gloswhite wrote:Haven't a clue, but that is what I heard. I should have said that the way it was stated was that overall 40-50 billion is very small in the greater scheme of things..
That's about 10% of our total exports, according to the ONS.
gloswhite wrote:Haven't a clue, but that is what I heard. I should have said that the way it was stated was that overall 40-50 billion is very small in the greater scheme of things..
Like itxmiles wrote:gloswhite wrote:Haven't a clue, but that is what I heard. I should have said that the way it was stated was that overall 40-50 billion is very small in the greater scheme of things..xmiles wrote:gloswhite wrote:
Heard a comment yesterday that many pro-brexit, (must admit, myself included), think the 40 or 50 billion isn't too bad, because we'll get it back through trade anyway, (don't know over what period), but as we've seen its more about politics , on both sides, than common sense. at the moment.
It seems the French and Germans are now being looked on as too demanding, by the few countries that are putting most cash into the EU, as they will lose, by percentage, far more than the big two, and they aren't prepared to put up with much more.
I don't see how we are going to make a 40 to 50 billion pound surplus on trade after leaving the EU. What are we going to be exporting and to whom to generate this level of profit?
Was it written on the side of a red bus?
Rightly or wrongly, I would take that as vindication of the statement, especially if spread over a period of time.T.R.O.Y wrote:gloswhite wrote:Haven't a clue, but that is what I heard. I should have said that the way it was stated was that overall 40-50 billion is very small in the greater scheme of things..
That's about 10% of our total exports, according to the ONS.
The Labour peer Andrew Adonis said he would be reporting Callanan to the privileges committee over this because it was a false statement that Callanan was refusing to correct.
I can confirm that. It is also stated by the European commission that article 50, once invoked, is irrevocable unless there is political agreement on it.
To reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the supreme court proceeded in the Miller case on the basis that article 50 would not be be revoked, but did not rule on the legal position regarding its irrevocability. It was, and remains, the government’s policy that our notification of article 50 will not be withdrawn ...
I recognise that my comments have caused confusion and I apologise to the House.
T.R.O.Y wrote:Oh fuck me here we go...
https://news.sky.com/story/medicine-regulator-begins-the-great-brexit-experiment-11136019
It was mentioned but by the industry "experts" who apparently don't have any expertise and should therefore be ignored according to the Brextremists.xmiles wrote:T.R.O.Y wrote:Oh fuck me here we go...
https://news.sky.com/story/medicine-regulator-begins-the-great-brexit-experiment-11136019
All entirely predictable but not something the brexit campaign bothered to mention.
That was always going to happen though.
T.R.O.Y wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/keir-starmer-keeps-pressure-on-david-davis-over-edited-brexit-papers
Insulting, and clearly in contempt of parliament. One of the most important arguments against Brexit was that you couldn't trust the likes of Davis and Boris, another argument that's come to fruition.
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum