His remark lifts the Pound from sinking, that's for sure.He told the Treasury Select Committee: "There are greater financial stability risks on the continent in the short-term, for the transitions, than there are for the UK."
His remark lifts the Pound from sinking, that's for sure.He told the Treasury Select Committee: "There are greater financial stability risks on the continent in the short-term, for the transitions, than there are for the UK."
Though it's surprising that this part of his speech proved helpful in that respect!His remark lifts the Pound from sinking, that's for sure.
An outbreak of "Mad Farmers Disease"?Interesting day ,I was at a meeting of science, farming and education.
Large landowners present and massive businesses.
I mentioned to a business pal that I reckoned that 50% of farmers voted to leave, his company is in touch with most of UK farmers and reckoned it was nearer 70%.
Work that one out.
Perhaps a return to slavery is needed to make Britain great again.May I remind you that that a logical case can be made for slavery? logic is not a sufficient reason to make laws.
Better not do things that are Morally repugnant, we are supposed to be progressing not regressing.
I found it curious that the NFU said remain whilst every farm hereabouts had vote leave posters all over the place.Interesting day ,I was at a meeting of science, farming and education.
Large landowners present and massive businesses.
I mentioned to a business pal that I reckoned that 50% of farmers voted to leave, his company is in touch with most of UK farmers and reckoned it was nearer 70%.
Work that one out.
As your post implies, they're more businessmen than farmers in the true sense. Their time on the farm tends to be driving around their several thousand acres in a Range Rover.Interesting day ,I was at a meeting of science, farming and education.
Large landowners present and massive businesses.
I mentioned to a business pal that I reckoned that 50% of farmers voted to leave, his company is in touch with most of UK farmers and reckoned it was nearer 70%.
Work that one out.
Slavery? You need to calm down and take your medicine. I've never heard such tripe.May I remind you that that a logical case can be made for slavery? logic is not a sufficient reason to make laws.
Better not do things that are Morally repugnant, we are supposed to be progressing not regressing.
Really? You could try actually reading and understanding that this was a discussion on making moral decisions, when introducing laws, but was that too hard to understand?Slavery? You need to calm down and take your medicine. I've never heard such tripe.
That's not new Tillson, OG and Tom have posted nothing but tripe.Slavery? You need to calm down and take your medicine. I've never heard such tripe.
Speaking again from the outside, the proposal is totally bizzare. Any Society has costs in education of their youth for 20 years before they get into the productive economy , society also has to pay for maternity services, early health interventions, vaccine s etc. If a country accepts immigration of workers only, they forgo these costs but reap the benefits of production. Instead of a tax on immigrants there should in any rational scheme be a rebateI thought about this all day and came to the conclusion that I agree with this form of tax. It may sound repugnant but it's logical in its concept: the people who benefit the most from FOM are the employers and immigrants.
And you have only posted off topic nonsense and personal attacks which hardly qualifies you to make yet another one.That's not new Tillson, OG and Tom have posted nothing but tripe.
Rohloffboy...Good post. EU stated 3 years ago they wanted all zone in euro by 2020...
No more bizarre that the role of duty on goods.Speaking again from the outside, the proposal is totally bizzare.
Like the high rate of Purchase Tax on luxury goods that was intended to prevent the lower orders buying them, do you mean?No more bizarre that the role of duty on goods.
Apparently Mrs May has dropped the ideaOG, I take it that you mean slavery as in forced labour after kidnapping and false imprisonment.
The point I made about it may sound repugnant is simply the principle that two people doing the same job ought to be paid the same salary and this levy may seem to encourage employers to pay immigrants less.
However, if you look at the levy as tax, then a government can easily justify taxing immigrants and/or their employers more.