S
To be honest the Leave campaign didn't overspend by that much and I don't believe that overspend had anything to do with the way the referendum went. £9 million on a leaflet that was a pretty awful promotion for remaining was a waste of money. Both amounts are a pittance compared with how much the Brexit process has cost so far! What did make a difference because it came up in discussions ...
" Surely the withdraw from E.U. is more important than someones maternity leave." First, that was one example picked out by burneside from a very small list of benefits of being in the EU that responded to. It isn't a case of one or the other. You committed both the strawman and false dichotomy logical fallacies in one! Second, we were told nothing would change but now you are happy ...
The EU law is a protection, it is a minimum. In the 80s maternity leave was based per company and based on length of service. In 1988 a European Commission report demonstrated the extent to which Britain lagged behind its contemporaries in employment law. The only state not to provide full statutory maternity leave, Britain had blocked the adoption of a draft directive setting out minimum ...
We pay in for the benefits and we get funding back out. Why haven't the Government come out and said they will fund everything that is currently funded? If we pay in more than we get out then surely that would be an easy commitment and would alleviate some of the fear?
To name a few: Freedom to work/reside/study/retire in any of the 28 countries Common EU regulations on the transportation and disposal of toxic waste 13% of EU budget earmarked for scientific research and innovation/EU funding for research European Regional funding - Cornwall and Wales benefitted massively from this and our Government won't replace those lost funds ...
The petition has 5.4 million signatures now. If it is so easy to fake why did the "leave with no deal" petition only get 540k signatures (and by the way got a response and a debate in Parliament)? Although some of those signatures look "dodgy" {"name":"United ...
@Lynne @Scapegoat I might have to steal that
@Paul concerning the benefits of being the EU I already know your answer "... we would still have that"
I don't believe for a second that the EU wants to become this superstate that some people believe but if it did and tax and budgets are set centrally (no different to the UK now and regional areas). The UK had a massive influence in the EU and it would have still been our MPs and MEPs discussing and voting on each bit of legalisation. Let's assume everyone gets to vote in the election of the ...
" EU wants to end national vetoes on taxation" they want to change from unanimity to qualified majority voting so a single national couldn't block legalisation and the tax they are talking about isn't national tax rights in the first phase. The second phase may affect VAT but not touch income tax. You are right they don't have to agree on all changes to legalisation but still a majority ...
