Interesting News Snippets

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

There's quite a lot of neat logic attached to that finding - I like it. More to the point is the staggering news that the Trump re-election money chest, some two years before the election is due, has reached a monumental $106 million dollars.

I urge you all to contribute. My 50 pence is winging its way as we speak.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Some days are just perfect! Justice seen and chickens coming home to roost.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

If all this money comes from the taxpayer kitty so to speak, why isn't it capped in the first place rather than allowing people to overspend and then spinning it? If it doesn't all come from the taxpayer, then introduce a rule saying that it has to come to the candidates/parties via HMRC accounts and cap it.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

From long experience as an observer, apart from Govt. bribes, I do not think that it is possible to buy your way into electoral success. The success of the Leave movement was due as much to the excesses of the EU as anything else. They sowed the seeds of their own destruction as far as this country was concerned.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 963

Actually it was due to as much as anything lies about £350M being given to the NHS, lies about the effects of immigration, lies about the EU, dark and illegal campaingning to, shall we say, a less than informed electorate, and a campaing that was made party political and not about the real issues.

But hey, we've got a blue passport and a new thirty pence piece, there's 2 benefits of brexit im aware of............

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

I don't think it was. People observed for themselves what was happening and made a decision and the red bus was more of a poorly qualified truth rather than a lie. Many things were said by the Remain campaign that were out and out lies. I don't think we were told the EU would some day end up like this in 1975 either, so was that a lie? Was there even a vote on any of the later treaties? Has anyone ever lied in a campaign before? This was as good as any vote gets in reality.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

AK

Examine the statement by Jean Monnet at the time of the founding of the EU and tell me it wasn't an outstanding example of the most outrageous and bare faced deception ever perpetrated on a mass audience.

Even you cannot defend those remarks.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 963

As opposed to the sunlit uplands of a post brexit England and the reality in that motorways are being prepared as giant lorry parks, food and pharmaceutical organisations are being asked to stockpile. I think you’ll find this is the most bare faced deception ever and even you can’t defend that.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

Blowing things out of all proportion. The stockpiling is too ensure that the slight delivery lag post Brexit doesn't lead to an immediate shortage in the switch over, once the switch over is complete there will still be a steady flow of these products.

Member for

6 years 2 months

Posts: 550

Blowing things out of all proportion. The stockpiling is too ensure that the slight delivery lag post Brexit doesn't lead to an immediate shortage in the switch over, once the switch over is complete there will still be a steady flow of these products.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

On reading this, I permitted myself a hollow laugh. A report published in the D. Tel. on Monday, 12th Nov. and issued by the Economists For Free Trade (EFT) contained the somewhat surprising news - contrary to all continuously published wisdom - that unskilled immigration to this country was costing each and every one of us just under £300 per year.

The report went on; "Impoverished communities, where unskilled migrants tend to settle, pay more for unskilled EU immigration because the costs in public services fall directly on those regions".

The report found that it costs GB 3.5 billion to support unskilled EU migrants or £3,500 per year per adult immigrant.

So we've been lied to - who would have thought !.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 963

Or maybe, and more truthfully, you're being lied to by a very less than impartial, not independent, and discredited group (formerly known as the Economists for Brexit!!!!!), as if they'd ever suggest anything else.....

Of course, it is well known that good signs of intellect are to inform yourself across the spectrum of media, not to just read what gives you what you need to hear whether it is fake or otherwise.

More independent and intelligent reports do, of course, show a net positive impact. Also if successive recent governments had implemented legislation readily avialble (namely European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves) then there would be an even more positive effect. The issue is not with the EU, but with the UK and it's governmental incompetence.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Isn't it remarkable, I could've written that myself. As for your suggestion of repatriation; when ? by whom ? No one is watching much less counting. We do not know how many capable, intelligent, good looking migrants whose skills are such as to be considered so desirable and essential to the wealth and prosperity of this country, are actually here - and we'll never know.

I think that your underlying message that the Brexit result was induced by a shortage of immigrants is the likelier and more truthful version.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 963

I think I'm reading that you're in agreement and that successive governments have failed to implement policy and process to apply legislation already in existence. What concerns me even more is the unrealistic hope that in barely 3 months, new policy, process and technology togtehr with training and recruitment will be in place to secure the borders. If anything I fear they will be even more porous than previously.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

AK

If you think that then you're capable of thinking anything, and when written, most of it too opaque to be understood.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Fine piece by former MP Peter, now Lord Peter Lilley, in the D. Tel. 29th inst. He points out that the EU is not about to commit 'economic suicide' by indulging in a campaign of outright hostility. He writes that should the French ports be denied by means of a 'go-slow' or, outright closure then Belgium and Dutch ports would be vying for our business.

It is not widely known that there are three Treaty commitments: the original WTO treaty. the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the Lisbon Treaty, all require the EU to behave in a 'neighbourly fashion' towards adjacent states. Perhaps we could solicit the ECJ to pronounce on the meaning of 'neighbourly'.

Lilley comments that if the benefits of Remaining were as beneficial as the Remainers claim then the benefits of Remaining would far outweigh the benefits of Leaving and we would stay.