They didn't vote it down because they feared a populace whipped up by the media. The referendum will be one of Camerons legacies like the mess that will be Hinkley C.
nonsense
They didn't vote it down because they feared a populace whipped up by the media. The referendum will be one of Camerons legacies like the mess that will be Hinkley C.
They didn't vote it down because they feared a populace whipped up by the media. The referendum will be one of Camerons legacies like the mess that will be Hinkley C.
your lack of under standing on how democracy works is staggering
no, Theresa offered to pay an amount for two years. It was not a "divorce settlement" it was an offer to pay for access to the Single Market after resigning from the EU.
How did she calculate it? Not disclosed.
We established over two years ago that there were only four options on offer. The Quitters would never say which one they were voting for, because they had a fantasy of getting all the benefits of membership without being paid-up members and conforming to the rules of membership. This is an option that is not on offer, has never been on offer, and the EU has told UK so repeatedly.
I don't really think that even the Brexit campaigners ever actually believed in it. Like the "£350million a week" lie, it was just a story to get the gullible voting.
no, Theresa offered to pay an amount for two years. It was not a "divorce settlement" it was an offer to pay for access to the Single Market after resigning from the EU.
How did she calculate it? Not disclosed.
We established over two years ago that there were only four options on offer. The Quitters would never say which one they were voting for, because they had a fantasy of getting all the benefits of membership without being paid-up members and conforming to the rules of membership. This is an option that is not on offer, has never been on offer, and the EU has told UK so repeatedly.
I don't really think that even the Brexit campaigners ever actually believed in it. Like the "£350million a week" lie, it was just a story to get the gullible voting.
"Definition of mental retardationmentally retarded is not the same as being stupid
Another of your ridiculous opinions?although u discriminate against them
JD discriminates against the dis abled ??? may be ???
"Definition of mental retardation
:subaverage intellectual ability equivalent to or less than an IQ of 70 that is accompanied by significant deficits in abilities (as in communication or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning, is usually present from birth or infancy, and is manifested especially by delayed or abnormal development, by learning difficulties, and by problems in social adjustment "
Yes, that figures!
Another of your ridiculous opinions?
yep that figure of 90 billion (gross) was mentioned on the radio again this morning ?
truer figure they reckon is 40 billion net ?? dunno what the significance of a net & gross figure is in this context , can any one explain it to me ?
A future arrangement is not dependent on the 'divorce' and vise-versa.I am sure there is a reason, but I don't understand why the EU negotiators say on the one hand, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but then they say we cant discuss trade talks until the divorce bill is settled.
It makes no sense whatsoever to agree a divorce bill without some agreement on trade. 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 but the 2 are intermingled. If we agree to pay a moral obligation to cover our costs for projects that have been funded on the 28, then in return we should have trade agreements for the 27
Barnier keeps saying we have to pay what we owe. Well if there is a legal obligation, why cant he tell us?
I am sure there is a reason, but I don't understand why the EU negotiators say on the one hand, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but then they say we cant discuss trade talks until the divorce bill is settled.
It makes no sense whatsoever to agree a divorce bill without some agreement on trade. 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 but the 2 are intermingled. If we agree to pay a moral obligation to cover our costs for projects that have been funded on the 28, then in return we should have trade agreements for the 27
Barnier keeps saying we have to pay what we owe. Well if there is a legal obligation, why cant he tell us?
£350 million again, and again, and again, and again
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...l-threat-over-secret-reports-on-brexit-impactDavid Davis faces legal threat over secret reports on Brexit impact
Lawyers say they will issue judicial review proceedings if Brexit secretary fails to release 50 studies of effect on industry
I am sure there is a reason, but I don't understand why the EU negotiators say on the one hand, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but then they say we cant discuss trade talks until the divorce bill is settled.
It makes no sense whatsoever to agree a divorce bill without some agreement on trade. 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 but the 2 are intermingled. If we agree to pay a moral obligation to cover our costs for projects that have been funded on the 28, then in return we should have trade agreements for the 27
Barnier keeps saying we have to pay what we owe. Well if there is a legal obligation, why cant he tell us?
I disagree. If we pay our debts, we may be able to then buy a trade deal. (It will not come free or cheap, unless we can agree some terms on a tit for tat basis, which is highly unlikely). The EU have already said we cannot pick and choose the best bits of membership without paying for it.In terms of stance:
- if they accept we owe nothing then we are "buying" a trade deal, whereas if we agree we are paying our debts, then they are gifting us a trade deal. Its just about convincing the other that your position is fair and reasonable.
You get your constitutional advice from the DM?