You said that "Leave explicitly made clear we would leave the Single Market and Customs Union."
I still think that's wrong because the Norway model was peddled as a viable and attractive model. I accept the potential bullshitty-ness of that video, but don't accept that the British public were given an explicit stance from the Leave campaigns.
Stick the word "Official" at the beginning of your claim and you have a stronger case. Bar Daniel Hannan.
The non-sequiturs ... make them stooooppp!! It huurrtssss ...Originally Posted by gogobongopop
The Norway model was ruled out during the campaign after they ruled out the Single Market. It was certainly pushed by many (including Daniel Hannan) before the campaign and indeed after it, but during the campaign it was the agreed policy of everyone with the campaigns [and Hannan signed up to it] that the Single Market was incompatible with what they were pushing.
Is this not explicit?The non-sequiturs ... make them stooooppp!! It huurrtssss ...Quite clear. You may disagree with it, but they're very explicit that the supremacy of EU law and membership of the Single Market ends if we leave. That's the very point of leaving!http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/...g_newdeal.html
Third, we will have a new UK-EU trading relationship. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. The heart of what we all want is the continuation of tariff-free trade with minimal bureaucracy. Countries as far away as Australia have Mutual Recognition agreements with the EU that deal with complex customs (and other ‘non-tariff barrier’) issues. We will do the same.
What about the so-called ‘Single Market’? The ‘Single Market’ is almost universally misunderstood and is nowhere defined in the EU Treaties. It was created in the 1980s by Jacques Delors in order to impose qualified majority voting in a vast range of areas beyond international trade such as the free movement of people, how we build schools or aircraft carriers, and thousands of things like the energy requirements of hoovers and the maximum size of containers in which two people sell olive oil to each other in the Shetland Islands (five litres). The Foreign Office and CBI like to claim that the Single Market was about ‘free trade’ but this is historical nonsense. Delors’ goal was explicitly political - as he said, 'we’re not here just to make a Single Market, that doesn’t interest me, but to make a political union.'
The Single Market causes big problems. For example, the Clinical Trials Directive has hampered the testing of vital cancer drugs for years causing unnecessary deaths. Single Market rules add complexity, time, and billions to government procurement programmes. Economists have tried and failed for twenty years to identify clear general gains from the Single Market. Even the Commission’s own, obviously optimistic, figures show that the supposed gains for the UK are smaller than reasonable estimates of the regulatory costs. Most businesses have said for over a decade that the Single Market does more harm than good but this debate has been distorted by a small number of large multinationals that lobby Brussels to use regulations to crush entrepreneurial competition. Big businesses are often the enemy of the public interest.
These problems will grow. The next EU Treaty is intended to harmonise another vast range of things including areas such as company law and ‘property rights’. Harmonising regulations is often good for countries like Greece but is often disastrous for Britain which wins more of the world’s investment in Europe than any other European country precisely because much of our legal system is not yet harmonised with Europe.
The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave. British businesses that want to sell to the EU will obey EU rules just as American, Swiss, or Chinese businesses do. Only about one in twenty British businesses export to the EU but every business is subject to every EU law. There is no need for Britain to impose all EU rules on all UK businesses as we do now, any more than Australia or Canada or India imposes all EU rules on their businesses. British businesses that wish to follow Single Market rules should be able to without creating obligations on everybody else to follow them. The vast majority of British businesses that do not sell to the EU will benefit from the much greater flexibility we will have.
The idea that our trade will suffer because we stop imposing terrible rules such as the Clinical Trial Directive is silly. The idea that ‘access to the Single Market’ is a binary condition and one must accept all Single Market rules is already nonsense - the Schengen system is ‘Single Market’ and we are not part of that. After we vote to leave, we will expand the number of damaging Single Market rules that we no longer impose and we will behave like the vast majority of countries around the world, trading with the EU but, crucially, without accepting the supremacy of EU law.
Regulatory diversity is good in many ways. One of the great advantages of post-Renaissance Europe over China was regulatory diversity. This meant Europe experimented and reinforced success (which often meant copying Britain) while China stagnated. Hamilton’s competitive federalism between the different states in America brought similar gains. Now the EU’s 1950s bureaucratic centralism, reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights that gives the European Court greater power over EU members than the Supreme Court has over US states, increasingly mimics 16th century China in preventing experiments and crushing diversity.
Oh and on the customs union (a phrase that wasn't used much before the referendum) the position was clear despite not using that phrase.Second, we will retake control of our trade policy. We will leave the Common Commercial Policy that gives the Commission control of all UK trade agreements. After we retake control, we will negotiate new agreements with countries like India, which represent the future of global growth, much faster than the EU slowcoach wants to or is able to.
Wow, I'd forgotten how full of lies that site was.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Looks implicit to me.
You can dance on the head of a pin however much you want, they were quite clear that they'd ruled out EEA membership.
Vote Leave, while busy moaning about "Project Fear", was posting anonymous, micro-targeted ads like these on Facebook:
Dark as fuck.
Also Brexit totally wasn't won off the back of racist fear mongering u guise
Last edited by Steely Glint; 07-27-2018 at 11:44 AM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Exactly.
Leave is "Project Fear". They coined the term because they knew it was what they were doing.
Just what Trump did with "Fake News".
Same people; same approach, and all from the official Leave campaign.
Full thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/carolecad...96449207574528Vote Leave, while busy moaning about "Project Fear", was posting anonymous, micro-targeted ads like these on Facebook:
Dark as fuck.
Also Brexit totally wasn't won off the back of racist fear mongering u guise
Several Tory MPs have publicly expressed their support for Darren Grimes, who was fined for violating electoral law, and criticized the electoral commission for enforcing the law.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Carole Cadswallop being full of shit as usual. Oh noes this is illegal it doesn't have the Vote Leave imprint, it doesn't say its paid for advertising etc. Except that the imprint is not required for digital adverts, it did say it was from Vote Leave in the text and it did say it was a Sponsored Post. So other than being wrong on all her points that's an interesting thread ...
Because they believe that the Electoral Commission (who happen to be led by Remainer activists) have been partial, not thoroughly investigated the Remain side which vastly overspent by much more and have reached a decision that could be overturned on appeal. We do have the right to appeal decisions you don't think are right in this country, funnily enough a right you're thoroughly in favour of on other grounds (eg migration) but apparently want people not to exercise their right to speak freely or appeal here. Why is that?
Carole Cadswallop being full of shit as usual. Oh noes this is illegal it doesn't have the Vote Leave imprint, it doesn't say its paid for advertising etc. Except that's not legally required, it did say it was from Vote Leave in the text and it did say it was a Sponsored Post. See the thread of replies by Hugo Rifkind underneath. So other than being wrong on all her points that's an interesting thread ...
Observer's Carole Cadwalladr wins Orwell journalism prize
She is very Orwellian with her Newspeak yes.
Regarding Carole Cadswallop's complaint that there's no imprint or other way to show its an advert this is how the pictures really appeared.
Twitter Link
Oh noes! How were the poor ignorant plebs to know that was from Vote Leave?
https://brexitcentral.com/priti-patel-dossier/
There's plenty of evidence that Remain campaigns supposedly independent co-ordinated in the exact same way Darren Grimes is alleged to have done (with the co-ordinated Remain campaigns spending vastly more than Leave), but these allegations have not been thoroughly investigated.
The electoral commission found that these were often not clearly attributed, and that many were used only to identify targets. I'm sorry RB but when it comes to credibility, both Carole and the electoral commission have far more of it than either you or the campaign that has been found to have violated electoral law. You're beginning to sound more Lewkowskian by the day.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Then I'm sure the complaint will be closed; but it doesn't make her "full of shit as always".
She got a good story with the Cambridge Analytica scandal but then has been running full pelt shooting out allegations repeatedly that have to repeatedly be retracted or get forgotten about. Cadwaldr is very passionate about what she is writing about and it bleeds through quite clearly.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...er-corrections
https://www.conservativehome.com/the...legations.html
Err no this hasn't come from the electoral commission, this has come from the Parliamentary investigation being ran by Remainer MPs who got Facebook to release the Leave-backed adverts but did not request the Remain-backed adverts. Its as partisan an investigation as the GOP Congress investigating the Democrats but not the Republicans. I hold no truck with politicians running partisan "investigations" into their opponents.
Identifying targets isn't illegal and is basic politics. All parties do canvassing and other techniques to try and identify targets.
Classic right wing tactic, there. Get caught with hand in cookie jar, claim the people investigating them are politically motivated.
What I want to know is this: how was Vote Leave going to pay someone £50 million if they guessed the result of the Euros correctly, and stick within the £7 million limit for the campaign?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Twitter Link
Pathetic.
I don't know how Lewkowskian you intend to get in this discussion, but this doesn't bode well. For you to call the cross-party parliamentary inquiry as well as the nonpartisan EC's investigation into question and dismissing their findings purely based on unfounded allegations of bias puts you squarely in Lewkowskian territory and it is utterly disgraceful.
Your claim that the DCMS inquiry did not request to see Facebook ads from the Remain campaign is as irrelevant as it is misleading. The Remain campaign has not been found by the EC to have broken the law by coordinating the use of targeted Facebook ads in order to circumvent campaign spending rules. More to the point, the DCMS's request to see those ads stems directly from the EC's finding of illegal campaign coordination between Vote Leave and BeLeave through AIQ's services.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...or-Britain.pdf
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/...n-Facebook.pdf
Summary of findings
1.12. This investigation mainly concerned five payments made in June 2016 toa Canadian data analytics firm called Aggregate IQ. The payments were forservices provided to campaigners in the EU Referendum. Three of the payments,totalling £675,315.18, were reported by Mr Grimes as donations from VoteLeave, and as spending by him on services from Aggregate IQ. Another paymentof £50,000 from Mr Anthony Clake was reported by Mr Grimes as a donationfrom Mr Clake, and as spending by Mr Grimes on services from Aggregate IQ.The final payment of £100,000 was reported by Veterans for Britain as adonation from Vote Leave and as spending on services from Aggregate IQ.
1.13. There were four persons under investigation: Mr Halsall in his capacity asthe responsible person of Vote Leave, Vote Leave itself, Mr Grimes and MrBanks. No other person was under investigation by the Commission.Joint spending by Vote Leave and BeLeave
1.14. The Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all Mr Grimes’and BeLeave’s spending on referendum campaigning was incurred under acommon plan with Vote Leave. This spending, including the £675,315.18 forservices from Aggregate IQ reported by Mr Grimes, should have been treated asincurred by Vote Leave. To comply with PPERA, Vote Leave should have madea declaration of the amounts of joint spending in its referendum spending return.As the declarations were not made, Mr Halsall failed, without reasonable excuse, 6to deliver a complete campaign spending return, committing an offence undersection 122(4)(b) PPERA.Vote Leave’s spending limit
1.15. As referendum spending by Mr Grimes and BeLeave was joint spendingwith Vote Leave, the ‘common plan’ provisions in the EURA meant the spending was treated as if incurred by Vote Leave. Vote Leave’s referendum spending wastherefore in fact £7,449,079. Its statutory spending limit was £7m.1.16. The Commission is satisfied that Mr Halsall knew or ought reasonably tohave known that this spending would exceed the spending limit. The Commissionis therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Vote Leave exceeded thespending limit for a designated lead campaigner and Mr Halsall committed anoffence under section 118(2)(c)(i). Vote Leave also committed an offence undersection 118(2)(c)(ii).
Background to the investigation
2.1. This investigation mainly concerned five payments made to a Canadian
data analytics firm called Aggregate IQ in June 2016. The payments were for
campaign services for the EU Referendum.
2.2. Three of the payments, totalling £625,315.18, were made by Vote Leave
to Aggregate IQ between 13 and 21 June 2016. They were reported by Mr
Grimes as donations from Vote Leave. Another payment, of £50,000, was made
by Mr Anthony Clake to Aggregate IQ on 17 June 2016. Mr Grimes reported it as
a donation from Mr Clake. Mr Grimes reported total spending on services from
Aggregate IQ of £675,315.18. This spending was funded by these payments.
2.3. The final payment was of £100,000 and made by Vote Leave to Aggregate
IQ on 29 June 2016. Veterans for Britain reported it as a donation from Vote
Leave, but with an incorrect date of 20 May 2016. They also reported spending it
on services from Aggregate IQ.
2.4. Vote Leave, Mr Grimes and Veterans for Britain were all subject to
regulatory action by the Commission during 2017.
We carried out assessments into Vote Leave and Mr Grimes in February
and March 2017. An assessment is a process of getting and examining
evidence so the Commission can decide whether to open an investigation.
We only investigate if we have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence or
contravention of PPERA has happened, and if it is in the public interest for
us to act. In these assessments, we looked at whether to investigate
allegations that Vote Leave had broken its spending limit for the EU
Referendum, by channelling money to Aggregate IQ via BeLeave. Based on
the evidence we saw at the time, we decided not to investigate.
During 2017 we conducted an investigation into Vote Leave because its
referendum spending return appeared to be incomplete. We had reached
initial conclusions, and then we opened this new investigation. We then
combined all the issues into this one investigation.
We started investigating Veterans for Britain in August 2017. It reported a donation of £100,000 from Vote Leave in its spending return after the referendum. It said the donation was accepted on 20 May 2016. But it was not in the pre-poll donation report, delivered during the campaign, for theperiod covering 20 May 2016.
2.5. Throughout 2017 we received a number of requests for information underthe Freedom of Information Act 2000 that were about Vote Leave and Mr Grimes. 10Claims also emerged in the media that Vote Leave and Mr Grimes had beenworking under a ‘common plan’. If true, these claims would mean that VoteLeave had failed to declare joint spending, and Mr Grimes had misreported thespending. We asked the journalist concerned for sight of the evidence tosubstantiate the claims, in order to assist us in looking at the claims. Thisevidence was not provided to the Commission.
2.6. Then, during September and October 2017, we found out that Veteransfor Britain had told us the wrong details for its donation from Vote Leave. Ratherthan being given on 20 May 2016 , that donation was given on 20 June 2016 andpaid on 29 June 2016. This coincided with the dates of the payments Mr Grimesreported as donations from Vote Leave.
2.7. Therefore, by late October 2017 we knew that Vote Leave had madepayments to Aggregate IQ in the ten days before the referendum on 23 June2016, apparently on behalf of two separate campaigners. Given this newinformation suggested a pattern of action by Vote Leave, we decided to reviewour assessment decision not to investigate. Having done so, in November 2017we opened an investigation.
This is to a great extent an inquiry into Facebook's conduct & role in illegal or questionable activities (eg. spreading fake news, facilitating illegal campaign coordination, enabling foreign actors to target UK citizens with political ads etc), Facebook's attempts to mislead both the public as well as the govt, and the conduct of others--companies, individuals, groups affiliated with hostile nations--who used Facebook for illegal or questionable purposes. If this inquiry as a consequence of its focus on such activities also touches on Vote Leave's ads and its illegal coordination with BeLeave through AIQ then that doesn't reflect negatively on the committee--it reflects poorly on those shady fuckers who couldn't resist the temptation to break the law with AIQ's help.29. Can we see copies of adverts from AIQ? Who were these adverts shown to? Who paid for
them?
As explained in Ql 1 above, AIQ incurred approximately $2 million USD advertising on
Facebook for a number of EU referendum campaigners. We are in the process of identifying and
compiling the content and additional information for these adverts. We have also notified the
campaigns who commissioned these adverts that the Committee has asked to see their content.
We understand that you intend also to speak to the campaigns as part of your inquiry and will be
able to put questions about their advertising, strategy and funding directly to them.
We asked to see the adverts, and did not ask to be referred to the campaigns. To repeat the
question, can we see copies of adverts from AIQ? Who were the adverts shown to? Who
pair for them?
Identifying targets isn't illegal in general, but it's possible laws were violated in the identification of many of these targets, and looking increasingly as if laws were broken in the course of coordinating these ad campaigns. Regardless, if the targeted advertising is done as part of an official campaign that must be clearly declared and the costs reported.
You're right, this is kinda reminiscent of the revolting farce being played out in the US right now, but more in the sense that your approach to this is increasingly beginning to resemble that of GOP legislators--and Lewk--to the matter of investigating actual crimes that appear to have been committed during the run-up to a major vote. Corrosive to democracy and an affront to decency as well.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Meanwhile, in the land of Unicorns and Jam:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0...e-e22d14bef8b7
Don’t panic! We’ll deal with no deal
Ministers’ plans to keep homes and industry running if Britain crashes out of the EU are patchy and sometimes alarming
Tim Shipman, Mark Hookham
July 29 2018, 12:01am, The Sunday Times

Plans agreed at the Chequers cabinet summit to publish reports every week through the summer detailing what a “no-deal Brexit” would mean for Britain have been scrapped — after warnings that the public would panic and never vote Conservative again.
Downing Street sources confirmed last night that a series of papers advising businesses, homeowners, farmers, hauliers and holidaymakers how to prepare are now likely to be published on the same day in late August, rather than dripped out over a period of six weeks.
The change of plan highlights the seething rivalries and, at times, troubling details of Brexit preparation. The no-deal publication plan was originally designed to placate Brexiteers, who were keen to show Brussels the UK was ready to walk away. But this weekend they accused civil servants of plotting a new “Project Fear” campaign which threatened to turn MPs and voters against Brexit altogether.
An investigation by The Sunday Times has found that government preparations for a no-deal scenario, in which the UK left the EU without a trade deal, are both patchy and, in some regards, hair-raising.
Brexiteers are furious that the preparations have been under way in earnest only since the Chequers deal earlier this month. Steve Baker, the Brexit minister who quit because he considered the Chequers deal a sellout to Brussels, had fought for months to get government departments to take the planning seriously. “As early as October last year Steve was trying to create a no-deal moment,” said one Brexiteer. “Steve threatened to resign in March because Downing Street kept banning people from saying anything about what we were doing and the Treasury wouldn’t pay for it.
“There are three things here: drawing up plans for the work that needed to be done,” said a Brexit department source, “implementing the plans by hiring staff and putting the IT systems in place; and, thirdly, talking about the plans. We’ve done lots of the first, a little of the second and almost none of the third.”
Baker’s other problem was that he could not persuade May or Oliver Robbins, her chief negotiator, to use the dangers to the EU of a no-deal Brexit as a lever with the Brussels negotiator, Michel Barnier. Last Christmas, Baker commissioned work on how much it would cost the other 27 countries in lost trade. “Robbins simply refused to raise it,” said one source. “It found that the cost to the EU in the event of no deal was far greater than the cost to the UK, but the cost to no single country was greater than to us.”
Since Chequers, the new Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab, has injected fresh urgency into the work. But the government is in a race against time. “If Raab gets a grip of this he can make Barnier believe he’s ready and there’s an outside chance he actually would be ready,” a ministerial aide said. “With six more months we would be ready, but we may not have six months.”
As The Sunday Times revealed in June, the risk assessments of what might happen in the event of a no-deal Brexit are alarming, with shortages of fuel and medicines likely in remote areas and ministers discussing the stockpiling of food.
The contingency planning also includes calling in the army to help communities suffering critical shortages.
A minister said: “You would have to use all your services to provide essential supplies to people. The elderly and vulnerable would be in a difficult position. It will be the end of March but it might still be cold. You’ve got to think about the energy supply and keeping the lights on.”
A senior Whitehall source compared a no-deal Brexit to a severe weather crisis: “When the Beast from the East was here with the snow, in the northeast and Scotland, the armed forces up there ferried NHS workers to vulnerable people in their homes and to work.”
In the NHS, bosses are planning to put the health service on a permanent winter-crisis footing. A senior source said: “We line up non-EU sources of drugs and stockpile drugs in preparation for a winter crisis, so we can use the same model to deal with no-deal Brexit.”
There are also concerns about the shelf-life of medicines which cross borders. Leaving Euratom, the EU nuclear materials regulator, could create problems for the supply of cancer drugs. Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, has warned that insulin for diabetics could be in short supply.
Mike Thompson, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said one company was having to revalidate their supply chain for ingredients for 15,000 medicines because the ingredients come from abroad. He added: “Half of the medicines approved across Europe last year require a specific temperature control right through the supply chain. They cannot be stuck at borders for too long. One medicine has only got a half-life of 11 days.”
Some of the most noticeable consequences of no deal would come at the borders. Plans for emergency lorry parks on the M20 and M26 and the disused Manston airfield in Kent are “unworkable” and could lead to “public disorder”, it has been claimed.
If customs checks are imposed, 10,000 lorries a day could be affected. The plan to use Manston has alarmed freight companies and port managers. One source said parking lorries at the airport was “nuts” and “just won’t work” since those released from Manston would have to snake their way to Dover along a 19-mile stretch of the A256, which has 12 roundabouts and in parts is a single carriageway. “If you start to move high volumes of freight down that route, it will be come snarled very, very quickly,” said the source. Between 400 and 500 lorries an hour need to arrive in Dover to fill the ferries and keep them to schedule. Just 80 an hour could get there from Manston.
Lorries attempting to dodge the queues would be ordered to the back of the queue or to Manston, creating flashpoints. In 2015, some lorry drivers drove their vehicles at police officers in an attempt to force their way into the port.
Meanwhile, questions are mounting over how the Border Force at Heathrow and other airports would cope. Passengers at Heathrow have been forced to wait on aircraft and held up for three hours to have their passports checked. A Border Force source said: “If we cannot cope with queues this summer, how will we cope in March 2019 and a crash-out?”
The government has demanded that companies and industry groups involved in Brexit planning sign non-disclosure agreements in an attempt to prevent alarming details leaking out.
That explains why the plan to publicise no-deal preparations throughout the summer has been canned. The original plan was scrapped after a meeting last week chaired by Philip Rycroft, the senior mandarin in the Brexit department. A source said: “People will shit themselves and think they want a new referendum or an election or think the Tory party shouldn’t govern again. MPs are saying: ‘If this is done badly, it could hurt us like sleaze did in the 1990s.’”
The prospects of a no-deal departure are troubling civil servants, who expect to be blamed for failing to get the country ready. Staff working for Robbins plan to jump ship at the end of the year.
The risk of no deal has also created tensions between Robbins and politicians. He has already clashed with Jeremy Hunt, the new foreign secretary. Hunt planned to make a speech in Berlin last week, but Robbins demanded to see the text and objected to the tone of Hunt’s warnings to the EU that they should co-operate or face a crash-out. Hunt used his talking points at a press conference instead.
Sources close to Raab insist that the new Brexit secretary made some gains in his talks with Barnier, extracting an acknowledgment that Britain would not pay its £39bn divorce bill unless a trade agreement was forthcoming.
No 10 was also encouraged when May met the Austrian chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, on Friday and he agreed that a summit in Salzburg on September 20 can be used to talk Brexit — raising the prospect that the EU member states will give Barnier greater latitude to make concessions. May’s Austrian visit was enlivened when a photographer approached the PM and asked her to sign photos of herself. “There’s obviously a niche market for May memorabilia,” said one aide.
Yet Brexiteers are concerned Britain’s weak negotiating stance means the European Commission will bully Britain into something like Norway’s relationship with the EU and predict May would try to force such a move through the Commons using Labour votes. “She’s Theresa the appeaser,” said one Brexiteer.
If a no-deal turns to disaster, the PM will have plenty of people to appease.
Norway option may offer safe haven
Tory MPs have begun discussing whether the “Norway option” could be Britain’s best “safe landing zone” if the alternative is crashing out of the EU without a deal.
The idea has been floated by Brexiteer columnists and Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former joint chief of staff. MPs say the idea, which would see the UK stay in the single market, could give an off-the-shelf alternative to trading under World Trade Organisation rules. Even Michael Gove, who is no admirer of the idea, has been heard to wonder whether that is where the UK might end up as a result of the balance of power in the Commons.
Michel Barnier, the chief EU negotiator thinks he can force Britain to stay in the European Economic Area, which includes Norway. The problem is that the plan violates May’s pledge to end major payments to the EU budget and freedom of movement. However, fans say a Norway-style deal could let the UK curb immigration from the EU.
STOCKPILED DRUGS AND FOOD: PREPARING FOR THE WORST
Small businesses
Up to 250,000 small firms will be asked to start making customs declarations in a dry run for Brexit
Armed forces
On standby to assist in delivering fuel, food and medicines to far-flung communities
Supermarkets
Warning suppliers to begin stockpiling products to prevent shortages in big stores
NHS Hospitals
to go on a year-round winter crisis footing with stockpiled drugs and others sourced from outside the EU
Farming
A new IT system is in place to make payments to rural landowners once EU subsidies cease. Thousands more staff have been recruited. But there are fears about animal and food exports being disrupted
Freight Vehicles
bound for Channel ports and the tunnel will queue in lorry parks on the M20, M26 and at Manston airport in Kent. An estimated 10,000 lorries a day passing through the ports could require customs checks
Channel ports
There is no space at the port of Dover for extra lorry parking. It currently takes an average of two minutes to process each lorry. Increasing that figure by another two minutes would create a 17-mile queue
Airports Passengers
are already queuing for up to three hours at Heathrow to have passports checked. The Home Office is recruiting another 1,300 Border Force staff to cope
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So Deutsche Bank has shifted half of its Euro clearing to Frankfurt, as expected.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Robbins is an absolute disaster.
Yes, that was definitely the key takeaway from that article.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Indeed it was definitely mine.
It's not a left or right issue, its an issue with partisan politicians running vendettas against their opponents. I've criticised consistently here and in that same post the GOP for doing the same. The Remainers running this vendetta are acting the same as the GOP. Now if you think attacking the GOP is right wing then I'm curious to hear your logic for that.
Quite simple actually. They bought an insurance policy from Lloyds of London against the prize being won. That meant the cost to Vote Leave was fixed at the cost of the insurance policy regardless of whether it was won or not - had it been won then it wouldn't have been Vote Leave it would have been Lloyds of London paying the prize out.
That really does not reflect very well on you.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It is unfounded allegations as the Electoral Commission and DCMS have declined to investigate the side that spent and coordinated more but still lost than the underdog side that won on a shoestring budget.
There's been evidence provided that the official Remain campaign donated money to a subsidiary, sorry "independent", campaign that used that money to pay to create expensive video adverts - which the official Remain campaign then promoted. But this evidence was deemed not worth investigating. Cut the crap.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote