded so are you a deluded fool then as you're not saying its all bollocks and that we wont get that money, you're just saying spend it on something else!
I'm what ever you think I am, happy Brexit xx"I'm going to imagine you're a fireman this week  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bus stated we pay £50 million a day to the EU. (True if you take the gross figure) Under which it said "why not spend it on the NHS?" It made a suggestion. It asked a question. At no time was a promise made. Also the (then) government was in favour of remain.....it was never their idea/policy or anything else you wish to call it. It's just twisting words...it's fake news as some would now say! It actually said We send £350 million per week to EU. Let's fund the NHS instead. Indeed. And they didn't say *which* NHS we might fund. The Numpty and Hillbilly Society were very much looking forward to some cash. Why would ANYONE think they meant the National Health Service?! (No, you imagined those TV ads as well!) -Matt" Leavers say "could" Resmainers say "would" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bus stated we pay £50 million a day to the EU. (True if you take the gross figure) Under which it said "why not spend it on the NHS?" It made a suggestion. It asked a question. At no time was a promise made. Also the (then) government was in favour of remain.....it was never their idea/policy or anything else you wish to call it. It's just twisting words...it's fake news as some would now say! It actually said We send £350 million per week to EU. Let's fund the NHS instead. Indeed. And they didn't say *which* NHS we might fund. The Numpty and Hillbilly Society were very much looking forward to some cash. Why would ANYONE think they meant the National Health Service?! (No, you imagined those TV ads as well!) -Matt Leavers say "could" Resmainers say "would"" But if we don't get an extra £350m a week back we can't spend it on anything can we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bus stated we pay £50 million a day to the EU. (True if you take the gross figure) Under which it said "why not spend it on the NHS?" It made a suggestion. It asked a question. At no time was a promise made. Also the (then) government was in favour of remain.....it was never their idea/policy or anything else you wish to call it. It's just twisting words...it's fake news as some would now say!" There seemed to be 2 incarnations of the Brexit bus "We send the EU £350 million a week "Lets fund our NHS instead". & "We send the EU £50 million a day "Lets fund our NHS instead". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truthfully I don't care what it said how much it is or was suggested as being so long as we siege back control" Anyone spot the Freudian slip? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Why must it all be spent on the wasteful NHS, we have lots of areas that need funding. And if you really believed all of the rhetoric given out by both sides you must surely be at best a fool, or simply deluded so are you a deluded fool then as you're not saying its all bollocks and that we wont get that money, you're just saying spend it on something else!
I'm what ever you think I am, happy Brexit xx
I'm going to imagine you're a fireman this week "Imagine what ever you want to imagine, I'm sure you can get a pill for it!.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truthfully I don't care what it said how much it is or was suggested as being so long as we siege back control Anyone spot the Freudian slip? "Oh well just for you seize... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Truthfully I don't care what it said how much it is or was suggested as being so long as we siege back control Anyone spot the Freudian slip?
Oh well just for you seize..."I think you may have been a lot closer to the truth of where we are heading the first time round. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bus stated we pay £50 million a day to the EU. (True if you take the gross figure) Under which it said "why not spend it on the NHS?" It made a suggestion. It asked a question. At no time was a promise made. Also the (then) government was in favour of remain.....it was never their idea/policy or anything else you wish to call it. It's just twisting words...it's fake news as some would now say! It actually said We send £350 million per week to EU. Let's fund the NHS instead. " So a suggestion....my point exactly! Cheers for backing me up and correcting my quote. As I remember the government in power (the only ones with any power to re-direct spending) were campaigning to remain. They promised a "prompt emergency budget and a crash economy" if we voted out. Don't see anyone crying out for that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The bus stated we pay £50 million a day to the EU. (True if you take the gross figure) Under which it said "why not spend it on the NHS?" It made a suggestion. It asked a question. At no time was a promise made. Also the (then) government was in favour of remain.....it was never their idea/policy or anything else you wish to call it. It's just twisting words...it's fake news as some would now say! It actually said We send £350 million per week to EU. Let's fund the NHS instead. So a suggestion....my point exactly! Cheers for backing me up and correcting my quote. As I remember the government in power (the only ones with any power to re-direct spending) were campaigning to remain. They promised a "prompt emergency budget and a crash economy" if we voted out. Don't see anyone crying out for that." Basically in my view both sides lied through their teeth to try and sway the voters to a spectacular degree, far more than any general election I've had the misfortune to witness. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked. "Actually it was not quite true though! It's the same as going into the pub and buying a pint, paying for it with a £50 note and saying that it cost you £50!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked. "It did work, so would you agree with moorlands that those it worked on were deluded fools? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked.
It did work, so would you agree with moorlands that those it worked on were deluded fools? "I think you have missed the point completely. The issue is not whether the £350 million figure was correct or who believed it, Mathew Elliot said the whole idea behind that part of the campaign was to get people talking about how much is sent to the EU each day or each week. It clearly worked because you still have your knickers in a twist about it and you are still talking about it now 9 months later. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked.
It did work, so would you agree with moorlands that those it worked on were deluded fools?
I think you have missed the point completely. The issue is not whether the £350 million figure was correct or who believed it, Mathew Elliot said the whole idea behind that part of the campaign was to get people talking about how much is sent to the EU each day or each week. It clearly worked because you still have your knickers in a twist about it and you are still talking about it now 9 months later. "You say "still have your knickers in a twist" I say "still calling out liars". No, i haven't missed the point, yet you have failed to answer the question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Truthfully I don't care what it said how much it is or was suggested as being so long as we siege back control" What control have you lost? 15% of our laws came from the EU and of those, 1% we voted against so that's .15% of our laws you might object to. Nasty things like workers rights, environmental protection, equal rights. Who wants that stuff, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked.
It did work, so would you agree with moorlands that those it worked on were deluded fools?
I think you have missed the point completely. The issue is not whether the £350 million figure was correct or who believed it, Mathew Elliot said the whole idea behind that part of the campaign was to get people talking about how much is sent to the EU each day or each week. It clearly worked because you still have your knickers in a twist about it and you are still talking about it now 9 months later.
You say "still have your knickers in a twist" I say "still calling out liars". No, i haven't missed the point, yet you have failed to answer the question."That,s a good point CLCC,every time you are asked a question,you never answer either,just drop another pathetic question in .Pot and kettle spring to mind | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked.
It did work, so would you agree with moorlands that those it worked on were deluded fools?
I think you have missed the point completely. The issue is not whether the £350 million figure was correct or who believed it, Mathew Elliot said the whole idea behind that part of the campaign was to get people talking about how much is sent to the EU each day or each week. It clearly worked because you still have your knickers in a twist about it and you are still talking about it now 9 months later.
You say "still have your knickers in a twist" I say "still calling out liars". No, i haven't missed the point, yet you have failed to answer the question.That,s a good point CLCC,every time you are asked a question,you never answer either,just drop another pathetic question in .Pot and kettle spring to mind "Bollocks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe the Remain camp should have got a bus saying something like:- We send £12.7 billion net a year to the EU. 18 other countries don't send a single penny. At least it would be Truthful "Or "we send £12.7bn net a year to the EU, but we'll lose £26bn+ a year if we leave." (just using your figures for expediency) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maybe the Remain camp should have got a bus saying something like:- We send £12.7 billion net a year to the EU. 18 other countries don't send a single penny. At least it would be Truthful
Or "we send £12.7bn net a year to the EU, but we'll lose £26bn+ a year if we leave."
(just using your figures for expediency)".. But £26bn a year is only a theory it fact as nobody knows what is going to happen, all just supposition. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked.
It did work, so would you agree with moorlands that those it worked on were deluded fools?
I think you have missed the point completely. The issue is not whether the £350 million figure was correct or who believed it, Mathew Elliot said the whole idea behind that part of the campaign was to get people talking about how much is sent to the EU each day or each week. It clearly worked because you still have your knickers in a twist about it and you are still talking about it now 9 months later.
You say "still have your knickers in a twist" I say "still calling out liars". No, i haven't missed the point, yet you have failed to answer the question.That,s a good point CLCC,every time you are asked a question,you never answer either,just drop another pathetic question in .Pot and kettle spring to mind
Bollocks. "i don't wish to know what keeps your ears apart | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the new passport contract is costing about £500m - obviously more important than health care! Let's hope we can continue borrowing to pay for it! " Awesome! So about one and a half year's worth of our imaginary £350m. And that is just for fucking passports. Wait until we get spending on things that actually matter. Go team Brexit! Wooohoo! Ruuuuuuuule Britaaaaaaaaainia. -Matt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's not a matter of getting anything 'back' more a matter of not sending it in the first place. At no point during the whole campaign did I understand the comments on the busses to be a 'promise' or anything else along these lines other than simply stating how much money the UK sends to Europe and that really there are better things that we can spend it on. And let's not forget, such statements or claims (whatever you want to call them) were not being made by any political party seeking to form a new government, and so anyone attempting to criticise the government for 'failing' on it's promise is really clutching at straws. At no point has the Government ever said that leaving the EU would result in a £350 million per week boost to the NHS." Yes. You are right. The adverts were just as advisory and non-legally binding as the referendum itself. Nobody need take any notice of them. Not a promise, just a 'we could do, if we wanted'. Just in the same way I tell my 6 year old daughter that I could be a superhero if I really wanted. I could. But just choose not to. -Matt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked. "Lying works | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What ever the controversy around the £350 million per week on the side of the vote Leave bus is it clearly worked. Matthew Elliot (director of the vote leave campaign) said it was intended to get people talking about how much we actually send (and waste in my view) to the EU. It was a great tactic and strategy move by the vote Leave campaign, and folk are still talking about it now so it clearly worked.
Lying works "Certainly did for TB  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? " WOW!!!That definitely gonna put the recession On to page two. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the 350 million will more than likely go into the arse pockets of those that benefit fromm the higher earner tax rebate that came into existance as of this weekend, courtesy of gorgeous george the previous fuckwit in chief of the tory money laundering service" A whole 2% ? thats still leaves 45% in tax what do you pay? 20% Yes I know they earn more in a year than you will in ypu're lifetime but thats just the way it goes. The more you earn the more you pay | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? " Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account." Except that this statement has already been debunked by the Office of Budget Responsibility who have made it very clear that tax receipts will fall because of Brexit and the Govt will have less money to use than they have at the moment. This is an extraordinarily crass attempt at making a BoJo promise come true and I feel fairly confident that she will be shredded in the Press and in Parliament for making what is a patently untrue statement. We will all be paying more tax for this (which is no bad thing) andcwe will all be paying more tax to make up for the Brexit shortfall. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account. Except that this statement has already been debunked by the Office of Budget Responsibility who have made it very clear that tax receipts will fall because of Brexit and the Govt will have less money to use than they have at the moment. This is an extraordinarily crass attempt at making a BoJo promise come true and I feel fairly confident that she will be shredded in the Press and in Parliament for making what is a patently untrue statement. We will all be paying more tax for this (which is no bad thing) andcwe will all be paying more tax to make up for the Brexit shortfall." Except that tax receipts are rising, and are forecast to rise consistently over the next decade. And the forecasts of the treasury were that by now there would be 1.1 Million to 1.4 Million less people employed than there actually are.... (That's the 500,000 to 800,000 that would have lost their jobs in the 'deep and profound recession' that we're in by now, and the 600,000 extra people who have got into jobs during this recession we're currently in). I'm sure you can work out roughly how much extra tax that is at average wage, and how much in benefits we're not paying out to those 1.4 Million people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance!" It's all brexiter bullshit as usual. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account. Except that this statement has already been debunked by the Office of Budget Responsibility who have made it very clear that tax receipts will fall because of Brexit and the Govt will have less money to use than they have at the moment. This is an extraordinarily crass attempt at making a BoJo promise come true and I feel fairly confident that she will be shredded in the Press and in Parliament for making what is a patently untrue statement. We will all be paying more tax for this (which is no bad thing) andcwe will all be paying more tax to make up for the Brexit shortfall. Except that tax receipts are rising, and are forecast to rise consistently over the next decade. And the forecasts of the treasury were that by now there would be 1.1 Million to 1.4 Million less people employed than there actually are.... (That's the 500,000 to 800,000 that would have lost their jobs in the 'deep and profound recession' that we're in by now, and the 600,000 extra people who have got into jobs during this recession we're currently in). I'm sure you can work out roughly how much extra tax that is at average wage, and how much in benefits we're not paying out to those 1.4 Million people." So the IFS, OBR, HMRC and Treasury are all wrong... and you are right? ..,, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account. Except that this statement has already been debunked by the Office of Budget Responsibility who have made it very clear that tax receipts will fall because of Brexit and the Govt will have less money to use than they have at the moment. This is an extraordinarily crass attempt at making a BoJo promise come true and I feel fairly confident that she will be shredded in the Press and in Parliament for making what is a patently untrue statement. We will all be paying more tax for this (which is no bad thing) andcwe will all be paying more tax to make up for the Brexit shortfall. Except that tax receipts are rising, and are forecast to rise consistently over the next decade. And the forecasts of the treasury were that by now there would be 1.1 Million to 1.4 Million less people employed than there actually are.... (That's the 500,000 to 800,000 that would have lost their jobs in the 'deep and profound recession' that we're in by now, and the 600,000 extra people who have got into jobs during this recession we're currently in). I'm sure you can work out roughly how much extra tax that is at average wage, and how much in benefits we're not paying out to those 1.4 Million people. So the IFS, OBR, HMRC and Treasury are all wrong... and you are right? ..,, " Didn't the person you just quoted give examples of where the Treasury had already got it's forecasts wrong on Brexit? You have to take in to account track records on theses things, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that any future forecasts on Brexit will be correct as they got it so wrong in the past. Even the Chancellor Philip Hammond has publicly admitted that the UK economy has out-performed all expectations since the vote to leave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance! It's all brexiter bullshit as usual. "Yup, they are conveniently forgetting about the ~£90bn already spent, plus the £23bn lost from lower than projected growth, plus the £46bn divorce fee, plus the money paid into the EU science butget(let's say £1bn a year) plus the money paid into the pension pot until the 2060s, plus the cost of the tariffs, what was that? £20bn? So to me that equates to around £180bn. Let's put that into perspective, the defence budget is around £40bn a year. So you can see how big the figure mentioned above it. It's like the old saying, a billion here and and billion there soon starts adding up to real money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance! It's all brexiter bullshit as usual.
Yup, they are conveniently forgetting about the ~£90bn already spent, plus the £23bn lost from lower than projected growth, plus the £46bn divorce fee, plus the money paid into the EU science butget(let's say £1bn a year) plus the money paid into the pension pot until the 2060s, plus the cost of the tariffs, what was that? £20bn?
So to me that equates to around £180bn.
Let's put that into perspective, the defence budget is around £40bn a year. So you can see how big the figure mentioned above it. It's like the old saying, a billion here and and billion there soon starts adding up to real money."You like to mention the pensions until the 1960's a lot, but how much would it have cost if we had Remained in the EU until the 1960's paying in full EU membership fees of around £9 billion per year? Fullfact website says the UK annual contribution is around £8.6 billion a year so let's round it up to £9 billion a year as you've been somewhat loose and generous with your figures above (your £20 billion tariff you mentioned has been likened to a calculation drawn up on the back of a postcard by a well respected political commentator and the divorce bill is £38 billion). So from 2016 to 2060 is 44 years. At £9 billion a year in EU Membership fees over 44 years, 9x44 = £396 billion in EU membership fees until the year 2060 had we voted remain in 2016. I think we can add £10 or £20 billion to that figure as it's reasonable to assume our membership fee would have increased over the years until 2060 and would not have remained at the same rate as 2016 levels, so factoring in that brings the total upto £396 billion + £20 billion = £414 billion Total in EU Membership fees until the year 2060. It seems when compared to your £180 billion cost of Brexit, the cost to remain until 2060 would have been a lot higher and we are making a saving of £234 billion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance! It's all brexiter bullshit as usual.
Yup, they are conveniently forgetting about the ~£90bn already spent, plus the £23bn lost from lower than projected growth, plus the £46bn divorce fee, plus the money paid into the EU science butget(let's say £1bn a year) plus the money paid into the pension pot until the 2060s, plus the cost of the tariffs, what was that? £20bn?
So to me that equates to around £180bn.
Let's put that into perspective, the defence budget is around £40bn a year. So you can see how big the figure mentioned above it. It's like the old saying, a billion here and and billion there soon starts adding up to real money."Who is the recipient of the money already spent and when did they receive it . ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance! It's all brexiter bullshit as usual.
Yup, they are conveniently forgetting about the ~£90bn already spent, plus the £23bn lost from lower than projected growth, plus the £46bn divorce fee, plus the money paid into the EU science butget(let's say £1bn a year) plus the money paid into the pension pot until the 2060s, plus the cost of the tariffs, what was that? £20bn?
So to me that equates to around £180bn.
Let's put that into perspective, the defence budget is around £40bn a year. So you can see how big the figure mentioned above it. It's like the old saying, a billion here and and billion there soon starts adding up to real money.
You like to mention the pensions until the 1960's a lot, but how much would it have cost if we had Remained in the EU until the 1960's paying in full EU membership fees of around £9 billion per year? Fullfact website says the UK annual contribution is around £8.6 billion a year so let's round it up to £9 billion a year as you've been somewhat loose and generous with your figures above (your £20 billion tariff you mentioned has been likened to a calculation drawn up on the back of a postcard by a well respected political commentator and the divorce bill is £38 billion). So from 2016 to 2060 is 44 years. At £9 billion a year in EU Membership fees over 44 years, 9x44 = £396 billion in EU membership fees until the year 2060 had we voted remain in 2016. I think we can add £10 or £20 billion to that figure as it's reasonable to assume our membership fee would have increased over the years until 2060 and would not have remained at the same rate as 2016 levels, so factoring in that brings the total upto £396 billion + £20 billion = £414 billion Total in EU Membership fees until the year 2060. It seems when compared to your £180 billion cost of Brexit, the cost to remain until 2060 would have been a lot higher and we are making a saving of £234 billion. "Excellent post . Only one error in it . The savings would be even higher if we used an NPV calculation.   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance! It's all brexiter bullshit as usual.
Yup, they are conveniently forgetting about the ~£90bn already spent, plus the £23bn lost from lower than projected growth, plus the £46bn divorce fee, plus the money paid into the EU science butget(let's say £1bn a year) plus the money paid into the pension pot until the 2060s, plus the cost of the tariffs, what was that? £20bn?
So to me that equates to around £180bn.
Let's put that into perspective, the defence budget is around £40bn a year. So you can see how big the figure mentioned above it. It's like the old saying, a billion here and and billion there soon starts adding up to real money.
You like to mention the pensions until the 1960's a lot, but how much would it have cost if we had Remained in the EU until the 1960's paying in full EU membership fees of around £9 billion per year? Fullfact website says the UK annual contribution is around £8.6 billion a year so let's round it up to £9 billion a year as you've been somewhat loose and generous with your figures above (your £20 billion tariff you mentioned has been likened to a calculation drawn up on the back of a postcard by a well respected political commentator and the divorce bill is £38 billion). So from 2016 to 2060 is 44 years. At £9 billion a year in EU Membership fees over 44 years, 9x44 = £396 billion in EU membership fees until the year 2060 had we voted remain in 2016. I think we can add £10 or £20 billion to that figure as it's reasonable to assume our membership fee would have increased over the years until 2060 and would not have remained at the same rate as 2016 levels, so factoring in that brings the total upto £396 billion + £20 billion = £414 billion Total in EU Membership fees until the year 2060. It seems when compared to your £180 billion cost of Brexit, the cost to remain until 2060 would have been a lot higher and we are making a saving of £234 billion. "Oh dear Centaur, my calculation of costs weren't until 2062 (you said 44yrs), but happy to work it out for you. You say it will cost us £234bn to stay in the EU. Well to leave the EU will cost us £1,589bn. £90bn already in monetary and fiscal policy, £23bn in lost growth over last 2 yrs (So 11.5bn a year), revised treasury figures for divorce bill are £46bn, so that's £159bn before we have left. If growth remains the same compared to what it would have been, that's 44 years of £11.5bn equalling £506bn. Tariffs at £20bn for 44 years equals £880bn. Now you have repeatedly said Andrew Neil said it was written on a napkin, but it wasn't it was written by 2 prestigious organisations, ones who count Pepsi, Pfizer, Visa and Rolls Royce as their customers. I have asked you 4 times if you know who wrote it, and 4 times you have refused to answer. Science budget of £1bn for 44 yrs, comes to £44bn. Pensions, I'm not sure of how much this will come to, and seeing as the costs so heavily outweigh your "savings", let's call this zero. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance! It's all brexiter bullshit as usual.
Yup, they are conveniently forgetting about the ~£90bn already spent, plus the £23bn lost from lower than projected growth, plus the £46bn divorce fee, plus the money paid into the EU science butget(let's say £1bn a year) plus the money paid into the pension pot until the 2060s, plus the cost of the tariffs, what was that? £20bn?
So to me that equates to around £180bn.
Let's put that into perspective, the defence budget is around £40bn a year. So you can see how big the figure mentioned above it. It's like the old saying, a billion here and and billion there soon starts adding up to real money.
You like to mention the pensions until the 1960's a lot, but how much would it have cost if we had Remained in the EU until the 1960's paying in full EU membership fees of around £9 billion per year? Fullfact website says the UK annual contribution is around £8.6 billion a year so let's round it up to £9 billion a year as you've been somewhat loose and generous with your figures above (your £20 billion tariff you mentioned has been likened to a calculation drawn up on the back of a postcard by a well respected political commentator and the divorce bill is £38 billion). So from 2016 to 2060 is 44 years. At £9 billion a year in EU Membership fees over 44 years, 9x44 = £396 billion in EU membership fees until the year 2060 had we voted remain in 2016. I think we can add £10 or £20 billion to that figure as it's reasonable to assume our membership fee would have increased over the years until 2060 and would not have remained at the same rate as 2016 levels, so factoring in that brings the total upto £396 billion + £20 billion = £414 billion Total in EU Membership fees until the year 2060. It seems when compared to your £180 billion cost of Brexit, the cost to remain until 2060 would have been a lot higher and we are making a saving of £234 billion. Excellent post . Only one error in it . The savings would be even higher if we used an NPV calculation. "NPV are lower than the undiscounted number. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account. Except that this statement has already been debunked by the Office of Budget Responsibility who have made it very clear that tax receipts will fall because of Brexit and the Govt will have less money to use than they have at the moment. This is an extraordinarily crass attempt at making a BoJo promise come true and I feel fairly confident that she will be shredded in the Press and in Parliament for making what is a patently untrue statement. We will all be paying more tax for this (which is no bad thing) andcwe will all be paying more tax to make up for the Brexit shortfall. Except that tax receipts are rising, and are forecast to rise consistently over the next decade. And the forecasts of the treasury were that by now there would be 1.1 Million to 1.4 Million less people employed than there actually are.... (That's the 500,000 to 800,000 that would have lost their jobs in the 'deep and profound recession' that we're in by now, and the 600,000 extra people who have got into jobs during this recession we're currently in). I'm sure you can work out roughly how much extra tax that is at average wage, and how much in benefits we're not paying out to those 1.4 Million people. So the IFS, OBR, HMRC and Treasury are all wrong... and you are right? ..,, " The tax take rising over the next 10 years are not my figures....they're the treasury's and HMRC's.... You only have to google it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this must really piss you remainers off as you said the brexit campaign was lying,you see we will be better off in the long run. No doubt remainers will now complain about this so looking forward to laughing at them for years and years,he who laughs last laughs longest "The leader of one of the Brexit campaigns has testified to parliament that they lied! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance! It's all brexiter bullshit as usual.
Yup, they are conveniently forgetting about the ~£90bn already spent, plus the £23bn lost from lower than projected growth, plus the £46bn divorce fee, plus the money paid into the EU science butget(let's say £1bn a year) plus the money paid into the pension pot until the 2060s, plus the cost of the tariffs, what was that? £20bn?
So to me that equates to around £180bn.
Let's put that into perspective, the defence budget is around £40bn a year. So you can see how big the figure mentioned above it. It's like the old saying, a billion here and and billion there soon starts adding up to real money.
You like to mention the pensions until the 1960's a lot, but how much would it have cost if we had Remained in the EU until the 1960's paying in full EU membership fees of around £9 billion per year? Fullfact website says the UK annual contribution is around £8.6 billion a year so let's round it up to £9 billion a year as you've been somewhat loose and generous with your figures above (your £20 billion tariff you mentioned has been likened to a calculation drawn up on the back of a postcard by a well respected political commentator and the divorce bill is £38 billion). So from 2016 to 2060 is 44 years. At £9 billion a year in EU Membership fees over 44 years, 9x44 = £396 billion in EU membership fees until the year 2060 had we voted remain in 2016. I think we can add £10 or £20 billion to that figure as it's reasonable to assume our membership fee would have increased over the years until 2060 and would not have remained at the same rate as 2016 levels, so factoring in that brings the total upto £396 billion + £20 billion = £414 billion Total in EU Membership fees until the year 2060. It seems when compared to your £180 billion cost of Brexit, the cost to remain until 2060 would have been a lot higher and we are making a saving of £234 billion.
Oh dear Centaur, my calculation of costs weren't until 2062 (you said 44yrs), but happy to work it out for you.
You say it will cost us £234bn to stay in the EU. Well to leave the EU will cost us £1,589bn.
£90bn already in monetary and fiscal policy, £23bn in lost growth over last
2 yrs (So 11.5bn a year), revised treasury figures for divorce bill are £46bn, so that's £159bn before we have left.
If growth remains the same compared to what it would have been, that's 44 years of £11.5bn equalling £506bn.
Tariffs at £20bn for 44 years equals £880bn. Now you have repeatedly said Andrew Neil said it was written on a napkin, but it wasn't it was written by 2 prestigious organisations, ones who count Pepsi, Pfizer, Visa and Rolls Royce as their customers. I have asked you 4 times if you know who wrote it, and 4 times you have refused to answer.
Science budget of £1bn for 44 yrs, comes to £44bn.
Pensions, I'm not sure of how much this will come to, and seeing as the costs so heavily outweigh your "savings", let's call this zero.
"If the country had voted Remain in 2016 then the EU contribution fees I calculated upto the year 2060 would be 44 years from 2016. If you want to be that pedantic about it though then the way you worded it was "pensions to the 2060's" I could have picked 2069 based on your exact wording and added another 9 years of EU membership fees on. The total cost of remaining in the EU from 2016 to 2060 I worked out was £414 billion, the £236 saving was against your original calculation of £180 billion for Brexit. But now as always when proved wrong you attempt to move the goal posts. You say the divorce bill has now gone up from £38 billion (agreed with the EU in December) to £46 billion, so you are saying the EU can't be trusted to keep their word on agreements already made. As remainers often say on here 'no one trusts a welcher', and from what you've said the EU have already welched on the deal. There rest of your post beyond this point is based on economic forecasts, guesses, predictions, crystal ball gazing and blind stabs in the dark about growth rates. My figures were based on much more reliable EU membership fee rates which are already known. The £20 billion annual tariff figure you give has been disputed by customs ports container handlers reported in the Express and revised down to £2 billion a year so that would equate to another £18 billion saving every year for 44 years to be deducted from your overall figure. £18x44 = £792 saving to be deducted from your overall figure. Basically I think all this proves is that either side can play around with figures to make a case for a saving or a cost in the long term. Time will tell who is right and the country has already made its decision to leave the EU anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The "magic money tree" makes another appearance! It's all brexiter bullshit as usual.
Yup, they are conveniently forgetting about the ~£90bn already spent, plus the £23bn lost from lower than projected growth, plus the £46bn divorce fee, plus the money paid into the EU science butget(let's say £1bn a year) plus the money paid into the pension pot until the 2060s, plus the cost of the tariffs, what was that? £20bn?
So to me that equates to around £180bn.
Let's put that into perspective, the defence budget is around £40bn a year. So you can see how big the figure mentioned above it. It's like the old saying, a billion here and and billion there soon starts adding up to real money.
You like to mention the pensions until the 1960's a lot, but how much would it have cost if we had Remained in the EU until the 1960's paying in full EU membership fees of around £9 billion per year? Fullfact website says the UK annual contribution is around £8.6 billion a year so let's round it up to £9 billion a year as you've been somewhat loose and generous with your figures above (your £20 billion tariff you mentioned has been likened to a calculation drawn up on the back of a postcard by a well respected political commentator and the divorce bill is £38 billion). So from 2016 to 2060 is 44 years. At £9 billion a year in EU Membership fees over 44 years, 9x44 = £396 billion in EU membership fees until the year 2060 had we voted remain in 2016. I think we can add £10 or £20 billion to that figure as it's reasonable to assume our membership fee would have increased over the years until 2060 and would not have remained at the same rate as 2016 levels, so factoring in that brings the total upto £396 billion + £20 billion = £414 billion Total in EU Membership fees until the year 2060. It seems when compared to your £180 billion cost of Brexit, the cost to remain until 2060 would have been a lot higher and we are making a saving of £234 billion.
Oh dear Centaur, my calculation of costs weren't until 2062 (you said 44yrs), but happy to work it out for you.
You say it will cost us £234bn to stay in the EU. Well to leave the EU will cost us £1,589bn.
£90bn already in monetary and fiscal policy, £23bn in lost growth over last
2 yrs (So 11.5bn a year), revised treasury figures for divorce bill are £46bn, so that's £159bn before we have left.
If growth remains the same compared to what it would have been, that's 44 years of £11.5bn equalling £506bn.
Tariffs at £20bn for 44 years equals £880bn. Now you have repeatedly said Andrew Neil said it was written on a napkin, but it wasn't it was written by 2 prestigious organisations, ones who count Pepsi, Pfizer, Visa and Rolls Royce as their customers. I have asked you 4 times if you know who wrote it, and 4 times you have refused to answer.
Science budget of £1bn for 44 yrs, comes to £44bn.
Pensions, I'm not sure of how much this will come to, and seeing as the costs so heavily outweigh your "savings", let's call this zero.
If the country had voted Remain in 2016 then the EU contribution fees I calculated upto the year 2060 would be 44 years from 2016. If you want to be that pedantic about it though then the way you worded it was "pensions to the 2060's" I could have picked 2069 based on your exact wording and added another 9 years of EU membership fees on. The total cost of remaining in the EU from 2016 to 2060 I worked out was £414 billion, the £236 saving was against your original calculation of £180 billion for Brexit. But now as always when proved wrong you attempt to move the goal posts.
You say the divorce bill has now gone up from £38 billion (agreed with the EU in December) to £46 billion, so you are saying the EU can't be trusted to keep their word on agreements already made. As remainers often say on here 'no one trusts a welcher', and from what you've said the EU have already welched on the deal. There rest of your post beyond this point is based on economic forecasts, guesses, predictions, crystal ball gazing and blind stabs in the dark about growth rates. My figures were based on much more reliable EU membership fee rates which are already known. The £20 billion annual tariff figure you give has been disputed by customs ports container handlers reported in the Express and revised down to £2 billion a year so that would equate to another £18 billion saving every year for 44 years to be deducted from your overall figure. £18x44 = £792 saving to be deducted from your overall figure. Basically I think all this proves is that either side can play around with figures to make a case for a saving or a cost in the long term. Time will tell who is right and the country has already made its decision to leave the EU anyway. "How did I move the goal posts? My figures were for how much Brexit has cost us from the referendum until now, plus the bill we will have to pay when we leave. That's the £180bn. How much will we have saved? Zero. Again, who came up with the £20bn a year cost of tariffs, I have asked you 5 times now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this must really piss you remainers off as you said the brexit campaign was lying,you see we will be better off in the long run. No doubt remainers will now complain about this so looking forward to laughing at them for years and years,he who laughs last laughs longest
The leader of one of the Brexit campaigns has testified to parliament that they lied! "You really do twist things don't you,proof in the pudding | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Brexiters have distanced themselves from the big red bus like it was steaming pile of bulllshit for years ,repeatedly saying nobody really believed that figure ..Now Its the god given truth...Jesus titty Christ you fuckers are bipolar ,and yet deliciously entertaining in a monty pythonesque way. "Your nasty side coming out now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this must really piss you remainers off as you said the brexit campaign was lying,you see we will be better off in the long run. No doubt remainers will now complain about this so looking forward to laughing at them for years and years,he who laughs last laughs longest
The leader of one of the Brexit campaigns has testified to parliament that they lied! You really do twist things don't you,proof in the pudding"Are you saying that he didn't admit to lying? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account." i do think it is interesting that you are quoting conservative party press releases.... because it is interesting that conservative mp's who are still and have been GP's are not singing from the same hymn sheet.... May’s assertion that the rise could be partly paid for with money saved by ceasing EU contributions after Brexit was dismissed by Dr. Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative backbencher who chairs the Commons health and social care committee. “The Brexit dividend tosh was expected but treats the public as fools,” she tweeted. “Sad to see government slide to populist arguments rather than evidence on such an important issue. This will make it harder to have a rational debate about the ‘who & how’ of funding and sharing this fairly.” Her view was echoed by Philip Lee, who recently resigned as justice minister and who sometimes . Lee tweeted that while the extra money was to be welcomed, “we must be honest about how we are going to pay”. He added: “There is no evidence yet that there will be a ‘Brexit dividend’ – so it’s tax rises, more borrowing or both. so..... who are we more likely to believe, those in the high places or those who have been on the front line... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, what a loads of crap it's just to keep Brexiters happy. " Well don't use the NHS then,why so vindictive? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account. i do think it is interesting that you are quoting conservative party press releases.... because it is interesting that conservative mp's who are still and have been GP's are not singing from the same hymn sheet.... May’s assertion that the rise could be partly paid for with money saved by ceasing EU contributions after Brexit was dismissed by Dr. Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative backbencher who chairs the Commons health and social care committee. “The Brexit dividend tosh was expected but treats the public as fools,” she tweeted. “Sad to see government slide to populist arguments rather than evidence on such an important issue. This will make it harder to have a rational debate about the ‘who & how’ of funding and sharing this fairly.” Her view was echoed by Philip Lee, who recently resigned as justice minister and who sometimes . Lee tweeted that while the extra money was to be welcomed, “we must be honest about how we are going to pay”. He added: “There is no evidence yet that there will be a ‘Brexit dividend’ – so it’s tax rises, more borrowing or both. so..... who are we more likely to believe, those in the high places or those who have been on the front line..." Those who have been on the front line, such as Dr. Liam Fox who is as much of a Doctor as Sarah Woolaston. Dr Liam Fox supports the Prime minister's view that there will be a Brexit dividend from money saved on EU contribution fees after our departure. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yeah, what a loads of crap it's just to keep Brexiters happy. Well don't use the NHS then,why so vindictive?" Wtf?!  How is it vindictiveness questioning the genuinity of *that* claim?! Did you see anyone say "no, thank you Theresa. You keep it"?! It's like a recent university graduate needing to buy a house otherwise his fiancee will leave him. So he goes to the bank manager and says "listen, I just graduated but I've got a job offer, I signed the contracts and everything. However, I start in 5 years, my salary will be 50K pre-tax and it will go up to 100k in 40 years. Until then though I have to be paying 10K a year for student loans/memberships to employment related associations/exams for further cettificates etc. I want 500K *now* for a mortgage. What *this* student expects, is the manager to say "yes, sure, no problem" *and* his fiancee to believe him when he tells her that he's got the mortgage, despite the fact that his bank manager told him to fuck off and he went and robbed a bank instead. The fiancee still gets her house and both families are happy. Who cares if the student "stretched" the truth?
I mean there's clutching at straws to save your neck but, what Theresa is doing, is literally just waving her hands in the air and shouting "coooeyyyy". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Today apparently... The Prime Minister will announce today "Some people may remember seeing a figure on the side of a bus a while back of £350m a week in cash," she said. "I can tell you that what I'm announcing will mean that in 2023-24 there will be about £600m a week, more in cash, going into the NHS. "That will be through the Brexit dividend. The fact that we're no longer sending vast amounts of money every year to the EU once we leave the EU." That will mean by 2023 the budget will be £20bn a year more than it is now once inflation is taken into account. i do think it is interesting that you are quoting conservative party press releases.... because it is interesting that conservative mp's who are still and have been GP's are not singing from the same hymn sheet.... May’s assertion that the rise could be partly paid for with money saved by ceasing EU contributions after Brexit was dismissed by Dr. Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative backbencher who chairs the Commons health and social care committee. “The Brexit dividend tosh was expected but treats the public as fools,” she tweeted. “Sad to see government slide to populist arguments rather than evidence on such an important issue. This will make it harder to have a rational debate about the ‘who & how’ of funding and sharing this fairly.” Her view was echoed by Philip Lee, who recently resigned as justice minister and who sometimes . Lee tweeted that while the extra money was to be welcomed, “we must be honest about how we are going to pay”. He added: “There is no evidence yet that there will be a ‘Brexit dividend’ – so it’s tax rises, more borrowing or both. so..... who are we more likely to believe, those in the high places or those who have been on the front line... Those who have been on the front line, such as Dr. Liam Fox who is as much of a Doctor as Sarah Woolaston. Dr Liam Fox supports the Prime minister's view that there will be a Brexit dividend from money saved on EU contribution fees after our departure. " Yeah... one slight issue.. the government have already committed to spending all that money.. for example agriculture and fisheries subsidies, the government also said the the economy will be smaller and that tax subsidies will be less So it was always going to come from increased taxes and or increased borrowing If they were honest and said that I don’t think people would begrudge paying more if it goes to the nhs ( the extra amount roughly equates to 1% on tax or ni) but don’t call it a brexit dividend when even your own government figures don’t support that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well at least Jeremy hunt admitted this morning that any “Brexit dividend” would not cover the extra nhs money... now we just have to get no.10 and leavers in general to admit the concept of the “dividend” doesn’t exist.... So centy... prepared to admit it is a big old con job yet?????" We wish you good luck with that But you won’t get a brexiteer ever saying there wrong or a policy is a con job they all come out of the same mood | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My only worry is how much will be syphoned off by accountants, lawyers and shareholders through the ideological purge of public services being run by the public sector" Fill the coffers of private contractors and 'heathcare providers' Won't be long before there's an Uber contract for hospital admissions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"James O'brien summed it up on LBC this morning about the whole Brexit dividend in a easy to understand analogy. You pay £20 a month to do carboot sales = £240 per year and you make £2000 profit over that year from carboot sales. So taking off the membership costs you make £1760 a year profit from paying your membership of £240 a year fees by having access to free trading at the carboot sales. Our carboot dividend "Brexit dividend" is ignoring the £1760 profit we make and simply not do carboot sales anymore, we save £240 a year... that's our carboot / brexit dividend, quids in eh? Other people can also do carboot sales without paying £20 a month, but they pay a fee on every sale they make which works out more than just the £20 membership fee. Same as being a member of the EU, we pay our fees to have free trade, we make more out of being a member than we pay to be one. Now the only economic argument anyone could try is we don't make more in free trade than we pay in membership fees, but I'd hazard a guess there are hard figures out there to debunk that. " So you are comparing the EU to a car boot sale, lol, I think that's a great comparison seeing as it's outdated in the modern world. Any modern day businessman with any common sense would save on the car boot sales costs and set up online instead selling via eBay or other similar such online websites. It's a business trend that is already happening as we can also see on the high street with businesses saving on shop costs and selling online instead. So I think you've just highlighted how the EU is an old 20th century analogue union now in a modern 21st century digital age, and how the EU is not fit for purpose in the modern world this is 2018, not 1975. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! " Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way " Fine, I won't say it won't, The Treasury says it won't! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way Fine, I won't say it won't, The Treasury says it won't! "What else did the treasury say? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way Fine, I won't say it won't, The Treasury says it won't! "The Treasury also said there would be an immediate and deep recession in the event of a leave vote and that 500,000 jobs would be lost. The Treasury said there would also need to be an immediate emergency budget. None of the above happened. Case closed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! " To parlia.ent she said that some of the money woukd come from taxpayers, and some would come from the Brexit dividend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s all taxpayer money, whether its going to the EU or the NHS. But the idea of any dividend from leaving the EU is wishful thinking, I suspect." So you're admitting there is no such thing as 'EU money' when it comes to the UK, because we are a nett contributor and it was UK taxpayers cash all along, just that the EU was telling us how to spend our own money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! To parlia.ent she said that some of the money woukd come from taxpayers, and some would come from the Brexit dividend. " What exactly is the so called “Brexit dividend”? Perchance it is Govt (taxpayers) money? There will not be any Brexit dividend and the tax payer will be paying for the NHS funding - as they quite rightly should. Talk of Brexit dividend is a political sham. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! To parlia.ent she said that some of the money woukd come from taxpayers, and some would come from the Brexit dividend. " That's also what Theresa May said yesterday on the BBC Andrew Marr show. Theresa May hasn't changed her position. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way Fine, I won't say it won't, The Treasury says it won't!
The Treasury also said there would be an immediate and deep recession in the event of a leave vote and that 500,000 jobs would be lost. The Treasury said there would also need to be an immediate emergency budget.
None of the above happened.
Case closed. "Then why did you vote for the Treasury to be in control of an even greater share of money? Surely only a complete imbecile would vote for a Treasury that they think is incompetent to have even more control.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's funny of course, is all the people who have consistently spoken against austerity, or have said "where the fuck is the 350 Million a week for the NHS?", or, "oh yeah, there's a magic money tree for the DUP but no money for the NHS"....are now complaining that money is being spent, saying "350 Million a week...where the fuck is that coming from?" And "there's no magic money tree you know"." No, we are laughing at May and the Muppets who voted for her. Did you vote for more tax and spend? Huh? Did you? Tell the truth now, did the conservatives put this in their manifesto? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What's funny of course, is all the people who have consistently spoken against austerity, or have said "where the fuck is the 350 Million a week for the NHS?", or, "oh yeah, there's a magic money tree for the DUP but no money for the NHS"....are now complaining that money is being spent, saying "350 Million a week...where the fuck is that coming from?" And "there's no magic money tree you know"." I have no qualms paying more tax for the nhs and funny enough sky news have done a poll and most people are the same I think people are more offended by the lie that a brexit dividend will cover the extra spending that is the issue The lie is the problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"James O'brien summed it up on LBC this morning about the whole Brexit dividend in a easy to understand analogy. You pay £20 a month to do carboot sales = £240 per year and you make £2000 profit over that year from carboot sales. So taking off the membership costs you make £1760 a year profit from paying your membership of £240 a year fees by having access to free trading at the carboot sales. Our carboot dividend "Brexit dividend" is ignoring the £1760 profit we make and simply not do carboot sales anymore, we save £240 a year... that's our carboot / brexit dividend, quids in eh? Other people can also do carboot sales without paying £20 a month, but they pay a fee on every sale they make which works out more than just the £20 membership fee. Same as being a member of the EU, we pay our fees to have free trade, we make more out of being a member than we pay to be one. Now the only economic argument anyone could try is we don't make more in free trade than we pay in membership fees, but I'd hazard a guess there are hard figures out there to debunk that. So you are comparing the EU to a car boot sale, lol, I think that's a great comparison seeing as it's outdated in the modern world. Any modern day businessman with any common sense would save on the car boot sales costs and set up online instead selling via eBay or other similar such online websites. It's a business trend that is already happening as we can also see on the high street with businesses saving on shop costs and selling online instead. So I think you've just highlighted how the EU is an old 20th century analogue union now in a modern 21st century digital age, and how the EU is not fit for purpose in the modern world this is 2018, not 1975. "It was a perfectly good & valid analogy that highlightened the fact how paying into the EU brought us in more GDP than not being a member.. which you totally choose to ignore as you are unable to view and discuss FACTS that don't suit your twisted agenda Centaur. Well done  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"and until the NHS sort out their gigantic waste of money shoveled at them year after year, if I had a choice of paying more or not I'd say no way. Odds are I will have to pay more to the wastefull bottomless pit we call the NHS, I'll just have to pay less elsewhere "And yet what choice did you have at the ballot box? Labour with a tax and spend manifesto, or the Tories with an austerity manifesto that they have now ditched in favour of tax and spend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"James O'brien summed it up on LBC this morning about the whole Brexit dividend in a easy to understand analogy. You pay £20 a month to do carboot sales = £240 per year and you make £2000 profit over that year from carboot sales. So taking off the membership costs you make £1760 a year profit from paying your membership of £240 a year fees by having access to free trading at the carboot sales. Our carboot dividend "Brexit dividend" is ignoring the £1760 profit we make and simply not do carboot sales anymore, we save £240 a year... that's our carboot / brexit dividend, quids in eh? Other people can also do carboot sales without paying £20 a month, but they pay a fee on every sale they make which works out more than just the £20 membership fee. Same as being a member of the EU, we pay our fees to have free trade, we make more out of being a member than we pay to be one. Now the only economic argument anyone could try is we don't make more in free trade than we pay in membership fees, but I'd hazard a guess there are hard figures out there to debunk that. So you are comparing the EU to a car boot sale, lol, I think that's a great comparison seeing as it's outdated in the modern world. Any modern day businessman with any common sense would save on the car boot sales costs and set up online instead selling via eBay or other similar such online websites. It's a business trend that is already happening as we can also see on the high street with businesses saving on shop costs and selling online instead. So I think you've just highlighted how the EU is an old 20th century analogue union now in a modern 21st century digital age, and how the EU is not fit for purpose in the modern world this is 2018, not 1975. "It's more sneakier now. If you're not paying with money you're paying in some other way. How is Google, Yahoo and Facebook free but are making loads of money. If you're not paying for a product... You are the product. How can you have a fee free EU then Centuar? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed" Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'." Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it." EU politicians? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians?" Farage ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ?" Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools "True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools "Brave and /or well informed..hahaha | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way Fine, I won't say it won't, The Treasury says it won't!
The Treasury also said there would be an immediate and deep recession in the event of a leave vote and that 500,000 jobs would be lost. The Treasury said there would also need to be an immediate emergency budget.
None of the above happened.
Case closed. "George Osbourne said recession. The report said a reduction in gdp versus remaining. Boy George said emergency budget. I will give you the job losses. However you mention this one without talking about other forecasts such as sterling weakening .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types. "True. Which means at least we can replace them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them "I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way Fine, I won't say it won't, The Treasury says it won't!
The Treasury also said there would be an immediate and deep recession in the event of a leave vote and that 500,000 jobs would be lost. The Treasury said there would also need to be an immediate emergency budget.
None of the above happened.
Case closed. George Osbourne said recession. The report said a reduction in gdp versus remaining. Boy George said emergency budget. I will give you the job losses. However you mention this one without talking about other forecasts such as sterling weakening ...."We had £90bn of additional monetary and fiscal policy measures in the months immediately following referendum. Seeing as that is approx 2 yrs of defence spending and 1 yr of education spending, I would say that was an emergency. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs... "MEPs..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way Fine, I won't say it won't, The Treasury says it won't!
The Treasury also said there would be an immediate and deep recession in the event of a leave vote and that 500,000 jobs would be lost. The Treasury said there would also need to be an immediate emergency budget.
None of the above happened.
Case closed. George Osbourne said recession. The report said a reduction in gdp versus remaining. Boy George said emergency budget. I will give you the job losses. However you mention this one without talking about other forecasts such as sterling weakening ...."Ok will give you the hit on the pound but it has had its benefits. Such as boosting UK exports and boosting the UK tourism industry as people from outside of the UK take advantage of exchange rates. The lower pound has also boosted the London Stock exchange and the FTSE 100 has broken all previous records many times over since the leave vote in 2016. The Bank of England had also been trying to devalue the pound unsuccessfully for at least 2 years before the referendum according to the former governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs... "You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP. "Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP. "i couldn’t replace baroness altmann either .... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP? "Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box. "Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science. "So not directly elected by the people via the ballot box then and the people have no direct mechanism to remove him via the ballot box either. They could if he was an MEP, but he's not an MEP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok will give you the hit on the pound but it has had its benefits. Such as boosting UK exports and boosting the UK tourism industry as people from outside of the UK take advantage of exchange rates. The lower pound has also boosted the London Stock exchange and the FTSE 100 has broken all previous records many times over since the leave vote in 2016. The Bank of England had also been trying to devalue the pound unsuccessfully for at least 2 years before the referendum according to the former governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King. " It seems as if you really don't get it centy. Devaluation of a currency is NEVER good. As a tool it is used as a last resort by a government to buy time to correct a major problem with its economy when there are no other options left. Dumping a currency on the open market to force a devaluation (usually called a market adjustment) is used as a weapon to undermine an economy and make its country and industries vulnerable to hostile takeovers or plain and simply force them out of a market, and is the preferred form of attack in covert economic wars (which are continually being fought by both countries and private enterprises across the globe). It is never good for exports regardless of the spin used by governments and financial institutions to stave off a panic both in a country and market. Fact is exports temporally rose because our products became cheaper because our money was worth less. At the same time as our products became worth less the raw materials needed to make those products and all imports became more expensive! So we lost at both ends! That your are unable or unwilling to understand or acknowledge this says ever so much about you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok will give you the hit on the pound but it has had its benefits. Such as boosting UK exports and boosting the UK tourism industry as people from outside of the UK take advantage of exchange rates. The lower pound has also boosted the London Stock exchange and the FTSE 100 has broken all previous records many times over since the leave vote in 2016. The Bank of England had also been trying to devalue the pound unsuccessfully for at least 2 years before the referendum according to the former governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King. It seems as if you really don't get it centy. Devaluation of a currency is NEVER good. As a tool it is used as a last resort by a government to buy time to correct a major problem with its economy when there are no other options left. Dumping a currency on the open market to force a devaluation (usually called a market adjustment) is used as a weapon to undermine an economy and make its country and industries vulnerable to hostile takeovers or plain and simply force them out of a market, and is the preferred form of attack in covert economic wars (which are continually being fought by both countries and private enterprises across the globe). It is never good for exports regardless of the spin used by governments and financial institutions to stave off a panic both in a country and market. Fact is exports temporally rose because our products became cheaper because our money was worth less. At the same time as our products became worth less the raw materials needed to make those products and all imports became more expensive! So we lost at both ends! That your are unable or unwilling to understand or acknowledge this says ever so much about you. " Why did Germany adopt the Euro? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science. "Lol, when was this largest ‘party ‘ ever elected by anyone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science.
So not directly elected by the people via the ballot box then and the people have no direct mechanism to remove him via the ballot box either. They could if he was an MEP, but he's not an MEP. "Each party has a "lead candidate" who will become President if that party wins the majority, by voting for that party, you are voting directly for its candidates for MEP and President. As you well know, in MEP elections, you vote for a party, not an individual. If you want to say that therefore no one is elected "directly" then that would apply to MEPs as well, you know, like your chum Farage. No one as voted directly for Farage to be an MEP, they just voted for his party. People vote for their favourite party, at the ballot box. They can change the MEPs and President at the end of the 5 yr term of the parliament. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science.
Lol, when was this largest ‘party ‘ ever elected by anyone?"Parties are elected at elections, surprisingly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why did Germany adopt the Euro?" What has that to do with the fiction that the devaluation of a currency is good for any economy that uses that currency for domestic trade? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ok will give you the hit on the pound but it has had its benefits. Such as boosting UK exports and boosting the UK tourism industry as people from outside of the UK take advantage of exchange rates. The lower pound has also boosted the London Stock exchange and the FTSE 100 has broken all previous records many times over since the leave vote in 2016. The Bank of England had also been trying to devalue the pound unsuccessfully for at least 2 years before the referendum according to the former governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King. It seems as if you really don't get it centy. Devaluation of a currency is NEVER good. As a tool it is used as a last resort by a government to buy time to correct a major problem with its economy when there are no other options left. Dumping a currency on the open market to force a devaluation (usually called a market adjustment) is used as a weapon to undermine an economy and make its country and industries vulnerable to hostile takeovers or plain and simply force them out of a market, and is the preferred form of attack in covert economic wars (which are continually being fought by both countries and private enterprises across the globe). It is never good for exports regardless of the spin used by governments and financial institutions to stave off a panic both in a country and market. Fact is exports temporally rose because our products became cheaper because our money was worth less. At the same time as our products became worth less the raw materials needed to make those products and all imports became more expensive! So we lost at both ends! That your are unable or unwilling to understand or acknowledge this says ever so much about you. " If devaluation is so bad then why were the Bank of England trying to do it for at least 2 years before the referendum (according to Mervyn King). And also Germany used the Euro as a tool to devalue it's own economy/currency, the Deutsch Mark was very strong then Germany joined the Euro and suddenly the German economy was devalued and it's products/exports became much more competitive in global markets due to the devaluation. It was VERY good for Germany. However the Euro had the opposite effect in countries like Greece and Italy, their currencies were relatively weak before they joined the Euro which was good for Greece and it's tourism industry as tourists would flock to holiday there and take advantage of good exchange rates. This changed for Greece when they joined the Euro, suddenly holiday makers and tourists were not getting as much for their money in Greece and it has had a devastating effect on their economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science.
Lol, when was this largest ‘party ‘ ever elected by anyone?
Parties are elected at elections, surprisingly. "Well surprisingly the EPP wasn’t on my ballot paper, was it on yours? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The PM has confirmed that the extra money for the NHS will come from tax payers. Brexit dividend has gone out the window! Unless Brexit brings in more tax as the country thrives eh? And please don’t say it won’t because you don’t have a clue either way Fine, I won't say it won't, The Treasury says it won't!
The Treasury also said there would be an immediate and deep recession in the event of a leave vote and that 500,000 jobs would be lost. The Treasury said there would also need to be an immediate emergency budget.
None of the above happened.
Case closed. George Osbourne said recession. The report said a reduction in gdp versus remaining. Boy George said emergency budget. I will give you the job losses. However you mention this one without talking about other forecasts such as sterling weakening ....
We had £90bn of additional monetary and fiscal policy measures in the months immediately following referendum.
Seeing as that is approx 2 yrs of defence spending and 1 yr of education spending, I would say that was an emergency. "And in that time the EU has provided 1.4 Trillion Euros of quantitative easing, and continues to do so. Now THAT'S an emergency. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science. "What country does the EPP stand to be elected in? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science.
What country does the EPP stand to be elected in?"All over the EU. You guys really struggle with this! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science.
What country does the EPP stand to be elected in?
All over the EU. You guys really struggle with this! "The UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference ...." So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science.
What country does the EPP stand to be elected in?
All over the EU. You guys really struggle with this!
The UK?"Yup. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority?" How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"its interesting that in PMQ corbyn went with actually some really simple questions.... but may couldn't answer any of them! Where will all the money for the NHS come from? What taxes will go up? Will there be extra borrowing? simple... not flashy... but pointed Yes, he also pointed out that there was no Brexit dividend, and then May referred him to a speech he made a few weeks ago when he said that money provided by Labour for extra services would be paid for by 'the savings from no longer being in the EU'. Politicians play us for fools, and many let them get away with it. EU politicians? Farage ? Whoever. But thanks to 17.4 million brave and/or well informed people in the UK that’s at least one set of politicians who will no longer be able to take us for fools
True. At least when we’re taken for fools in the future then it will be by BRITISH politicians, none of these foreign types.
True. Which means at least we can replace them
I can only replace one. Same number as MEPs...
You can't replace Juncker though. He's not an MEP.
Neither is May, does that mean we are stuck with her for life? What about Cameron? He left, does that mean he was an MEP?
Big difference which you continue to ignore is that Theresa May is both an MP and Prime minister and so can be removed by the people via the ballot box. Juncker is not an MEP, and so the people have no mechanism to remove him via the ballot box.
Yeah, they do. The president of the European commission is the leader of the largest party in the European parliament. A different party gets elected, a different President takes over. It's not rocket science.
What country does the EPP stand to be elected in?
All over the EU. You guys really struggle with this!
The UK?
Yup."So there was a box that I could put my cross in that said "EPP" next to it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? " So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So how long until the government announce all these extra funds for the NHS from April 2019? Who thinks that has to be such a good news story TM must be dictating Hammond's speech already? Why must it all be spent on the wasteful NHS, we have lots of areas that need funding. And if you really believed all of the rhetoric given out by both sides you must surely be at best a fool, or simply deluded so are you a deluded fool then as you're not saying its all bollocks and that we wont get that money, you're just saying spend it on something else!
I'm what ever you think I am, happy Brexit xx" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's why you need a business man like trump in charge of Brexit . An entrapaneur ...at least he makes a decision and stick to it and would not have stood for all these so called divorce charges to leave the EU Ourcrowd just went to private school .lived in a big house with mummy and daddy then got jobs in parliament. They haven't a clue about decisions . Dealing .entrapaneurism etc etc etc They've never worn the t short . They've only ever read it in a book "Absolutely! Anyone flying Trump airlines or attending Trump University? I hear Trump vodka is going down a treat along with Trump Stakes in the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. I also hear his workers and contractors cant say enough good things about him. And as for the fake news story (Cant post the Boston Globe link) that he has been sued 134 times in federal court since inauguration, that is just proof of how great a leader he is. If only Obama could have managed to be sued that many times in his 8 years in office he might just have amounted to something and made some money out of destroying... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That's why you need a business man like trump in charge of Brexit . An entrapaneur ...at least he makes a decision and stick to it and would not have stood for all these so called divorce charges to leave the EU Ourcrowd just went to private school .lived in a big house with mummy and daddy then got jobs in parliament. They haven't a clue about decisions . Dealing .entrapaneurism etc etc etc They've never worn the t short . They've only ever read it in a book ". Fun fact. According to fortune trump would have been richer if he’d invested his money in index funds rather than being an ‘entrepreneur’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? " . I’m not sure what your point is ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? " It's a party. It holds around 30% of the seats in the European parliament. Under proportional representation systems you usually have a larger number of smaller parties which work together in coalition than you do in FPTP systems. How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? It's a party. It holds around 30% of the seats in the European parliament. Under proportional representation systems you usually have a larger number of smaller parties which work together in coalition than you do in FPTP systems. How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? " In the EU elections you vote for a party, not a candidate. You have said that the EPP is a party in the UK. The option to vote for the EPP is not, and never has been, on the ballot paper. Neither is it on any ballot papers across the whole of the EU. It is not a political party. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? It's a party. It holds around 30% of the seats in the European parliament. Under proportional representation systems you usually have a larger number of smaller parties which work together in coalition than you do in FPTP systems. How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? In the EU elections you vote for a party, not a candidate. You have said that the EPP is a party in the UK. The option to vote for the EPP is not, and never has been, on the ballot paper. Neither is it on any ballot papers across the whole of the EU. It is not a political party." Erm, yeah, it has, and yeah, it is | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? It's a party. It holds around 30% of the seats in the European parliament. Under proportional representation systems you usually have a larger number of smaller parties which work together in coalition than you do in FPTP systems. How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? In the EU elections you vote for a party, not a candidate. You have said that the EPP is a party in the UK. The option to vote for the EPP is not, and never has been, on the ballot paper. Neither is it on any ballot papers across the whole of the EU. It is not a political party." . This is why I used group and party to avoid this semantics. I vote for a party. I know which group this party is aligned to do therefore know which group I am supporting. In the uk elections I vote for an individual. And I know which party this individual is aligned to. It’s more obvious, true. But a similar principal. I also don’t get the choice to vote for the SNP as they choose not to put a represntative in my constitunacy. I’m not sur why it is so important to see the letters EPP in a ballot paper other than to aid clarity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is a UK branch of the EPP. They contested London seats in 2014 and managed about 28k votes." Yes, it is the UK European People's Party. It affiliates itself with the EPP, but it is not the EPP. For a start, they have different leaders. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? It's a party. It holds around 30% of the seats in the European parliament. Under proportional representation systems you usually have a larger number of smaller parties which work together in coalition than you do in FPTP systems. How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? " If he was directly elected by the people as an MEP first it would be a start but as we all know Juncker is not an MEP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So let me put a straight question to those Brexiteers here.... jands, Ben. E, and centy So which taxes do you think should go up to pay for the extra nhs money? Or are you proposing extra borrowing?" Not the point. The point is our elected government can make that choice and if the majority don’t agree with it we can elect another government to raise money differently. I’m not surprised that you’re ok with EU vat rules though as vat hits the poorest hardest | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So let me put a straight question to those Brexiteers here.... jands, Ben. E, and centy So which taxes do you think should go up to pay for the extra nhs money? Or are you proposing extra borrowing?" Let me give you a straight 'remainer' style answer....you know, like say, CLCC would give.. "What taxes do you think should go up?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"I would abolish IHT" without derailing ... whys that ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I would abolish IHTwithout derailing ... whys that ? " Because it’s unfair. It is taxing money that has already been taxed for the less well off inheritors and it encourages tax evasion and the holding money in off shore accounts for the rich. It probably has an adverse effect on tax receipts | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So let me put a straight question to those Brexiteers here.... jands, Ben. E, and centy So which taxes do you think should go up to pay for the extra nhs money? Or are you proposing extra borrowing? Not the point. The point is our elected government can make that choice and if the majority don’t agree with it we can elect another government to raise money differently. I’m not surprised that you’re ok with EU vat rules though as vat hits the poorest hardest" not try and fudge a simply question please... don't take me for an idiot it absolutely is the point! the govenrment have said that the extra NHS money isn't going to come from just the money saved from us not being in the EU and not from that plus the infamous "brexit dividend"...... so again.... it your promise on the side of the bus so own it!!! so again... are you going to put up taxes if so which? or are you taking out more borrowing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So let me put a straight question to those Brexiteers here.... jands, Ben. E, and centy So which taxes do you think should go up to pay for the extra nhs money? Or are you proposing extra borrowing? Not the point. The point is our elected government can make that choice and if the majority don’t agree with it we can elect another government to raise money differently. I’m not surprised that you’re ok with EU vat rules though as vat hits the poorest hardest not try and fudge a simply question please... don't take me for an idiot it absolutely is the point! the govenrment have said that the extra NHS money isn't going to come from just the money saved from us not being in the EU and not from that plus the infamous "brexit dividend"...... so again.... it your promise on the side of the bus so own it!!! so again... are you going to put up taxes if so which? or are you taking out more borrowing? " What promise? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So let me put a straight question to those Brexiteers here.... jands, Ben. E, and centy So which taxes do you think should go up to pay for the extra nhs money? Or are you proposing extra borrowing? Let me give you a straight 'remainer' style answer....you know, like say, CLCC would give.. "What taxes do you think should go up?"" again please don't take me for an idiot and please don't try and avoid answering what is a simple question.... it was your promise on the side of the bus so own it!!!! and the government have said it will not be covered by just the EU money saved and the "brexit dividend" so.... what taxes are you putting up? or are you going to increase borrowing? i have said throughout this thread i am more than happy to pay more tax if it was going to the NHS... heck it has saved my life twice over the last few years!! i don't begrudge a single penny of my extra tax going to the organisation I do get annoyed that the leave side lied on the side on the side of the bus and continue to lie by claiming the "brexit dividend" so own it..... why you putting up to keep your "pledge"... or are you borrowing more? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So let me put a straight question to those Brexiteers here.... jands, Ben. E, and centy So which taxes do you think should go up to pay for the extra nhs money? Or are you proposing extra borrowing? Not the point. The point is our elected government can make that choice and if the majority don’t agree with it we can elect another government to raise money differently. I’m not surprised that you’re ok with EU vat rules though as vat hits the poorest hardest not try and fudge a simply question please... don't take me for an idiot it absolutely is the point! the govenrment have said that the extra NHS money isn't going to come from just the money saved from us not being in the EU and not from that plus the infamous "brexit dividend"...... so again.... it your promise on the side of the bus so own it!!! so again... are you going to put up taxes if so which? or are you taking out more borrowing? What promise?" ffs ben don't play that shitty game.... simple question.... simple answer! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fair enough. I think the levels could be tweaked in the first point. And don’t follow the second... not sure how having a nil tax rate helps tax receipts ! " Well perhaps if they weren’t taxed on death they might keep more money in UK accounts and pay tax on it. Wasn’t Cameron’s off shore money inheritance from his daddy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So is the issue with the EU is it’s made up of groups which are made up of parties ? Generally you know which group a given party is aligned with. In uk elections you vote for a person who is associated with a party. Here you’re voting for a party who is associated with a group. Sure there are some differences but not a chasm of difference .... So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? So the EPP, although it calls itself a party, is actually a group of different parties, which together form the largest 'group' in the EU Parliament, although nowhere near big enough to hold a parliamentary majority? It's a party. It holds around 30% of the seats in the European parliament. Under proportional representation systems you usually have a larger number of smaller parties which work together in coalition than you do in FPTP systems. How would you like the president of the European commission to be elected? If he was directly elected by the people as an MEP first it would be a start but as we all know Juncker is not an MEP. " No one has said he was an MEP. The US President isn't elected to the house or Senate first, they are elected directly, so I don't really see why the President of the European commission needs to be an MEP, or what difference that would make. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
