keano77

Just another champagne socialist. Schooled at Fettes in Edinburgh. Claims to speak for the people but amassed a huge property portfolio and now charges vast sums on the lecture circuit and for advising dictators among others. When will people learn?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We didn't exactly have a grown up argument. > > People just lied and shouted at each other on both > sides in the biggest decision made in years. True

False argument. People who voted Remain had no knowledge of what future EU membership might have entailed. Greece needs another bail-out not to help build the country but just to pay the interest on the loans back to the banks. Italy's banking system is broken and Spain and Portugal's are wobbling. A land of milk and honey the EU ain't

'nuff said really

But you remainers are missing the bigger picture. Just think of the opportunities once free of EU rules: Curly bananas weighed in pounds and ounces Peckham Rye vineyard Champagne sold by the pint Forest Hill fungus-free Roquefort matured for 24 hours East Dulwich GM truffles harvested from Goose Green Herne Hill spam prosciutto There's money to be made for our Brexit-liberated entrepreneurs

If remoaners have their way the answer will be never as the money will keep flowing into the great EU ponzi scheme.

Hard to know Seabag. In my day a Walnut Whip was a Walnut Whip - not like the chocolate-drop sized pretenders mascarading as Walnut Whips these days.

We'll that's better. Obviously a mistake by the lead Brexit negotiator for the European Parliament. Interesting that the video on the BBC website doesn't carry that bit.

But here we're saying it costs us ?8.5Billion a year to stay in and enjoy the benefits but if we leave it will cost the equivalent of 70.5 years membership with no single market access and tariffs to boot. Okay, I don't expect you to know the answer Jaywalker and I realise it's probably an inflated figure to start the negotiations with. We'll have to wait until they reveal their hand.

Sorry jaywalker, doesn't wash with me. He might have said implied cost of leaving and there might well be highly technical issues to be resolved. But if the net annual cost of membership is approx ?8.5Billion and we leave by 2020 how could we still owe some ?550 Billion? Now I realise we probably have agreements on defence, intelligence, green commitments etc that will no doubt continue. However, if Verhofstadt's ?600 Billion includes such matters the true cost of membership is significantly more than what we think we've been paying. You'll have to do better than that Jaywalker

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Let's find out the real facts, not the speculative > #AltFacts and discuss them. > > Else we're back to asking 'where's the ?350 > squillion Scot the NHS then?" > > And then .....you know the form! I agree. The figure might have been a slip of the tongue by a non-native speaker although he spoke fluently. If such a figure were to be the EU's opening gambit in the forthcoming negotiations I'll look forward to how the FT and the Economist break it down.

What is a bit worrying about this ?600 Billion figure, if true, is that UK taxpayers appear to have been misled as to the true cost of membership of the EU. If we assume our net contribution (allowing for the abatement) is around ?8.5 Billion a year for 2017,18 and 19 that's ?25.5 Billion. So what is the outstanding ?574.5 Billion for? Is there something Remainers would like to fess up to?

If true, on the basis of a population of 60m people then ?10,000 for every man, woman and baby in swaddling clothes.

Just been watching slimy Nick Clegg talking at the Brexit debate and it reminded me. Last night on Newsnight Evan Davis interviewed Guy verhofstadt who will be a player in Brexit negotiations. Evan asked him about the sum of ?60 Billion the UK has commitments to pay the EU by the time we leave. Guy replied that current and future commitments by the time the UK leaves will be ?600 Billion. Evan Davis didn't pick him up on this and I haven't seen anything in the papers or on the news about it. Was this a mistake by Guy? A Freudian slip? The UK, rightly, will honour all its commitments. However, why should UK taxpayers keep paying the likes of Clegg's, and that great socialist family the Kinnocks', EU pensions among other things? The UK ought to say (politely) after the two years we will off-set any payments against the costs to UK companies of any tariffs imposed on our goods and services. (Newsnight, Jan 30, around 37 mins)

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are 6 other threads you could have put this > on FFS - selfish and tedious every new bit of > Trump news creating a new thread Eight now quids if you include Admin's latest

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Does anyone know any shops locally with deals on > shampoo and conditioner (preferably sold > separately). I love my Elvive Ultra Shine but it's > ?4 a bottle. Any helpful suggestions? Sainsbury's > is a no-no. Already checked. > > Louisa. Isn't that the stuff President Trump uses?

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Better to precisely wrong than vaguely right eh > Keano I've never signed any online petition and never will. But whoever has started this petition should have asked someone to proofread it before launching it. The President has already been formally invited and the word is opposed not apposed.

Oh dear it's riddled with mistakes.

SuperSize burgers and soda pop at the banquet Advertising emblazoned on the mounted soldiers of the Household Cavalry Ticker tape parade down The Mall I can't wait

I hope there will be room in the royal coach for President Trump's golf clubs. Wouldn't look good before the world's media if a footman slung the bag over his shoulder

Something tells me President Trump isn't going to fly in on the red-eye and queue up for a taxi at Heathrow no matter how many people sign this petition

I realise the vocal part of the EDT bubble is anti-Trump but I thought Theresa May's meeting with Donald yesterday was a resounding success for Great Britain. Feel a bit sorry for Her Majesty as I suspect a lot of pressure was imposed regarding a state visit. Maybe a big thank you is due to Nigel Farage after all. Discuss PS stubbed my toe on my bed leg yesterday (very painful) must be Trump's fault

Steady on malumbu, I think you are getting a bit carried away here. As I said, let's keep some perspective here. Trump is not necessarily some sort of anti-Christ, he just doesn't confronm to the liberal mindset. War with Canada? Please explain.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's truly terrifying, the damage Trump has > already done. The idea of the European union which > epitomises ideals of coherence and tolerance was > ruined by the way it was run/ governed. It has > left a bitterness such that so many people would > rather be without it and it's a crying shame. > > How this ends does not look good at all. The idea > of May aligning us with Trump is just dreadful. IF > there is anything that can be done to prevent > Trump spreading his beliefs and infecting the rest > of the world, it should be done. The damage he has > the ability to cause would take forever to > undo....unless it does have the opposite effect - > and actually bring the world together, in unity - > against what he represents. A bit of perspective required here. Trump has only been in the job three days. I'm not sure what you mean by the damage he's already done and I'm not sure what you mean by how this ends does not look good at all. Nobody knows how this will end. If Trump brings jobs back to many depressed areas of the US and restores the idea of the American Dream that by working hard you can get on in life then he ought to be regarded as one of the most successful US presidents they've had. Give the man time.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In practice it makes little difference, but the > principle is absolutely the right one. It's a > shame May wasted so much taxpayer's money fighting > a point that was obviously and easily conceded. In fairness it was a grey area of law. The right of a government to withdraw from treaties under the perogative is well established. If I understand this ruling correctly it has clarified that where Parliament votes to enter into treaties Parliament has to assent before the government can amend or exit a treaty