Search results

same as mate so not sure but I think it's covered. Got drenched in that neck of the woods last year at FGR so hopefully it is. . Edit: Sorry didn't read Liquid golds post or your reply, great! Another soaking!

we can know a lot more if we go under WTO terms in the event of a no deal because the conditions we would be trading under the day after we leave will be set in stone at least in the short to medium term. . If there's a deal then we can't be sure until the terms of the deal are known. We may...

Just looked at the weather forecast - pack your waterproofs folks.

I wouldn't need to if you answered me, you just keep churning out empty rhetoric. Re read your posts for proof. I'll start you off - Clint, you're wrong about the negative effects of trading under WTO rules in the event of a no deal, it will actually be of benefit because..........over to you Baz.

I'd say they were more incidents of violence. Just not as much use of weaponry, particularly firearms.

"WTO is not the be-all & end-all." - If we don't leave with a deal we will be trading under WTO rules, that's fact. "And again...everybody wants a deal. One which suits THEM" - maybe, but every country has to submit a schedule to the WTO, (which then has to be ratified by all other members)...

@GaryJones thanks for the updates mate.

Jason Hunter is a world trade expert who specialises in dealing with the WTO. In my job I talk daily to people who run JIT and emergency transport companies. I would say these are experts whose opinions are based on a bit more than surveys. They say no deal Brexit will be a disaster. If there's...

that's how rumours start!

because I have done my best to look at the evidence regarding the conditions we will be trading in straight after Brexit if we don't get a deal and the picture I'm getting is a bleak one. However, I acknowledge that I'm no expert and that my opinion is being formed by committed leavers, (albeit...

lots of MPs serve under leaders they don't like. It'd probably never been more prevalent in all parties than it is now. I would suggest that by looking at the MPs expense claims that came to light during the expense scandal one thing was clear, whatever Corbyns motivation, I think it's safe to...

probably when it suits like most MPs. He was certainly more on the side of parliamentary sovereignty during the article 50 supreme court rumpus than most of the government. But again, not sure that's the same as wanting to bring an institution down.

I can't disagree with that. Blair should be in the Hague.

they do, but not while actively trying to destroy the institution in question. Especially when he spends all day pontificating about how corrupt the EU is. In effect he's taking what he believes to be dirty money.

I'm aware of him defying the whip, been a pain in the arse to the leadership, but I'm not aware of him calling for the destruction of the Labour party. In fact, since he's been leader the membership has seen a huge increase so I'm not sure that comparison stands up.

when Alan Sked created UKIP, (AFL as it was then), one of it's principles was not to take money from the EU to make a point. A quick buck was obviously more important to Farage.

in what way?

who needs facts when you can repeat empty rhetoric parrot fashion - carry on!!

They probably don't spend all their days trying to get people to vote for them on a ticket of destroying said company though. His hypocrisy is off the scale.

Not sure what that was about! All I want is for someone to explain why they think trading under WTO rules is a good thing. I've looked into it, it seems very complicated to me and most information you find seems to point to it being a bad idea in the event of a no deal. I am genuinely looking...