This is the problem that people have with you.No. In this case he is not alone in his opinion.
This is the problem that people have with you.
The last time he said something rigjt I mentioned it on here. I was then branded racist and everything else that comes with it. Farage is supposed to be the unmentionable that only gets mentioned by the remain camp.
But if you are in the remain camp you can mention the occasional thing he gets right without all the shit that comes with it.
It is the same with the daily rags. But when they print something that backs up a remain thought it is suddenly OK to use it.
So finally you get it.What was racist or bollocks in his tweet this time? He posted a widely across the board view. Not everyone agrees, but many do. It shows openness when you can accept some views of people you don’t like in general. You don’t like the EU and post exclusively negative things about it. Even when they try and correct things which you criticised.
You don’t like the EU and post exclusively negative things about it. Even when they try and correct things which you criticised.
I do not like the way it is run. That is 100% correct. Things need to change. It shouldn't be a gravy train for those involved. And yes there needs ti be a way of bringing in changes without every country having to agree.
But it looks like going from one extreme to the other. Agree to lose your vote or you have to leave. You agree it is the way to go. And you go on about democracy.
Or how about the EU budget? About half goes to landowners/farmers. Yes over 50 billion a year. It keeps food prices up. The rich get money for having land passed down to them. The poor pay more for their food. Yet you call it if there is another way the poor are made worse off. You call it if it is another way the rich make money. But you ignore where about half of the EU budget goes.
How about the billions lost to fraud each year? And I am not on about the fraud that Juncker was involved in. Look at how much is lost to fraud in Italy alone. And when you think that about half of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies and landowners alone the amount lost to fraud is a high % of what remains. You say they are doing something about it. Why didn't they do something about it 20 years ago?
All you ever do is say things need to change but defend just about everything they do. And then you have a go at anyone who questions what they do.
I do not like the way it is run. That is 100% correct. Things need to change. It shouldn't be a gravy train for those involved. And yes there needs ti be a way of bringing in changes without every country having to agree.
But it looks like going from one extreme to the other. Agree to lose your vote or you have to leave. You agree it is the way to go. And you go on about democracy.
Or how about the EU budget? About half goes to landowners/farmers. Yes over 50 billion a year. It keeps food prices up. The rich get money for having land passed down to them. The poor pay more for their food. Yet you call it if there is another way the poor are made worse off. You call it if it is another way the rich make money. But you ignore where about half of the EU budget goes.
How about the billions lost to fraud each year? And I am not on about the fraud that Juncker was involved in. Look at how much is lost to fraud in Italy alone. And when you think that about half of the EU budget goes to farming subsidies and landowners alone the amount lost to fraud is a high % of what remains. You say they are doing something about it. Why didn't they do something about it 20 years ago?
All you ever do is say things need to change but defend just about everything they do. And then you have a go at anyone who questions what they do.
Phew!
Who on here has said that they don't like Muslims?
No one. People just post links about Muslim terrorists and how bad Sweden and Germany have become because of Muslim refugees. How they have made Europe unsafe.
You didn’t find that in Breitbart...
Try reading the upper right hand corner..You didn’t find that in Breitbart...
Mart, I didn't even know what Breitbart was until you started going on about it. It's rather disingenuous of you to keep namechecking it.
Try reading the upper right hand corner..
Northern Ireland would be under their legislation. There is zero chance Ireland will be offered a referendum prior to Brexit - Westminster won't do it, there is no Irish Parliament in N Ireland at present and Eire have said they are not interested.
So instead of skirting the issue - tell me how will they be able to join under EU legislation?
"More than 2,000 people in Northern Ireland were asked whether they would vote to join a united Ireland or to stay in the UK "in the context of a hard Brexit... leaving the EU with no deal on the border, the Good Friday Agreement or citizens' rights".
Misleading headline - it's a bad survey:
1) Poor question leading the response. Could they have been more negative?
2) Tiny sample size
3) "The survey commissioned by a left-leaning group in the European Parliament". So hardly surprising the survey was biased. This is just propaganda. What has happened to the Independent, it used to be a good newspaper?
It's OK, I've answered my own question:
"On 25 March 2010, Independent News & Media sold the newspaper to Russian oligarchAlexander Lebedev for a nominal £1 fee and £9.25m over the next 10 months"
Bit of a misnomer calling itself the Independent doncha think?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s right though. The population split is pretty equal in terms of Protestant to Catholic and we all know what Catholics want. Then you have to consider the amount of people from all faiths who depend on the south for work whether that be that they work in the south or their business/the business they work for depends on the south. To some people simply being able to pay their mortgage might be enough to sway their vote. It’s finely balanced in the north. Regardless of the source of the story I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it."More than 2,000 people in Northern Ireland were asked whether they would vote to join a united Ireland or to stay in the UK "in the context of a hard Brexit... leaving the EU with no deal on the border, the Good Friday Agreement or citizens' rights".
Misleading headline - it's a bad survey:
1) Poor question leading the response. Could they have been more negative?
2) Tiny sample size
3) "The survey commissioned by a left-leaning group in the European Parliament". So hardly surprising the survey was biased. This is just propaganda. What has happened to the Independent, it used to be a good newspaper?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s right though. The population split is pretty equal in terms of Protestant to Catholic and we all know what Catholics want. Then you have to consider the amount of people from all faiths who depend on the south for work whether that be that they work in the south or their business/the business they work for depends on the south. To some people simply being able to pay their mortgage might be enough to sway their vote. It’s finely balanced in the north. Regardless of the source of the story I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it.
EU region BEGS Brussels to give Britain good Brexit deal amid fears of economic MELTDOWN
Seems similar to what some of us are saying. And they get a say unless vites are taken away quickly.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s right though. The population split is pretty equal in terms of Protestant to Catholic and we all know what Catholics want. Then you have to consider the amount of people from all faiths who depend on the south for work whether that be that they work in the south or their business/the business they work for depends on the south. To some people simply being able to pay their mortgage might be enough to sway their vote. It’s finely balanced in the north. Regardless of the source of the story I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it.
And it's not the source I'm questioning Tony - the question is bad and the sample size is so small as to make the results irrelevent. I know a little about surveys from my degree. Let me try to explain.
1) If you want to draw conclusions you need to ensure that your question is clear, has no room for noise and doesn't lead the responder to answer in a specific way. The question fails that test. If asks if people want to lose the Good Friday agreement and citizens' rights as well - you cannot conclude from the answers that most want to join the republic.
2) In order to draw conclusions, you need a sample size big enough with respect to the population such that your hypothesis can be supported with any confidence. I won't go into the details of the calculation, but there is a mathematical formula to assess the confidence you can have in the result (confidence is measured as a percentage).
Let me give you an example. If I give you a bag with 100 balls inside and you draw 3 at random and they are all black, how confident would you feel saying that most of the balls in the bag are black? Now let's use the proportions from this survey: 2000 people in a population of 1.8 million. That's the equivalent of giving you a bag with 1,000 balls and you drawing one (that's 1!) and see it is black. Even if you were confident drawing 3 from 100 (and I'm not) - surely you can see that the result is irrelevant on that basis?
Not totally irrelevant as it was taken from several areas. In other words several bags.
Anyone can veto any deal. Gove has also just said the UK can change any deal after leaving the EU. No one wants a lose lose situation. So, basically no news. But good headline for Brexiteers.
Sensible comment by Gove ie basically saying whatever the final agreement will need the UK publics buy in. If the EU try to leg us over the public won't stand for it. Most sensible brexiteers will accept a fair compromise but if it swings too far the other way they are likely to cut up rough.
So far so good (on a the face of it) in terms a sensible compromise although still uncertain about the Irish border position (fudge). Certainly the 'bill' appears to be fair and once the public look and understand the detail ie how much we'd have to pay per year for the commitments we have signed up until 2019/2020 and then the transition period it's not the ridiculous figure it might first appear.
As I said previously Mays had a shocking year but has done well to get it to this stage. I'm not sure whether anyone else in the Tory party (and certainly not Corbyn) could have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?