Search results

Pollock! Juncker got in effect a 2% tax rate for Amazon in Luxemburg. Now he is in favour of Minimum or unified EU corporation tax. What the UK is hinting at is undercutting the EU corporation tax. Exactly what Juncker did and you haven’t stopped complaining about.

You asked a question. I suggested an answer. You say that is bias.

Want? Or accept that we have to go through with it? Or can’t be arsed to have another referendum? As more think it was a mistake to vote leave, it hardly shows enthusiasm for leave, more a grudging acceptance.

No. You asked about where people get fish from. Iceland is an example, but price plays a role as does the type of fish. The rest is you putting words in my mouth... as usual.

You are answering the wrong poster. I said YouGov said more people think that we made the wrong decision in leaving. Which is in your own link.

Luckily we had a prominent UKIP MEP on the fisheries commission fighting tirelessly for our fishing rights. And yes, fishing quotas have been discredited. No one says the present system is good.

Where they get their fish from is dependent on price, possible tariffs and on international rules. I understand that Iceland also has fish.

It is accepted by most that there will be at least a mini depression after Brexit.. even by leavers. Rees Mogg and Co are bigging up the situation in 50 years time to convince people it will be worth it. He may well be right, but I won’t be there to see that.

We sell to the rest of the world via EU deals.

Basically just crap. Billions are being used now for preparations for leaving the single market and largest economic bloc in the world to effectively cause a depression, and now come the carrots in the form of promises of a better life to hide the fact that we are heading for at least short term...

We would be breaking the law and we would be sanctioned. And we would be mad not to have any regulations on catches and just take the lot. Overfishing is not a long term solution. Fishing is a small part of GDP and to break the rules and have the economy punished by retaliation would not be...

More like „man the lifeboats“ as a way of not going down with the sinking ship. Why aren’t we dealing with infrastructure now? Why aren’t we pumping money into .education? Why is money suddenly there or is there room for tax cuts after we leave? And don’t say because of our net payment to the...

Exactly. They are warnings/ information that has nothing to do with the campaign and as such the ones issued in advance of the referendum were not counted as campaign expenses. I thought the first ones explained the government‘s position with both sides of the argument ( I cannot remember exactly).

And we will do what we can in order to export fish to the EU.

It was about the effect of the referendum. The same as the government papers that are being released now... although there is no referendum at the moment. Ordered by the HoL. Not part of campaign.

Yes, but freedom of movement. Foreigners. The Brexiteers won't allow that.

The leaflet had to be distributed as laid down by the HoL. It was not part of the campaign. The same government duty of responsibility as the pesky government papers warning of the possible effects of a no deal Brexit that you don't like. You don't like these things, but the government has to...

No, it was found not be illegal in the Selmayr case, but what leave did was illegal. Spot the difference.

That's it then. Good that we are leaving. Single market gone. Banking authority gone. Galileo gone. Medical agency gone. Labour supply falling. Not enough British vets to control animal imports/ exports. And so on. But a fish will be destroyed instead of eaten. Pity for the fish.

The opinion was that our devaluations didn't help us much, and that devaluation doesn't help as much as it used to as exporters continue to keep their dollar or euro price. Basically he is saying that it is a waste of time devaluing and that the public are worse off than they would have been...