Jump to content

BREXIT


JohnfromUK
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

but why would it? 

...because the taxpayer is going to have to bear the cost of setting up and running whole new tiers of administration, a cost which is currently shared among the EU 28. Exactly how much it will all come to is as yet completely unknown because this government refuses to do any kind of proper impact assessment. And that in itself should be a red flag!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

...because the taxpayer is going to have to bear the cost of setting up and running whole new tiers of administration, a cost which is currently shared among the EU 28. Exactly how much it will all come to is as yet completely unknown because this government refuses to do any kind of proper impact assessment. And that in itself should be a red flag!

If it means we’ll be free from the EU, that then it’s a price worth paying in my opinion. Any cost will be worth it as far as I’m concerned. Recession, collapse if the housing market, WWIII? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

...because the taxpayer is going to have to bear the cost of setting up and running whole new tiers of administration, a cost which is currently shared among the EU 28. Exactly how much it will all come to is as yet completely unknown because this government refuses to do any kind of proper impact assessment. And that in itself should be a red flag!

Should be quite a lot less than 40 billion though. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

...because the taxpayer is going to have to bear the cost of setting up and running whole new tiers of administration, a cost which is currently shared among the EU 28. Exactly how much it will all come to is as yet completely unknown because this government refuses to do any kind of proper impact assessment. And that in itself should be a red flag!

What anything like the pathetically stupid cost of transfer of the whole sherbang from Brussels to Strasborg and back, come on get real.  The waste of money over there is horrendous.

The sooner we are free of it the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

What anything like the pathetically stupid cost of transfer of the whole sherbang from Brussels to Strasborg and back, come on get real.  The waste of money over there is horrendous.

The sooner we are free of it the better.

Not to mention all the very deep expense account troughs, pensions yada yada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

charity starts at home  (its needed)  the armed forces  / nhs   / social services    /  local infrastructure  projects / heritage projects   / moorland conservation / to name a few /     the EU    too many blood suckers,     without a continence,       or moral compass ,      self appointed  not elected   ,              I don't have a problem with earning what your worth  but any  beurocrat  out of a job tomorrow    ,    where is their next paycheck coming from   they talk **** for gold 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Never  mind. After Brexit the UK can pay all her farm subsides instead. Or is Boris lying to the farmers like he lied the DUP?

Not this ^^^

13 hours ago, Dave-G said:

Hopefully she'll have to do what it takes to make her farm productive instead.

This ^^^

Its about time farmers farmed the land, there is quite a few land owners down my way getting paid to do nothing with their land instead of working it.

The whole subsidy idea is so other regions of the EU can produce things to help sustain their economy which we then import so not only are we paying our farmers to do nothing we then pay other countries for the food we could produce ourselves.

This would also go someway to keeping the greens happy because he intercontinental traffic will be less thereby reducing our carbon footprint.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Retsdon said:

...because the taxpayer is going to have to bear the cost of setting up and running whole new tiers of administration, a cost which is currently shared among the EU 28. Exactly how much it will all come to is as yet completely unknown because this government refuses to do any kind of proper impact assessment. And that in itself should be a red flag!

It can’t do a cost assessment because no accounts are published or available 

there all on the fiddle and robbing us blind 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Retsdon said:

...because the taxpayer is going to have to bear the cost of setting up and running whole new tiers of administration, a cost which is currently shared among the EU 28. Exactly how much it will all come to is as yet completely unknown because this government refuses to do any kind of proper impact assessment. And that in itself should be a red flag!

How ironic that you mention the Taxpayer!:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/11/2019 at 20:14, Retsdon said:

...because the taxpayer is going to have to bear the cost of setting up and running whole new tiers of administration, a cost which is currently shared among the EU 28. Exactly how much it will all come to is as yet completely unknown because this government refuses to do any kind of proper impact assessment. And that in itself should be a red flag!

Do you mean the EU employees that pay no tax, get everything covered (dental, private schools etc) and have golden pensions that is non-contributory - then yes - I  do see that as a red flag

By the way - I have worked (or contracted :) ) in an EU organisation - I was cheap labour compared to the permanent staff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sportsbob said:

Not this ^^^

This ^^^

Its about time farmers farmed the land, there is quite a few land owners down my way getting paid to do nothing with their land instead of working it.

The whole subsidy idea is so other regions of the EU can produce things to help sustain their economy which we then import so not only are we paying our farmers to do nothing we then pay other countries for the food we could produce ourselves.

This would also go someway to keeping the greens happy because he intercontinental traffic will be less thereby reducing our carbon footprint.

 

I am in two minds on the farming front. I want to see the countryside protected. I want to see mono culture avoided and I want to see the UK maintain food production whilst having safeguards to protect UK interests, however they might be defined. This includes protecting the agriculture in dependent locations such as welsh hill farms, and looking out for those 'British' traditional agricultural interests that would be lost in a price driven free market. Without subsidy our farming is likely to change significantly for the worse. Having said that I am sure for my hunting interests that would be a big bonus particularly with a reduction of dairy, beef and lamb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/11/2019 at 20:59, Scully said:

If it means we’ll be free from the EU, that then it’s a price worth paying in my opinion. Any cost will be worth it as far as I’m concerned. Recession, collapse if the housing market, WWIII? 

Well said that man, couldn't agree more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, oowee said:

So any deal where we leave is good. 👍

You know fine that isn’t what I mean, but you seem to find it too difficult to understand, so no, not if it still ties us to EU bureaucracy and all that entails. Total freedom from EU legislation and interference; nothing less is acceptable in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scully said:

You know fine that isn’t what I mean, but you seem to find it too difficult to understand, so no, not if it still ties us to EU bureaucracy and all that entails. Total freedom from EU legislation and interference; nothing less is acceptable in my opinion. 

Which also wasn't on the ballot paper either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, henry d said:

Which also wasn't on the ballot paper either.

Correct. The choice was leave or remain. There were no options for leaving with or without a deal nor remaining with or without a deal. We haven’t left yet, and it remains to be seen whether we will ( see what I did there! 😀) but until we leave we can go no further. Leaving with a deal is simply remaining with a deal. We need to leave in no uncertain terms, and then take it from there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

Correct. The choice was leave or remain. There were no options for leaving with or without a deal nor remaining with or without a deal. We haven’t left yet, and it remains to be seen whether we will ( see what I did there! 😀) but until we leave we can go no further. Leaving with a deal is simply remaining with a deal. We need to leave in no uncertain terms, and then take it from there. 

100%  roll on the election.  I see Nigel will not be standing but acting as overall coordinator for the Brexit Party which i think is the right decision.  Just had a new replacement for our Tory Party MP who has been totally ineffective for 30 odd years and most people wouldn't know him. The new one looks a remainer, we will see but the Brexit candidate has my bid at this moment.  Fresh untainted blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scully said:

😀 

...Leaving with a deal is simply remaining with a deal. We need to leave in no uncertain terms, and then take it from there. 

Twisting words there, leaving with or without a deal is leaving (I highlighted it just in case you missed it) as that was the outcome of the vote, you cannot have the choice of deal/no deal as neither were on the ballot paper. Sauce for the goose etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...