Agreed. But seeing as they don't have very expensive accountants and lawyers, proving illegality should be simple.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I have said for ages that Brexit won't happen. But even I could not imagine what a great deal of stopping it May would do.
I will be shocked if they do not line up a plum job for her in the future in Brussels.
I will be shocked if they do not line up a plum job for her in the future in Brussels.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
To be honest i would have taken that before the referendum, would have loved the Canada option but hey ho.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
Doesn't that pretty much guarantee a continuation of freedom of movement though?
Can't see many Brexiteers being happy, FOM is synonymous with EU membership
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
yeah was not a deal breaker for me so dont care. Think a country should pass all its own laws, also freedom of movement was never in the original EU charter, that only happened when it became ever more political. As a first step in distancing ourselves from the EU, it will have to do.
Cameron and the tories probably should have put more of the available blocks and deterrents on immigration when they had the chance. But soon hopefully Russia will have got back most of eastern europe anyway so I doubt it will be much of an issue.
I don't like that it's a poor representation of democracy at work - I think a lot of the Leave vote was based around freedom of movement.
Personally, I think it's a great idea. I like freedom of movement, I like free trade. I like the idea that we can trade whenever and with whomever we wish. It's clearly the best option given that we've failed so miserably at negotiating and already handed everything over. It would also be the end of May as PM, so there's a little freebie benefit thrown in.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Theresa May's Brexit message: 'This is all there is'
Laura Kuenssberg
The talking in Brussels is done. After nearly two years of negotiations, arguments - and the inevitable moments where it felt like the process would explode - there is, now, a deal.
It's a compromise. It was always going to be. It's not a happy compromise either. People on both sides of the Brexit argument are already screaming their protests.
And although the prime minister must be relieved, she didn't exactly say that she was pleased about the deal when I asked her at a news conference this lunchtime.
Instead, she said she was sure the country's best days are ahead.
But however she really feels about it - and with this prime minister it is hard to tell - her strategy for the next couple of weeks is crystal clear. Her case? This is all there is.
With the explicit backing from almost every European leader who has opened their mouth today, this is the "only deal", the "best possible deal", "the max" .
The message to MPs from Theresa May and her counterparts: don't kid yourselves if you think something else might magically appear if you vote it down.
And the message to the public? Just let me get on with it, then we can all stop talking about Brexit - please.
Again today she used the platform to "talk directly to the British public", to explain how her (now rather pink) red lines, on "money, laws and borders", have been followed.
It's her Brexit with caveats, with a lot to be sorted out about the future, in the future. You can remind yourself what's actually in the deal here.
And Number 10 is all too aware that dozens and dozens of their own MPs hate it. Theresa May has reached her imperfect compromise at a moment when in Parliament both sides are hardening against the idea of compromising at all.
For two years Theresa May has survived by tacking one way, then another. But now the deal is on paper, in black and white, that approach can't go on.
A senior government figure said privately that Number 10 was past the point of trying to please everyone. And of course, everyone in government is all too aware that it is likely that the deal will be rejected by Parliament in any case.
But the only potential route through for the prime minister is through the middle, to look like, as one senior Whitehall official describes it, "the adult in a world of children".
However the prime minister looks, however she sounds in the next fortnight, the levels of unhappiness at home are so profound that her pleas may fall on deaf ears.
If the deal falls, she, and her government may fall with it. Scrape it through then she'll have pulled off a feat far harder than getting the actual deal done.
PS: Here's a great explanation from my colleague Ben Wright about what might happen if the vote, which we expect on 12 December, doesn't pass the deal.
Brexit: What will happen if MPs reject Theresa May's deal?
By Ben WrightPolitical correspondent, BBC News
It feels like Westminster is tumbling towards a political crisis without modern precedent.
Soon, perhaps in the second week of December, the House of Commons will debate and then vote upon a government motion to approve the EU withdrawal agreement and accompanying political declaration. The terms of the UK's departure from the EU.
But at the moment, it looks as if Theresa May faces an incredibly hard job getting it passed.
She leads a government with a working majority of just 13. Only seven Tory rebels are needed to defeat it.
But according to the latest number-crunching by BBC researchers, 81 Tory MPs have said they object to the deal Mrs May hopes to sign off with EU leaders on Sunday.
With Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and even perhaps the DUP set to vote against the motion too, the withdrawal agreement looks set to be torpedoed in the Commons.
Between now and then Theresa May will exhaustively insist the deal is in the national interest and the only way of ensuring Brexit happens.
But if the withdrawal agreement is defeated, what happens then?
No route forward?
It is the burning question in Westminster and everyone has an opinion.
This week, the new work and pensions secretary Amber Rudd said the House of Commons "will stop no deal".
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said it was "very difficult to predict at the moment what the final outcome will be".
And the former Tory cabinet minister (and now advocate for another referendum) Justine Greening said there was "no majority for any route forward".
Which may be true but doesn't solve the huge political problem MPs will face if the deal is chucked out.
Leave without a deal
Crucially, the default position in that scenario would be for the UK to leave without a deal.
Under both EU law and the UK's Withdrawal Act, Brexit day is chiselled into the diary for 11pm on 29 March, 2019.
That's when the EU Treaties will stop applying to the UK.
If Parliament rejects the deal, the same Withdrawal Act sets out what the government must do next.
Ministers would have up to 21 days to make a statement to the Commons on "how it proposes to proceed".
The government would then have a further seven days to move a motion in the Commons, allowing MPs to express their view on the government's course of action.
Crucially though, this would not be opportunity for MPs to throw a road-block in the way of a no-deal Brexit if that's what the government wanted to happen.
The motion would probably not be amendable, nor would its defeat carry the legal force to stop the UK leaving without a deal next March.
Instead, the government would have to put new legislation before Parliament and secure the approval of MPs if it did not want the UK to leave without a deal.
As the clerk of the House of Commons, Sir David Natzler, told a committee of MPs last month, "there is no House procedure that can overcome statute. Statute is overturned by statute."
Have another go
But in addition to the rigid legal position there would be the frenzied political reality.
The maximum three week window between the government's deal being defeated and the requirement on ministers to propose a way forward would see several alternative scenarios come into play.
The prime minister could make a second attempt at getting the withdrawal deal through the Commons.
Sir David Natzler said, in procedural terms, that would be possible.
"The words might be the same but the underlying reality would be self-evidently be different", Sir David said.
Brussels might be persuaded to tweak the political declaration on the future relationship to meet the concerns of MPs.
Another referendum
But with the Commons so fractured in its various objections would that make much difference?
More significant could be panic on the markets and that might change minds in parliament.
Alternatively, MPs might suddenly shift in large numbers towards the idea of another referendum to break the Parliamentary impasse and open the possibility of stopping Brexit.
At the moment, about eight Tory and 44 Labour MPs have publicly committed to another referendum.
The Labour leadership has said all options should remain on the table (including another referendum) and the SNP and Lib Dems say there should be one too.
However, a second referendum can only happen if the government brings forward legislation to hold one and a majority in the Commons supports it.
Theresa May is dead set against another referendum and it's hard to see an alternative Tory leader picking up that baton.
A general election
But perhaps there will be a general election instead?
That is Labour's preferred outcome to the deal being rejected.
There are two routes to a general election through the Fixed Term Parliament Act and both involve motions of confidence in the Commons.
But as Dr Jack Simson Caird from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law says, "with the ticking clock of Article 50 it's very difficult to see that this represents a solution to the problem."
That will be the other critical factor at play.
Unless the government asks for an extension to the negotiating period (and Number 10 has ruled that out) the time for parliament and the government to agree a way forward is incredibly tight.
The clock won't wait.
'Negotiated no deal'
Another idea that has been floated is a "negotiated no deal" in the which the UK would ask the EU for a (paid) one year extension of membership before leaving on World Trade Organisation terms.
Some Brexiteers might like the idea but it's hard to see Parliament supporting such a move - with or without an explicit vote.
Because Parliament will have to come to a view.
As Maddy Thimont Jack, from the Institute for Government think tank says: "We do have Parliamentary sovereignty and there are clear ways for Parliament to express a very strong political view.
"I cannot see how a government can get through a legislative programme, for no deal, for example, if you don't have the support of Parliament."
Theresa May might have neutralised the chance of defeat in the Commons if she had found a Parliamentary consensus for the Brexit she planned to negotiate right at the start of the process.
Instead, she faces three fraught weeks and a vote that will define the country's future for many years.
Right now, it looks like the government's deal cannot get through the Commons.
But the mood in Westminster could shift quickly in the current pandemonium.
Laura Kuenssberg
The talking in Brussels is done. After nearly two years of negotiations, arguments - and the inevitable moments where it felt like the process would explode - there is, now, a deal.
It's a compromise. It was always going to be. It's not a happy compromise either. People on both sides of the Brexit argument are already screaming their protests.
And although the prime minister must be relieved, she didn't exactly say that she was pleased about the deal when I asked her at a news conference this lunchtime.
Instead, she said she was sure the country's best days are ahead.
But however she really feels about it - and with this prime minister it is hard to tell - her strategy for the next couple of weeks is crystal clear. Her case? This is all there is.
With the explicit backing from almost every European leader who has opened their mouth today, this is the "only deal", the "best possible deal", "the max" .
The message to MPs from Theresa May and her counterparts: don't kid yourselves if you think something else might magically appear if you vote it down.
And the message to the public? Just let me get on with it, then we can all stop talking about Brexit - please.
Again today she used the platform to "talk directly to the British public", to explain how her (now rather pink) red lines, on "money, laws and borders", have been followed.
It's her Brexit with caveats, with a lot to be sorted out about the future, in the future. You can remind yourself what's actually in the deal here.
And Number 10 is all too aware that dozens and dozens of their own MPs hate it. Theresa May has reached her imperfect compromise at a moment when in Parliament both sides are hardening against the idea of compromising at all.
For two years Theresa May has survived by tacking one way, then another. But now the deal is on paper, in black and white, that approach can't go on.
A senior government figure said privately that Number 10 was past the point of trying to please everyone. And of course, everyone in government is all too aware that it is likely that the deal will be rejected by Parliament in any case.
But the only potential route through for the prime minister is through the middle, to look like, as one senior Whitehall official describes it, "the adult in a world of children".
However the prime minister looks, however she sounds in the next fortnight, the levels of unhappiness at home are so profound that her pleas may fall on deaf ears.
If the deal falls, she, and her government may fall with it. Scrape it through then she'll have pulled off a feat far harder than getting the actual deal done.
PS: Here's a great explanation from my colleague Ben Wright about what might happen if the vote, which we expect on 12 December, doesn't pass the deal.
Brexit: What will happen if MPs reject Theresa May's deal?
By Ben WrightPolitical correspondent, BBC News
It feels like Westminster is tumbling towards a political crisis without modern precedent.
Soon, perhaps in the second week of December, the House of Commons will debate and then vote upon a government motion to approve the EU withdrawal agreement and accompanying political declaration. The terms of the UK's departure from the EU.
But at the moment, it looks as if Theresa May faces an incredibly hard job getting it passed.
She leads a government with a working majority of just 13. Only seven Tory rebels are needed to defeat it.
But according to the latest number-crunching by BBC researchers, 81 Tory MPs have said they object to the deal Mrs May hopes to sign off with EU leaders on Sunday.
With Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and even perhaps the DUP set to vote against the motion too, the withdrawal agreement looks set to be torpedoed in the Commons.
Between now and then Theresa May will exhaustively insist the deal is in the national interest and the only way of ensuring Brexit happens.
But if the withdrawal agreement is defeated, what happens then?
No route forward?
It is the burning question in Westminster and everyone has an opinion.
This week, the new work and pensions secretary Amber Rudd said the House of Commons "will stop no deal".
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said it was "very difficult to predict at the moment what the final outcome will be".
And the former Tory cabinet minister (and now advocate for another referendum) Justine Greening said there was "no majority for any route forward".
Which may be true but doesn't solve the huge political problem MPs will face if the deal is chucked out.
Leave without a deal
Crucially, the default position in that scenario would be for the UK to leave without a deal.
Under both EU law and the UK's Withdrawal Act, Brexit day is chiselled into the diary for 11pm on 29 March, 2019.
That's when the EU Treaties will stop applying to the UK.
If Parliament rejects the deal, the same Withdrawal Act sets out what the government must do next.
Ministers would have up to 21 days to make a statement to the Commons on "how it proposes to proceed".
The government would then have a further seven days to move a motion in the Commons, allowing MPs to express their view on the government's course of action.
Crucially though, this would not be opportunity for MPs to throw a road-block in the way of a no-deal Brexit if that's what the government wanted to happen.
The motion would probably not be amendable, nor would its defeat carry the legal force to stop the UK leaving without a deal next March.
Instead, the government would have to put new legislation before Parliament and secure the approval of MPs if it did not want the UK to leave without a deal.
As the clerk of the House of Commons, Sir David Natzler, told a committee of MPs last month, "there is no House procedure that can overcome statute. Statute is overturned by statute."
Have another go
But in addition to the rigid legal position there would be the frenzied political reality.
The maximum three week window between the government's deal being defeated and the requirement on ministers to propose a way forward would see several alternative scenarios come into play.
The prime minister could make a second attempt at getting the withdrawal deal through the Commons.
Sir David Natzler said, in procedural terms, that would be possible.
"The words might be the same but the underlying reality would be self-evidently be different", Sir David said.
Brussels might be persuaded to tweak the political declaration on the future relationship to meet the concerns of MPs.
Another referendum
But with the Commons so fractured in its various objections would that make much difference?
More significant could be panic on the markets and that might change minds in parliament.
Alternatively, MPs might suddenly shift in large numbers towards the idea of another referendum to break the Parliamentary impasse and open the possibility of stopping Brexit.
At the moment, about eight Tory and 44 Labour MPs have publicly committed to another referendum.
The Labour leadership has said all options should remain on the table (including another referendum) and the SNP and Lib Dems say there should be one too.
However, a second referendum can only happen if the government brings forward legislation to hold one and a majority in the Commons supports it.
Theresa May is dead set against another referendum and it's hard to see an alternative Tory leader picking up that baton.
A general election
But perhaps there will be a general election instead?
That is Labour's preferred outcome to the deal being rejected.
There are two routes to a general election through the Fixed Term Parliament Act and both involve motions of confidence in the Commons.
But as Dr Jack Simson Caird from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law says, "with the ticking clock of Article 50 it's very difficult to see that this represents a solution to the problem."
That will be the other critical factor at play.
Unless the government asks for an extension to the negotiating period (and Number 10 has ruled that out) the time for parliament and the government to agree a way forward is incredibly tight.
The clock won't wait.
'Negotiated no deal'
Another idea that has been floated is a "negotiated no deal" in the which the UK would ask the EU for a (paid) one year extension of membership before leaving on World Trade Organisation terms.
Some Brexiteers might like the idea but it's hard to see Parliament supporting such a move - with or without an explicit vote.
Because Parliament will have to come to a view.
As Maddy Thimont Jack, from the Institute for Government think tank says: "We do have Parliamentary sovereignty and there are clear ways for Parliament to express a very strong political view.
"I cannot see how a government can get through a legislative programme, for no deal, for example, if you don't have the support of Parliament."
Theresa May might have neutralised the chance of defeat in the Commons if she had found a Parliamentary consensus for the Brexit she planned to negotiate right at the start of the process.
Instead, she faces three fraught weeks and a vote that will define the country's future for many years.
Right now, it looks like the government's deal cannot get through the Commons.
But the mood in Westminster could shift quickly in the current pandemonium.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Analysis: Macron's blunt Brexit warning to UK over fishing
By Chris Morris
EU leaders who gathered in Brussels put on a united front to back Theresa May's argument that the withdrawal agreement they endorsed was the "best and only" Brexit deal available.
But there was no sense of celebration, and there were plenty of signs of how tough negotiations on the future EU-UK relationship are likely to be.
Alongside the withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration on future ties, the remaining 27 EU leaders published a separate statement (without the UK) that vowed to protect their own interests, on a range of issues from fishing to fair competition to the rights of citizens.
"The European Council," it said, "will demonstrate particular vigilance as regards safeguarding the rights and interests of citizens, the necessity to maintain ambitious level playing field conditions, and to protect fishing enterprises and coastal communities."
It emphasised in particular that a fisheries agreement that builds on "existing reciprocal access and quota shares" is a matter of priority.
The statement was a clear sign that the UK will not have things all its own way, when it comes to balancing the competing demands of access to EU markets for UK fish produce, and access to UK fishing waters for EU boats.
Several EU leaders highlighted fishing as a particularly sensitive issue. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said talks on fisheries were "undoubtedly going to be an area where negotiations are going to be tough".
Macron warning
But the bluntest warning came from the French President Emmanuel Macron, who suggested that if the UK was unwilling to compromise in negotiations on fishing, which would need to make rapid progress, then talks on a wider trade deal would be slow.
"We as 27 have a clear position on fair competition, on fish, and on the subject of the EU's regulatory autonomy, and that forms part of our position for the future relationship talks," he said.
The president implied that without sufficient progress on trade, the backstop planto avoid a hard border in Ireland would have to be implemented, including a temporary customs union for the whole of the UK.
"It is a lever because it is in our mutual interest to have this future relationship," Mr Macron said.
"I can't imagine that the desire of Theresa May or her supporters is to remain for the long term in a customs union, but (instead) to define a proper future relationship that resolves this problem."
It is a warning that the prime minister could have done without, as she seeks to appeal to the British public for support for her deal in advance of a vote in Parliament next month.
But it is also a reminder - if any were needed - that other countries have domestic political concerns that will have to be taken into account.
If anything, the negotiations on the future relationship - which can only begin formally after the UK has left the EU - will be even harder than the 18 months of negotiations that produced the withdrawal agreement which has just been endorsed.
So Fishing is the next thing they will extort us over
By Chris Morris
EU leaders who gathered in Brussels put on a united front to back Theresa May's argument that the withdrawal agreement they endorsed was the "best and only" Brexit deal available.
But there was no sense of celebration, and there were plenty of signs of how tough negotiations on the future EU-UK relationship are likely to be.
Alongside the withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration on future ties, the remaining 27 EU leaders published a separate statement (without the UK) that vowed to protect their own interests, on a range of issues from fishing to fair competition to the rights of citizens.
"The European Council," it said, "will demonstrate particular vigilance as regards safeguarding the rights and interests of citizens, the necessity to maintain ambitious level playing field conditions, and to protect fishing enterprises and coastal communities."
It emphasised in particular that a fisheries agreement that builds on "existing reciprocal access and quota shares" is a matter of priority.
The statement was a clear sign that the UK will not have things all its own way, when it comes to balancing the competing demands of access to EU markets for UK fish produce, and access to UK fishing waters for EU boats.
Several EU leaders highlighted fishing as a particularly sensitive issue. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said talks on fisheries were "undoubtedly going to be an area where negotiations are going to be tough".
Macron warning
But the bluntest warning came from the French President Emmanuel Macron, who suggested that if the UK was unwilling to compromise in negotiations on fishing, which would need to make rapid progress, then talks on a wider trade deal would be slow.
"We as 27 have a clear position on fair competition, on fish, and on the subject of the EU's regulatory autonomy, and that forms part of our position for the future relationship talks," he said.
The president implied that without sufficient progress on trade, the backstop planto avoid a hard border in Ireland would have to be implemented, including a temporary customs union for the whole of the UK.
"It is a lever because it is in our mutual interest to have this future relationship," Mr Macron said.
"I can't imagine that the desire of Theresa May or her supporters is to remain for the long term in a customs union, but (instead) to define a proper future relationship that resolves this problem."
It is a warning that the prime minister could have done without, as she seeks to appeal to the British public for support for her deal in advance of a vote in Parliament next month.
But it is also a reminder - if any were needed - that other countries have domestic political concerns that will have to be taken into account.
If anything, the negotiations on the future relationship - which can only begin formally after the UK has left the EU - will be even harder than the 18 months of negotiations that produced the withdrawal agreement which has just been endorsed.
So Fishing is the next thing they will extort us over
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
No, he is looking to further impose EU will over the UK. Fishing is a big deal to them, and they wont be happy to not have control of our fertile waters.
They want access and to impose quotas, the right to help themselves.
And they will no doubt blackmail us to get it.
They want access and to impose quotas, the right to help themselves.
And they will no doubt blackmail us to get it.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Is it really so bad the EU having laws that we contribute to (and have vetos over) for things like clean beaches, polution and food standards? The EU has been painted as a evil force in our print media for decades, but are the EU laws (that we influence and help create) really such an issue? I can only think of positives impacts on my day to day life from them, and can't discern any laws that are bad for me. Maybe you can?
Last edited:
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
Sounds a little paranoid. However, you are right, as part of the EU France is much stronger, and when it comes to a trade deal they will make demands. But its not blackmail, its reality when we have 60m verses their 500m consumers. This power imballance was obvious from the start, despite many argueing we'd be equals. Havn't seen one poster hold their hands up and say they called that wrong however.
Brexit: Theresa May’s deal ‘would leave UK £1,000 per person worse off’
November 26 2018, 12:01am, The Times
GDP is predicted to be 3.9 per cent lower by 2030 under the prime minister’s dealSEAN GALLUP/GETTY IMAGES
Theresa May’s Brexit deal will leave the UK’s GDP about £1,000 lower per person than if the country remained in the EU, according to an economic analysis.
A report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research think tank said that under the prime minister’s plan to leave the EU in March 2019, have a transition period until the end of 2020, then leave the customs union and have a comprehensive free trade agreement, GDP would still fall significantly. In 2030, the forecast said, it would be 3.9 per cent lower than if the UK had remained in the EU.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
It's all guess work, but you could well be right. Take into account house prices and we're probably already there. Anyone who owns a home is probably £5-25k down on what they could sell it for had we remained - right now. Could be a greater correction if this Brexit nonsense persists. Would be an ironic silver lining for the young, but overall would be symptomatic of a declining economy and nation.
Also now, pre-Brexit, prices in the shops for imported goods or any forign spend (holidays, imports) costs us Brits 10-20% more because the pound has been lower. Add in the block on investment into the UK that Brexit uncertainty has brought which amount to billions in trade and activity in the UK, as well as a few jobs that have gone (car firms moving to Slovakia, some fiance roles moving to Paris etc), and you could argue it is costing us all significant amounts now. It takes a while to filter through, but its safe to say we'd have ended austerity if it wasn't for Brexit.
I don't get why politicians are not braver, to set out the reality of what we are up against, and outline what is best for the nation. It's sad that they feel they can't lead in the face of the leave vote - who were just one third of the population. The sooner we get a vote where people can decide on the leave options in front of them, and not Cambridge Anaytica Russian funded manipulation, the better.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Yep
Going to another country and demanding they hand over their national assests to another country free of charge, hmmm. People wonder why Brexit happened, all this is doing is setting up for a far right movement to really get going in this country and when they do people wont know whats hit them.
But on the plus side we get to go to France and demand access to their vineyards free of charge, so thats great then.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Doesnt work that way. When we are expecting concessions we are being unreasonable, unfair, and frankly ridiculous. We should know our place and just hand everything over that is asked for, while being grateful for the scraps we are offered.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
House prices going down is a good thing, they are over priced. I own my own home and a rent out flat but them dropping in value is a good thing if it helps others get on the ladder and stops people speculating on homes(I have done this myself but for the countries benefit it is not a good thing)
Flying to Gambia in the morning, holiday was a very fair price.
UK is still doing good investment wise, and will do even more if we were to ever get out of the EU's power grab, attracting Asian business into the city would be great going forward and that would happen best outside of the EU. As far finance roles going to Paris, sure some have. But did you miss the part where some of the banks said they wont moving the clearing banks out of London as it would cost to much and not be of benefit. Notice remain were quiet about that.
Buying products from outside of the EU will become cheaper over time and force the subsided EU farmers to up their game.
The only thing the EU does well is on things like cleaner beaches and environmental policies. I was impressed with Spain recently coming out saying they were going to get all their energy needs from green sources by 2050. But we do not need to be in the EU for that, if the tories and it would likely be them got rid of environmental safeguards then Labour will walk the following election, the public want fairness.
The will be a short down term in the economy but with a far big up side when leaving the EU. Even the chap from the Guardian admitted that earlier in the week, on top of that we would then be able to implement real policies for the benefit of the country.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Can you imagine us going to Norway and demanding they handed over energy from their water power plants?
Is amazing what we as a country have to put up with, then the self hating far left liberals who have their tentacles in every walk of life, society, media start harping on about how racist we are. They still have not got it figured and will still be scratching their heads when our Trump turns up.
I am voting Corbyn because he is prepared to try different things, do not like that he is a jew hater and frankly a little soft on crime. But he has some very good other ideas. People are crying out for something honest and fresh, at the moment he is the nearest thing to it.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
Friend of terrorists and dodgy people for years and you call him honest
Next you will be saying Sadiq Khan has been a good mayor !!!