- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,449
- Reaction score
- 3,358
- Country
I thought it was a dating site, bit of milfs r us sort of thing.I wonder what your usetname is on mumsnet?
I thought it was a dating site, bit of milfs r us sort of thing.I wonder what your usetname is on mumsnet?
It wasnt what he said actually.
He said:
Rees-Mogg: “The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years.”
He said "the overwhelming opportunity for brexit is over the next fifty years". I don't like the guy and I'm a remainer but it's qetting a bit tiresome now with the volume of fake quotes from people who listened to the interview and apparently only heard the words "50 years". In particular, he didn't say "the Brexit dividend will take up to 50 years".
https://www.ft.com/content/72252768-47de-11e8-8ae9-4b5ddcca99b3Britain will have to pay EU divorce bill ‘no matter what’
Payment due under international law and even without trade deal, MPs told
The UK will still have to honour a British “divorce bill” of up to £39bn even if it crashes out of the EU without a trade deal, the head of the National Audit Office said.
Yeah yeah fifty years ....why not say a thousand ?
Puerile remain nonsense ......you should be ashamed posting such claptrap ....but worse believing it !
This Divorce Payment will have to be made, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations:
That needs to be highlighted to show awareness levels of reality. Let's just pretend he didn't say it.
I think he has me on ignore so he won't see this, but it doesn't matter.
Whether you like ree smogg or brexit generally, you have to accept that ree smogg is 1 of the vocal leaders, and is held in high accord by brexit crowd.
So, when pressed, did he find any economic argument for Brexit?
Does 50 years, mean it will be that long before we see any benefit? Maybe not, it probably means 25/30 years beforewe turn the corner and the next 20/25years to reap any benefits. Maybe.
But what he did not say, was ANY economic or other benefit in a lesser timescale. In 50 years so much could happen, the effect of Brexit versus remain will be irrelevant, I don't think there is much doubt over that by either side of the argument.
The big question he didn't answer though. If there is no economic benefit to be realised much less than 50 years, what benefits are there ?
What surprises me though, is that people, a , still don't believe it, and, b, how it emphasises there was no argument for brexit!
All very interesting.
He still didnt say it
ROFL.....gotta luv em..Well done Brexiteers the most anti-Uk bunch around.
But a 'wise person' once said "I realise there is a difference between the payment to cover our obligations and a future subscription to pay to maintain some form of trade agreement"...The government were utterly stupid to agree divorce payment before trade deal.
If you say so. Did you listen to his interview, and his comments?
Did he produce any economic benefit? He was pressed to do so. It was at that point his 50 year comment came out, and it can be interpreted differently by different people, I agree.
Edit
I gave him the benefit of the doubt over 50 years, meaning 25/30 years to begin to level out and start to climb. How did you interpret it?
So what economic benefit did he produce? Any? He was pressed!
But a 'wise person' once said "I realise there is a difference between the payment to cover our obligations and a future subscription to pay to maintain some form of trade agreement"...
You pay up and then negotiate a 'new deal' afterwards...
The UK were the architects of that club rule!
Maybe you're not listening?I've not heard that anywhere.