You’re getting another chance. We’re changing the options to make sure you get it right this time. Tony Blair is personally involved making sure you are fully stitched up.
The good thing in that is Blair is now hated by many, the best thing he can do is tell the public how they should vote and what we should do.
It’s ok, with a normal referendum you have a 50% chance of getting the right answer. We can improve that to 100% by selecting the right questions.
2020, I think you need glasses, the EU is crumbling big time, May, Macron and Merkel are all hated losers, throw in Adolph Junker, Rommel Verhofstadt and Mussolini Barnier and you join a bunch of losers.
Ey'up Juncker, my name's Theresa May, I love Duran Duran and Table Tennis. You wouldn't happen to have a spare Brexit plan on you, would you? cos I ain't effing got one that's worth ought.........and why the effing hell did you call me a nebulous you ungrateful drunk; no more effing head jobs for you, you Luxembourgian plonker. .
No Brexit deal hotting up. more details, it seems. T Mays speech at Parliament after the EU Summit pollies told her where to go. She's not a happy chappy.
I think Brexit will happen. A lot of hard brexiters are realising if they vote Mays deal down there’s a big risk of a delay while there’s a People’s vote. So they may hold their noses and vote for May’s awful deal. Then they can get rid of her, install a hard Brexiter and if necessary tear up the treaty when it suits them if the backstop becomes troublesome. That’s what this article in the Telegraph from a hard Brexiter says essentially. What it does not say is this approach will probably break up the UK, but hey ho it will be worth it to get blue passports. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/changed-mind-theresa-mays-deal/amp/ The unknown is how the DUP will play it and, if they vote against, whether some Labour brexiters will help get May’s deal through. Interesting times. Unfortunately.
If the Scots and Irish want to go on their own let them,both cost a fortune to the English taxpayers anyway
Hahahahahahaha! Based on what? Chesh's opinion? Thought so. I'd ask you for evidence, but it doesn't exist, & would take you too long to make something believable up. Ask yourself why the Government launched such a massive effort to thwart the Scottish Referendum, including underhand & unquestionably illegal activities such as using Civil Servants for the NO campaign, telephoning pensioners to tell them that they would not receive their pension if they voted yes, and putting a D notice on the discovery of the largest oil find in Scotland ever. The D notice was lifted immediately after the referendum & only then did we discover just how big it was.
It’s tricky being English wj... just when we think we’ve extracted all the Scottish oil and we can give you your freedom to spare your future drain on our resources, we keep finding more of the stuff and have to keep you hanging in for a bit longer
In 2017 scotlands deficit was 8% the UK as a whole was 2.3%,so basically both lost money but scotland lost over 3x as much pp who do you think will have to pay it back.As for oil,the price of extraction for North sea oil is nearly cost price,so very little value in it.
I think you have to do a bit more research, Chesh. Apols if I seem patronising, but the deficit you refer to is the equivalent of a personal current account. GDP is the thing you want to research, and I think you'll find that in both countries they are growing, albeit slowly (but steadily). That's the equivalent of your own person wealth. So, to give you a context, you might have assets amounting to many millions (GDP equiv), but might have overdrawn your current account (deficit equiv). You won't be the only person who's been confused by the term 'deficit'. The current tory government has deliberately encouraged its misunderstanding since 2010. By only referring to the monthly deficit (current account) figures, which are slowly decreasing, they intentionally do so to mask the fact that the national debt has more than doubled in the last 8 years. Now go check your GDP figures and then let it rest. You'll see what I mean when you check it out. Here's a wee start for you. 4 years out of date, but you get the picture.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26326117 As you can see, the source is the BBC, long noted as not being particularly friendly towards Scotland, and it's interesting that even they conclude that: "If oil revenues are included in GDP figures, Scotland is shown to generate more per head of population than the UK as a whole". Btw, I have no idea what your oil comment means, far less why you think it is relevant. I think the above link should end the oil discussion.
The oil comment,was based on oil price,and you are part right,as 4 years ago when the oil prices were higher,it generated much more income,12-18 months ago the price was so low that it cost more to extract than it could be sold for,so it had no value at all to the UK or Scottish economy,now its risen a bit again,so does have a value but not that high. In 2016 the price went down to 43 dollars a barrel and it cost the UK 44 dollars to produce,so had no value to the UK economy. When scotland had it's vote in 2014,oil was 93 dollars a barrel so as jimmy cranky tried to say you would be well of with independance,oil prices then collapsed,so in 2016 would have cost scotland money to produce oil,lucky you stayed it to share the burden. £396 million loss in 2016 or about £77 pound cost to each person in scotland if you had gained independance.
This intrigues me, as I cannot picture it in my mind. Have you got a link I could read up on? I am sceptical as you have only mentioned the cost of extraction, the commodity cost of which is entirely down to the commercial producer - not the Government, and therefore not directly part of the GDP measurement. Part of that extraction cost is the cost of exploration licences, which is a lucrative source of revenue for the Government. Another highly significant revenue stream is the taxation on the fuel that is produced (e.g. it costs about 35-40p to produce a litre of petrol, & 80p is added on to that in the form of duty & VAT). Whilst you may reply to this, I see that you have failed to mention your 'Deficit' argument, and suspect that you may want to let it lie. Understandably. Can I safely take it that your silence confirms that the tories managed to fox you with their deliberately overextended use of the 'deficit' terminology. Don't worry, the majority have been foxed too - even some very eminent people that should know better. Btw, before I forget, grab me at the Peacock some day & remind me I still have that Kiwi hat for you.
Can't do links as my computer is fooked,and can't do it on my phone,but if you google cost of producing oil,it's all there,the Saudi's can produce it for 8 dollars something a barrel,but ours is just over 44 dollars.
Aye, but that's the point I'm trying to make. It has no effect on Government revenue, only to the costs of extraction that the likes of Shell, BP etc. have to shoulder - it doesn't impact Government revenue streams - which is exactly what we started talking about in the first place! FYI, I should also mentioned that you're comparing apples & oranges. There are different types of oil & ours is known as Brent crude, which is a very light oil - i.e. better for producing the more expensive oil products such as petrol when refined. The heavier crudes aren't as lucrative, and when refined tend to produce a higher percentage of the cheaper products like heavy oil for ships. Most of this goes back to my Geography 'o' level in 1974, I might add. Apparently it still stands up!
