Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:32 AM

"This is a very different entity to what exists today as the EU."

If you're using that as an excuse for holding the 2016 referendum, then the argument for having a rethink vote now must be equally valid. What we KNEW in early 2016 is vastly different from what we know NOW. If you believe in democracy you must embrace the idea that the electorate must have the maximum possible information in order to make an informed choice. The choice made in 2016 was made with far less information than we have now. By that measure, the choice we made in 2016 was clearly uninformed.

"You cannot compare apples to oranges."

What we knew in 2016 was the apples. What we know now is the oranges.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:43 AM

Let us not forget the Iranians' interference in the election of and support for their useful idiot in the Labour Party. That subversion of the country's democracy surely warrants scrutiny.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 08:54 AM

Interesting Bobad, do you have any facts to support your assertion?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:01 AM

That's just daft.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:02 AM

"support for their useful idiot in the Labour Party. "
If yopu have a shred of evidence of this you need to produce it, otherwise it remains a slanderous accusation
It is interesting that the power I refer to has sold parts to both Iran and North Korea though
As I say, National politics is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and political differences seem to be becoming overridden by economic interests, making for unlikely bedfellows
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:07 AM

Which fits with Ians seemingly gloating reference to riots in France, said to have been inspired by far-right elements, and his 'could get ugly' comments.   

Terrible things delusions! If I wished to use French riots as an example I can assure you I would have done. Do not make artificial constructs on what I say.

A link that should work
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/political-parties-campaigning-and-donations/campaign-spending-and-donations-at-referendums/donations-and-loans-reported-by-campaigners-at-the-eu-referendum

Where's all these pesky ruskies then?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/15/police-will-not-examine-claims-of-russian-meddling-in-brexit-vote

Far more fruitful to investigate US meddling in elections. They have been doing it for decades!

http://rozenbergquarterly.com/noam-chomsky-on-the-long-history-of-us-meddling-in-foreign-elections/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:11 AM

Will no one rid us of this meddlesome war criminal.

From Guido, the man at westminster.

https://order-order.com/2018/11/25/blair-second-referendum-time-real/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM

Sorry, Ians, but I feel I have a right to interpret your posts in any reasonable way - and to be amused by your personal gibes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:33 AM

"Where's all these pesky ruskies then?"
The fact that the police will not examine the charges proves nothing - this is a political matter, not a question of law and order
Banks is under investigation regarding the funding of his campaign - it is somewhat premature to suggest what they will find before that is completed
Trum fought tooth and nail to block enquiries into Russian involvement there and convinced no-one
As I said - National Politics have gone international
Not more right wing criminal blogging - surely
Don't they do night-school classes on expanding the imagination in your area
Usinbg the same blogger over and over again because you know he is going to come up with the blogs yiou need shows both lack of imagination and of real interest in teh subject under discussion - it is a technique of debate even a five year could manage with little practice
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:57 AM

I look forward to the analysis of all sources of funding for the campaign, including George Sorus

Surely the more the funding is dubious, from whatever direction, the greater the justification for the Court to declare the result void?


Still, as the remainers have always insisted, the vote was only advisory. So declaring it void would not necessarily alter anything.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 09:58 AM

A link to a BBC political program and you babble on about the blogger that supplied the link. OH DEAR!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:30 AM

Here ya go Raggy: TOI

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:35 AM

Matt cartoon caption in the Sunday Telegrope today

"If it was up to me, I would choose to crash out of the EU, with no deal"

But the skill of the cartoonist is to have a crash test dummy saying it.

I've long said, apropos, it isn't like watching a slow car crash, it's like being in one. Waiting for the bump. And there are a lot of air bags sounding off!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:47 AM

Most of my and everybody elses postings are not blogs, nor do they contain links (some do)
We post reported information, not opinionated blogs
Guido is a predictable right-wing cretin who offers little than his own opinions - he is reputed for doing so
You are entitled to post what you wish and am equally entitled to comment on it
Personally I would like to know what YOU know - not a torrent of insultingly presents blogs from the same source, over, aand over and over.......... again
I don't "babble" - nobody here does, though you far too often accuse us of doing go- part of the 'talking-down' process
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:51 AM

"Here ya go Raggy:"
The OPINION" of w Times of Israel writer - with no reference to sales of Atomic parts to the country they are slagging off
Very convincing, I'm sure Bobad
Where's your proof?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:03 AM

Waiting for the bump that never comes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:09 AM

"Here ya go Raggy:"
Incidentally Bobad, the writer of your article, Robert Philpot, was a supporter of Blair' New Labour, the veterans of which are now attempting to have Corbyn removed fro leadership
As I said - very convincing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:34 AM

"Guido is a predictable right-wing cretin who offers little than his own opinions - he is reputed for doing so"
So tell me why he linked to a BBC program enabling Blair to spout his lefty rubbish about another referendum?

Are you trying to tell me Blair, Marr and the BBC are rightwing?
You do post some nonsense!

From the Gruniard about Guido(therefore you know it must be right!)
Five years ago he told the Guardian: “I still hate politicians. My contempt for them is undiminished.” The politicians know this, but they appear to nervous of crossing him. “We cringe and simper around Guido,” Johnson said at the anniversary celebration, “in the pathetic delusion that we may thereby encourage him to be merciful to us.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 11:55 AM

I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum, and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information.
Is there not a rather fundamental flaw in the argument somewhere?

It has already been established that the elections watchdog “misinterpreted” spending rules surrounding donations by the official Brexit campaign during the EU referendum, the High Court has ruled.
Donations to both sides seem to lack clarity.

From Reuters
Ever since the shock vote, supporters of EU membership have been exploring an array of different legal and political methods to prevent what they see as the biggest mistake in post-World War Two British history.

Brexiteers say such efforts threaten political stability as they go against the democratic will of 17.4 million people. They have vowed to fight any attempt to stop Brexit.

“The new Soros-led coalition is planning a coup in Britain, against the democratic will of the people,” Richard Tice, who chairs the Leave Means Leave campaign group, told Reuters. “They have been outed and will be defeated.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:17 PM

I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum, and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information. 
Is there not a rather fundamental flaw in the argument somewhere?

Not in the slightest. The problem lies in your presumption it provided information.   However information and propaganda are quite different, whichever side is providing it.

As a general rule, all political advertising everywhere in the world is far more concerned with swaying opinion than providing information.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:28 PM

I think you make an artificial distinction. I would argue anything with a political motive is given spin therefore propaganda was a tool employed by both sides. The original argument still applies, a cute change of name does not alter the fact that you cannot argue the vote was swayed by propaganda(facts) and in the same breath argue the propaganda(Facts) was/were inadequate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:31 PM

"So tell me why he linked to a BBC program enabling Blair to spout his lefty rubbish about another referendum?"
I don't support Blair, which is, in fact "a rightie" war criminal who removed much of the left wing policies of the Labour party
I have said exactly why I believe there to be the need for a referendum without having to rely on the opinions of such people - in detail
I put up information, not opinions
To suggest the BBC is "left wing" is an indication of how far right your own opinions are - Atilla the Hun springs to mind
It would help if you specified why you regard information as "rubbish" - argument is far more convincibng as nake-calling dismissal
Fairly pointless attempting to justify Staines by saying he distrusts politicians - most people do, it indicates nothing
He is recognised widely as the spokesman of Right-wing toryism

"and on the other complain that 'illegal' donations swung the vote,presumably by enabling too much information. "
So you believe Russian money paid for "information" - what on earth brought on that little brainstorm ?
The money paid to a Ukip Supporter - its major donor - paid for Brexit propaganda - hardly information !!
What was missing was a prognosis of what might happen when Britain left Europe - the Independent (suppose that counts as "leftie") produced a magnificent article pointing out that THERE HAD BEEN NO PLAN FOR LEAVING, NO STUDY OF THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF DOING SO... NOTHING, UNTIL THE REFERENDUM HAD BEEN HELD - A TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE WAY FOR A GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW SUCH A VOTE TO TAKE PLACE
It was a deliberate use of populism by a now discredited leader of a now discredited party
The consequences of that populism was a sharp rise in racist incidents
May is now crowing about how Brexit will control immigration - not a single explanation of how her "better Britain" will be achieved.
Brexit played the same race card Powell was thrown out of his party for
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:45 PM

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains - PM 
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:28 PM 

I think you make an artificial distinction. I would argue anything with a political motive is given spin therefore propaganda was a tool employed by both sides

I think I was clear enough that this applies, not only to both sides, but all campaigning everywhere in the world.

I can see where there might be a lack of information even when buried alive by propaganda. I think there is a meaningful distinction. If you do not, we must simply disagree about it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 12:45 PM

Bobad, I asked for facts ......... not allegations.

I am sure even you kow the difference.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 01:02 PM

You've been given exactly what people were given Iains - if you have any proof to the contrary, please give it
The Financial Times puts it quite well (can't link to it, so I've put it up in full - well worth reading
Hope the FT s not too "leftie" for you
Jim Carroll

UK approach to referendums needs ‘overhaul’
Independent commission says vote should take place after significant preparation
Henry Mance, Political Correspondent JULY 10, 2018 Print this page85
The UK’s approach to referendums needs “wholesale reform”, and major constitutional changes should be subject to a second vote once the details have been worked out, an expert panel has concluded.
The Independent Commission on Referendums, run by University College London, is one of the most detailed attempts so far to reform the use of referendums, following the votes on Brexit and Scottish independence.
The panel said that Britain should only hold referendums where parliament would know what to enact after the vote, and where governments had first undertaken “significant preparatory work”.
That is an implicit rebuke for the former prime minister David Cameron, who refused to allow contingency planning for a Leave vote. Brexiters have blamed Mr Cameron’s approach for many of the difficulties in negotiations with the EU.
The UCL panel also concluded that referendums should normally take place once the relevant legislation has been passed. If a referendum takes place without detailed plans for change being set out, a further vote should be held once they are.
That finding could give succour to those now calling for a second Brexit vote, before Britain leaves the EU in March 2019. However, the panel made clear that its report was not retrospective, and that the prospect of a second referendum should be made clear before the first vote was held. Public appetite for a second Brexit vote varies depending on whether it is described as “a second referendum” or “a vote on the deal”.
In the past two decades, referendums have taken place on Brexit, Scottish independence, electoral reform, Welsh devolution and peace in Northern Ireland. The Brexit vote, in particular, has exposed constitutional tensions between the popular will, parliamentary democracy and legal safeguards. Yet opinion polls have showed support for more referendums in future.
UCL’s panel, which included two pro-Brexit and two anti-Brexit politicians, said that referendums should not be seen as quick-fix solutions, but as “coexisting alongside” representative institutions.

Recommended
Explainer Brexit
Brexit timeline: key dates in UK’s divorce with EU
Alan Renwick, an academic at UCL, said that citizens’ assemblies could be held before future referendums, “to consider the issues and work out what the options should be — as was done successfully before Ireland’s recent referendum on abortion”.
However, the panel shied away from other potential safeguards — such as introducing a threshold for turnout, or a ‘supermajority’ requirement for a referendum to back major constitutional change. A “simple majority is considered sufficient for electing MPs and for almost all parliamentary decisions, even those of major constitutional importance”, it noted.
Deborah Mattinson, a pollster and a member of the panel, said the public appetite for referendums followed from a decline in trust in politicians and an expectation that politics should be participatory. Young people were more likely than old people to favour more referendums, she said.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 01:45 PM

Well Jim there may be a case to be made for educating the electorate but who will chose the syllabus, who will teach it, and who will ensure subject matter neutrality. I think you will agree it ain't gonna happen. There is no such requirement for any other election. Wherein lies the difference?
For another referendum I would suggest the following.
1)The required legislation is in place to make the outcome binding on Parliament
2)the electoral commission is made fit for purpose
3)Total transparency is required for all donations
4)all donations to cease 6months prior to voting in order all donations may be vetted
I am sure many other requirements could be added.

We could of course turn many of the arguments here on their head and argue that the remainers were totally illiterate and easily bamboozled by flim flam, and as such should be disenfranchised.

To try to argue the vote should be declared null will cause many to lose faith in the judiciary. Such an argument should be the outcome of parliamentary debate in my view, and the courts should keep well clear.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:14 PM

"Well Jim there may be a case to be made for educating the electorate"
Patronising shite - nice to see we aren't the ones you talk down to]
If you ask people to vote for something - a political party or a referendum, you are committed to explain what they are being invited to vote for - that's how democracy is supposed to work
This friggin referendum was won on getting rid of immigrants and meaningless "taking our country back" - nothing else - sort of like Trump's "Lets make America Great Again"
Both are a lie - America may have been powerful, but it was as bad as some of the worst dictatorships - Britain is in the hands of multinationals - no industries to sustain it and no plans to rebuild an industrial foundation to make Britain self sustaining - Britain's largest export percentage is finance to the tune of 30 plus percent
Britain can never become viable in that situation and, as the Financial Times has been pointing out since the referendum, it cannot plan to do so until the economy gets over the aftershock of Brexit - at least twenty years
When Britain leave Europe, it will have to find somebody else to be dependable on - who - Russia, China, Daffy Donald's U.S,...... the mind really does boggle

You appear to be describing a system that runs elections on the basis of an uninformed electorate and the only way to achieve that is by legislation - what the **** has that got to do with democracy ?
These are the horror stories that were told about Soviet Russia at the height of the Cold War - a "massive Empire held in thrall by ignorance and oppression"

Another referendum can be held simply on the basis as the last one was; "Knowing what you now know, do you still wish to leave Europe?"
There can be no possible argument that the electorate now knows far more of the consequences than it did last time around
The Ireland you despise so much as "bog-trotters" holds referenda on a regular basis, during which they have taken decisions that have overturned centuries of fears and ignorance imposed by the most powerful mind-controlling body on the planet
Two more in the pipeline, both on Constitutional issues - the women' place in society and divorce
You're not suggesting that the 'T'ick Micks' are better trusted to take serious decisions that are the former masters of the World - surely not !!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 03:26 PM

Bobad, I asked for facts .........not allegations.

Plenty of facts both in the article and in the links therein........pity they don't accommodate your ideological position.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 04:34 PM

"I find it very interesting that remainers on the one hand complain they were not given sufficient information prior to the referendum..."

Not so. Remainers complain that no-one was given sufficient information.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 25 Nov 18 - 10:46 PM

"
You're not suggesting that the 'T'ick Micks' are better trusted to take serious decisions that are the former masters of the World - surely not !!"


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 02:55 AM

Propaganda is not about giving facts, it is about swaying opinion. The poster showing queues of suspicions brown people was not factual. Nor was Osbornes predictions of instant catastrophe. The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 03:33 AM

Your post suggests that no one told the truth, so why should any one believe you?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:08 AM

Very good Stanron:-)

A perfect example of changing what was actually said into suitable propaganda too!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:17 AM

Who changed what? I asked a question.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:21 AM

You said "Your post suggests that no one told the truth" which is nothing like what I said so I assumed your question was a rhetorical joke. It was, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:51 AM

Dave the Gnome wrote: Propaganda is not about giving facts, it is about swaying opinion. The poster showing queues of suspicions brown people was not factual. Nor was Osbornes predictions of instant catastrophe. The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

This is your post. You say that the leave side lied. Am I wrong to read from your post that the remain side lied as well? If both sides lied where is the truth?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:09 AM

Looks suspiciously like nitpicking to avoid the mani issues to me

INTERESTING STATS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:20 AM

The leave side told the most convincing lies and so swayed the vote. The lies have now been discovered. It is this, along with overspending and outside interference, that has made the whole thing a complete farce.

Can we have some links to give factual support for any of the above, or is it merely a fairy tale to make you feel better because you lost?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:24 AM

There are been enough reports of this during the past 30 months. You, in particular, have chosen to ignore them.

There is no evidence that you would listen to anything anyone posted regarding this so why should they once again provide you with the reports.

Waste of time and effort.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:42 AM

THE BIGGEST AND MOST DANGEROUS LIE OF ALL
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:45 AM

Result of the lie
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crimes-racism-eu-referendum-vote-attacks-increase-police-figures-official-a7358866.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 06:45 AM

Reports can consist of rumours, hearsay and outright lies.
Yet another acolyte dodges the issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 07:42 AM

Stanron, there is no interpretation of my words that leads to the conclusion that no one told the truth. I am simply saying that some people told some lies some of the time. The fact that you seem to interpret this as "no one told the truth" is not my problem. There was plenty of truth told by both sides but it is the lies that seem to have swung the issue.

Now, rather than get bogged down in the past, do we have any forecasts of a rosy future for us all yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:07 AM

"Yet another acolyte dodges the issue."
None of you have addressed the issues raise - not one of them
Denying research and persistently bombing the discussion with partisan blogs just about sums the level adopted here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 12:04 PM

"THE BIGGEST AND MOST DANGEROUS LIE OF ALL"
A prime example of remainer lies and distortions.
Unison’s Dave Prentis said poster showing a queue of migrants and refugees incites racial hatred

This is obviously an opinion masquerading as fact as we can easily tell.
The article is dated Thu 16 Jun 2016 14.08 BST
As can clearly be seen no court case resulted. the DPP obviously saw no case to answer.
Therefore we can take it as fact that the picture, that had been licensed from Getty Images and was taken in Slovenia in 2015 by its staff photographer Jeff Mitchell, DID NOT INCITE RACIAL HATRED.

As Jim points out (inadvertently I am sure) the article was based on a lie. The remainiacs stoop to any level to force their false news upon us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 01:15 PM

The DPP make decisions about how likely a prosecution is to suceed. The fact that there was no prosecution only proves that the DPP could not commit to that particular case. That is a far cry from exonerating the poster. The fact that racist hate crimes increased sharply following the referendum indicates that there was a link between the racist nature of some of the leave propaganda, including that poster, and motivation for such crimes.

There could be other reasons for the increase in hate crimes of course but, to date, no one has yet out any forward.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 01:34 PM

"A prime example of remainer lies and distortions."
That the DPP did not act on it - I said it was a lie, not a crime (though it should be)
The poster depicts hordes aof invading foreigners, suggesting that these are the reason Britain should leave Europe - that is a ****** lie
Even government surveys have not made immigration a major problem in the fortunes of Britain; reports have shown over and over again that immigration had benefited Britain both economically and socially
Pewll was kicked out of his party for using this disgustingly racist argument
Like it or not, Britain's Imperial history has made immigration a permanent feature of its life
As far as refugees are concerned, Britain's policies abroad have made us part of the creation of the mass mif=grations that are taking place - oil, propping up dictators, and particularly arming them
Your denial of this is typical of those who share your racist views (begorrah), as is your refusal even to acknowledge the disgusting effect it has had in accelerating racism amnt turning a built-in passive prejudice into action - yhoui ignore it - Nigel downplays it
Nobody suggested the poster was the sole cause - just part of the hate campaign that is Brexit
Even May, the most dignified of the bunch, is crowing about keeling them out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 02:41 PM

The fact that there was no prosecution only proves that the DPP could not commit to that particular case. That is a far cry from exonerating the poster.

There was no crime,therefore nothing to be exonerated.
You may think you are being cute with wordplay, but you fool no one.
The photo made the point the subjects in the photo were young single males. Are they in fear of their lives, potential free loaders or economic migrants?
Asylum seekers are covered by the Dublin agreement, any other illegal migrants should be deported. They have regular channels they can apply through. If they cannot satisfy that set of criteria then deport them back from whence they came.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 04:23 PM

From the BBC news today:

"Theresa May: "We will take back control of our money, by putting an end to vast annual payments to the EU.

Instead, we will be able to spend British taxpayers' money on our own priorities, like the extra £394m per week that we are investing in our long-term plan for the NHS."

Hmm.......... it would seem that the "gullible" remainers were not the only one's taken in by the slogan on the bus then!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 18 - 08:00 PM

The amount of money we have tied up with the EU is around one percent of our GDP. Just thought I'd mention it.