Re: The Boris Prosecution

[Bryan Morris]

In message <go3qmo...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_...@icloud.com> writes
>The judgment was published today, and unfortunately there really
>doesn't seem any scope for an appeal.

Why "unfortunately" ?
--
Bryan Morris

[Grikbuster®™]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:59:50 +0100, Jon The Todal, a notorious semite
and former shyster <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

>The judgment was published today, and unfortunately there really doesn't
>seem any scope for an appeal.
>

>In making his propaganda statements Boris wasn't acting in the course of
>his duties as Mayor, so a vital ingredient of "misconduct in public
>office" was missing, and the court wasn't inclined to make new law. The
>judges disagreed with the magistrate who said that whether Boris was
>acting in the course of his duties would be a matter to be decided at
>the criminal trial.
>
>For good measure the two judges who decided the appeal said that the
>magistrate had not properly dealt with the allegation from Boris's team
>that the prosecution was "vexatious" (ie that there was an improper
>ulterior purpose). They said she had decided that it wasn't and didn't
>give her reasons, and that was another flaw in her decision.

So your money, you vasted. Schmuck!

[Bryan Morris]

In message <go3qmo...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<the_...@icloud.com> writes

>The judgment was published today, and unfortunately there really
>doesn't seem any scope for an appeal.
>

Hey you can still probably waste some money on crowdfunding as the guy
won't accept the verdict

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48855640

--
Bryan Morris

[Incubus]

Because the Left can't win on ideas. They rely on lies, malicious prosecution,
dismantling of our rights, judicial activism, fake news and the shrill
denunciation of anyone who disagrees with them as hate-filled bigots. They
want to dominate the received narrative because they lust for control over what
we do right down to the level of what we are allowed to think.

Western nations are at crisis point on several fronts. It's not just the
existential threat posed by demographic influx; we are at risk of sleepwalking
into totalitarianism.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 03 Jul 2019 07:27:49 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch
Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbuster®™", farted again:

>>For good measure the two judges who decided the appeal said that the
>>magistrate had not properly dealt with the allegation from Boris's team
>>that the prosecution was "vexatious" (ie that there was an improper
>>ulterior purpose). They said she had decided that it wasn't and didn't
>>give her reasons, and that was another flaw in her decision.
>
> So your money, you vasted. Schmuck!

Who cares, Boris' assholeness will soon become as public as yours!

--
Dumb anal serb peasant Goran Razovic and her "Latin" she learned from her
limey priests:
"Caco ergo sum."
MID: <na43ich1glkrrsenv...@4ax.com>

[JNugent]

A perfect and full description in only about a hundred words.

Brilliant stuff.

[Norman Wells]

On 03/07/2019 15:31, Bryan Morris wrote:
> In message <go3qmo...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
> <the_...@icloud.com> writes

>> The judgment was published today, and unfortunately there really
>> doesn't seem any scope for an appeal.
>
> Hey you can still probably waste some money on crowdfunding as the guy
> won't accept the verdict

How surprising from a Remainer!
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48855640

Just as I said at the time.

Was there an order as to costs though? That could eat up quite a bit of
the crowdfunders' largesse.

[The Todal]

On 03/07/2019 16:02, Incubus wrote:

Wrong answer.

Unfortunately - because Boris told lies and relied on lies to get his
own way.

He's still telling lies, of course. He's going to be our Prime Minister
based on a cast-iron pledge by him to secure Brexit by 31st October.
When he fails to deliver, that will be quite okay.

We are at risk otherwise of sleepwalking into honest political debate.

[The Todal]

On 03/07/2019 15:31, Bryan Morris wrote:

He wants to carry on *if* his lawyer advises him to do so. But actually
no sensible lawyer would advise him to pursue this. I think his fifteen
minutes of fame might be at an end.

[The Todal]

Unusually, the court has ordered that Norman Wells should pay all the
costs.

[Pamela]

The world is moving into an era where post-truth politics holds sway.

Brexit and Trump are just two examples. Before them the climate debate had
gone down the same path.

The Internet means it's unlikely this will get rolled back.

[Incubus]

Thanks :)

[Bryan Morris]

In message <go43a1...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal

<the_...@icloud.com> writes
>On 03/07/2019 15:31, Bryan Morris wrote:
>> In message <go3qmo...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
>><the_...@icloud.com> writes
>>> The judgment was published today, and unfortunately there really
>>>doesn't seem any scope for an appeal.
>>>
>> Hey you can still probably waste some money on crowdfunding as the
>>guy won't accept the verdict
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48855640
>>
>
>He wants to carry on *if* his lawyer advises him to do so. But actually
>no sensible lawyer would advise him to pursue this. I think his fifteen
>minutes of fame might be at an end.

And of course no lawyer, knowing there are fees available from gullible
crowdfunders will tell him "I'll have a go if you continue to pay me"

:/
--
Bryan Morris

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-03, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2019 16:02, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2019-07-03, Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>> In message <go3qmo...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
>>> <the_...@icloud.com> writes
>>>> The judgment was published today, and unfortunately there really
>>>> doesn't seem any scope for an appeal.
>>>
>>> Why "unfortunately" ?
>>
>> Because the Left can't win on ideas. They rely on lies, malicious prosecution,
>> dismantling of our rights, judicial activism, fake news and the shrill
>> denunciation of anyone who disagrees with them as hate-filled bigots. They
>> want to dominate the received narrative because they lust for control over what
>> we do right down to the level of what we are allowed to think.
>>
>> Western nations are at crisis point on several fronts. It's not just the
>> existential threat posed by demographic influx; we are at risk of sleepwalking
>> into totalitarianism.
>>
>
>
> Wrong answer.
>
> Unfortunately - because Boris told lies and relied on lies to get his
> own way.

But we do send the EU £350m per week. The fact that this doesn't take into
account rebate money or farming subsidies doesn't negate the point because that
is the approximate figure that we send to them.

> He's still telling lies, of course. He's going to be our Prime Minister
> based on a cast-iron pledge by him to secure Brexit by 31st October.
> When he fails to deliver, that will be quite okay.

If ever the Police set up a Precrime division, they will welcome you and your
crystal ball.

> We are at risk otherwise of sleepwalking into honest political debate.

The irony of a complaint about honest political debate with regard to a
vexatious legal challenge that was mounted in order to thwart Brexit is off the
scale.

[Incubus]

The mainstream media has lied to us for years and suddenly the existence of
independent voices threatens their hegemony. Certain talking heads call it
"post truth" when they have never really cared about truth in the first
instance.

> The Internet means it's unlikely this will get rolled back.

You'd better ban it then, along with the printing press. In the meantime, cry
us some more salty tears while I fetch the chips.

[Grikbuster®™]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 15:31:56 +0100, Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine>
wrote:

As they say, there's one born every minute!

[Fredxx]

That would be the end of Boris as leader, and of course the Tory party.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 03 Jul 2019 10:03:05 -0700, clinically insane, serbian bitch

Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual
cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikbuster®™", farted again:

>>Hey you can still probably waste some money on crowdfunding as the guy
>>won't accept the verdict
>>
>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48855640
>
> As they say, there's one born every minute!

Luckily, an idiot like you is born only about once every 100 years! But
then, you are "proud" of it, right, true idiot that you are? LOL

--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, dumb serbian bitch G. Razovic (aka "The Rectum").

[The Todal]

On 03/07/2019 17:49, Incubus wrote:
> On 2019-07-03, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2019 16:02, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-03, Bryan Morris <nos...@this.machine> wrote:
>>>> In message <go3qmo...@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
>>>> <the_...@icloud.com> writes
>>>>> The judgment was published today, and unfortunately there really
>>>>> doesn't seem any scope for an appeal.
>>>>
>>>> Why "unfortunately" ?
>>>
>>> Because the Left can't win on ideas. They rely on lies, malicious prosecution,
>>> dismantling of our rights, judicial activism, fake news and the shrill
>>> denunciation of anyone who disagrees with them as hate-filled bigots. They
>>> want to dominate the received narrative because they lust for control over what
>>> we do right down to the level of what we are allowed to think.
>>>
>>> Western nations are at crisis point on several fronts. It's not just the
>>> existential threat posed by demographic influx; we are at risk of sleepwalking
>>> into totalitarianism.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong answer.
>>
>> Unfortunately - because Boris told lies and relied on lies to get his
>> own way.
>
> But we do send the EU £350m per week. The fact that this doesn't take into
> account rebate money or farming subsidies doesn't negate the point because that
> is the approximate figure that we send to them.

It's misleading and deliberately so. Boris is a leading Tory politician
and the electorate trusted him to put the case for Brexit fairly and
objectively. He told lies.

In a televised interview in May 2016 Boris stated, "we send the EU £10
billion per year" and therefore he knew that the 350 million per week
figure (20 billion per year) was incorrect. The UK statistics authority
described the figure as misleading. The Institute for Fiscal Studies
described the same as plain "absurd" Further, the UK Statistics
Authority has said that the EU membership figure of 19 billion a year or
350 million per week is "not an amount of money that the UK pays to the
EU each year." Moreover, the Authority Chair has described the use of
the figure by Mr Johnson as "a clear misuse of official statistics" The
Chair, Sir David Norgrove, observed further directly to Mr Johnson that:
"I am surprised and disappointed that you have chosen to
repeat the figure of 350 million per week in connection with the amount
that might be available extra public spending when we leave the European
Union"

>
>> He's still telling lies, of course. He's going to be our Prime Minister
>> based on a cast-iron pledge by him to secure Brexit by 31st October.
>> When he fails to deliver, that will be quite okay.
>
> If ever the Police set up a Precrime division, they will welcome you and your
> crystal ball.

It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that the EU will not re-negotiate
the terms of our exit and will not remove the backstop, and Parliament
won't permit a no-deal Brexit which Boris says is almost vanishingly
unlikely. Boris wants to be seen as the messiah who can turn water into
wine.

>
>> We are at risk otherwise of sleepwalking into honest political debate.
>
> The irony of a complaint about honest political debate with regard to a
> vexatious legal challenge that was mounted in order to thwart Brexit is off the
> scale.
>

If you read the law reports with sufficient care you will realise that
under no circumstances would Boris's prosecution and conviction have
"thwarted Brexit". They would have affected his future political
ambitions but Brexit would have been unaffected.

[Fredxx]

Yet

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31

Say, "In 2016, the UK’s gross contribution to the EU amounted to £19
billion."

I also agree the £5billion rebate should be taken in to account. However
I never saw the need to inflate the true amount of £200million we send
to the EU.

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:49:32 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote...

> But we do send the EU £350m per week. The fact that this doesn't take into
> account rebate money or farming subsidies doesn't negate the point because that
> is the approximate figure that we send to them.

The rebate money isn't sent to the EU but then returned. It's never
sent to the EU in the first place. The rebate is a discount subtracted
before any money is actually paid.

So Vote Leave was seriously criticised by the Office for National
Statistics for the £350 million per week claim on the bus. That figure
(about £18 billion per year) is just a number on a piece of paper. Part
of the calculations from which the (significantly lower) true figure is
then worked out.

This is very well documented. See for example
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Quote: "The UK doesn’t pay or 'send to Brussels' this higher figure of
£18.6 billion, or anything equivalent per week or per day. The rebate is
applied straight away (its size is calculated based on the previous
year's contributions), so the UK never contributes this much."

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[tim...]

"Fredxx" <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qfirmf$s9s$1...@dont-email.me...

He might survive as leader

he's still going to be the most electable of the pack

Not that I'm suggesting he should try to find out, you understand

tim

[Incubus]

I wouldn't call it a lie. We do send that figure. If you take into account
the rebate etc., that's not actually the amount that we send them.

>>> He's still telling lies, of course. He's going to be our Prime Minister
>>> based on a cast-iron pledge by him to secure Brexit by 31st October.
>>> When he fails to deliver, that will be quite okay.
>>
>> If ever the Police set up a Precrime division, they will welcome you and your
>> crystal ball.
>
> It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that the EU will not re-negotiate
> the terms of our exit and will not remove the backstop, and Parliament
> won't permit a no-deal Brexit which Boris says is almost vanishingly
> unlikely. Boris wants to be seen as the messiah who can turn water into
> wine.

We don't know for a fact that Parliament won't permit no deal or that a future
PM won't be able to manoeuvre around Parliament. You might not have noticed
but politicians do give pledges that sometimes don't come to fruition and
that's because the UK is not a dictatorship where the PM has absolute
authority. Until now, no one has ever taken seriously the thought of
prosecuting someone for pledging something that might not happen. Until now,
we haven't had such an enormous number of maladjusted, malcontented,
narcissistic snowflakes who throw their toys out of the pram when the majority
vote against them. Welcome to politics in the 21st Century - if we don't get
our way, we'll howl and we'll screech and we'll shriek and we'll throw
milkshakes and sic our lawyers on you because we know we're right and you're
all a bunch of nasty, racist bigots and you smell of poo!!!

>> The irony of a complaint about honest political debate with regard to a
>> vexatious legal challenge that was mounted in order to thwart Brexit is off the
>> scale.
>
> If you read the law reports with sufficient care you will realise that
> under no circumstances would Boris's prosecution and conviction have
> "thwarted Brexit". They would have affected his future political
> ambitions but Brexit would have been unaffected.

It's all part of a campaign to achieve just that and you know it.

[Incubus]

Very well. However, the EU has promised to scrap the rebate system. Borrowing
Todal's crystal ball for a minute, that means we'd be paying £350million a
week...

[kat]

I was thinking much the same thing. Our contribution, is, or was at the time,
near enough £350 million a week. Sure, we got a rebate that year, so didn't
send it all. Money came back in the form of grants for projects the EU approved
of. But we were still net contributors, another year another bill, getting
higher no doubt as time goes on, and maybe the rebate goes way and the grants
don't happen. It isn't up to us. It's up to the money grabbers in the EU.

Whatever the sum one cares to quote, it's our money being spent by the EU, we
don't get all of it back, and it is money which we know we can choose to spend
how we want.


--
kat
>^..^<

[The Todal]

Most commentators believe that our economy benefits enormously from EU
membership so we get more back than we put in. But leaving that aside,
I'm interested in your phrase "we know we can choose to spend how we
want", which implies we're a big happy family and we will be consulted
by our government before that little hoard of money on the dresser is
spent. It's a comforting fantasy. But we'll never see that money. It
will be used to alleviate the worst effects of Brexit, or given in tax
cuts to the rich. It will gradually dawn on British voters that they
haven't really taken back control. They have merely narrowed the
nation's options and given more power to our government and civil
service. In years to come, the reason why the nation can't afford more
money for the NHS or more money for the care of the elderly will be:
still getting over Brexit, chum, please be patient for a few more years.

[Incubus]

Yes, all that tariff-free trade so we can be a net contributor has been a
fantastic boost to our economy.

Or perhaps it's the cheap, foreign labour that increases native unemployment
and pushes up house prices. Who else is going to serve the metropolitan elite
their morning coffee in Pret?

> But leaving that aside,
> I'm interested in your phrase "we know we can choose to spend how we
> want", which implies we're a big happy family and we will be consulted
> by our government before that little hoard of money on the dresser is
> spent. It's a comforting fantasy. But we'll never see that money. It
> will be used to alleviate the worst effects of Brexit, or given in tax
> cuts to the rich.

You and your crystal ball.

> It will gradually dawn on British voters that they
> haven't really taken back control. They have merely narrowed the
> nation's options and given more power to our government and civil
> service.

If you call removing a strait jacket a transference of power, I suppose.

> In years to come, the reason why the nation can't afford more
> money for the NHS or more money for the care of the elderly will be:
> still getting over Brexit, chum, please be patient for a few more years.

You're starting to sound like Mystic Meg. "Pensioners and the disabled will be
suffering too-oo-ooooo..."

[abelard]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 13:15:34 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:

>Most commentators believe that our economy benefits enormously from EU
>membership so we get more back than we put in.

then they will also believe in fairies

> But leaving that aside,
>I'm interested in your phrase "we know we can choose to spend how we
>want",

you can't spend what you haven't earned

> which implies we're a big happy family and we will be consulted
>by our government before that little hoard of money on the dresser is
>spent. It's a comforting fantasy. But we'll never see that money. It
>will be used to alleviate the worst effects of Brexit, or given in tax
>cuts to the rich.

it isn't about money...only a materialistic marxist could
believe that it is

> It will gradually dawn on British voters that they
>haven't really taken back control.

don't be silly...they vote for people who they believe will do what
they believe they want...
eussr politicians....or british politicians

at least they'll stop giving presents to the eussr politicians

> They have merely narrowed the
>nation's options and given more power to our government and civil
>service.

who is this 'nation' fellow?
are the government and 'civil' 'servants' not actors within
'the nation'?

> In years to come, the reason why the nation can't afford more
>money for the NHS or more money for the care of the elderly will be:
>still getting over Brexit, chum, please be patient for a few more years.

why exactly do you believe that nonsense?

--
www.abelard.org

[JNugent]

TRANSLATION:

"The EU know how to spend our money better than we ever could"

[Roger]

Well there are people like you consistently post deliberately misleading posts. But fortunately the internet often catches you out as well :D

[Incubus]

Spamela comes across as a Hasbara troll.

[Bryan Morris]

In message <qfkulr$8lb$1...@dont-email.me>, Incubus
<incubus...@gmail.com> writes

Though Pamela (& her racist soulmate )are now in my killfile I see she
is still sitting, cackling away, at her keyboard like some demented
keyboard warrior.
--
Bryan Morris

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:05:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote...

When? We have a veto, which means they can't scrap the rebate unless we
agree. (Or after we leave.)

All I can find is a rumour from 2012, reporting a proposal to reduce the
rebate by £800 million a year. (The Daily Express, however, multiplied
that by seven years, to give a headline figure of £5.6 billion.)

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-budget-whats-happening-british-rebate/

This quotes a 2011 figure for the rebate of £2.88 billion per year. Six
years later, in 2017, it had gone up to £5.6 billion per year - see the
Fullfact page I linked earlier. The HM Treasury graph on that page
shows that our gross contribution (after the rebate is applied) goes up
and down every year, but it was lower in 2017 than it was 2011.

[Incubus]

As I understand it, we are not party to the next budget negotiations and
therefore will not have a power of veto. The rest of the bloc has long been in
favour of scrapping the rebate and I suspect it would have been a matter of
time until a Europhile PM caved in. Of course, since we are leaving anyway, it
shouldn't really matter...

[Norman Wells]

On 04/07/2019 14:47, Pamela wrote:

> I'm not sure I've heard a single honest fact about Brexit from a Leaver.

That's because you don't listen, or only hear what you want to hear.

Neither is an attractive trait.

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote...

>
> On 2019-07-04, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:05:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote...
> >>

> >> Very well. However, the EU has promised to scrap the rebate system. Borrowing
> >> Todal's crystal ball for a minute, that means we'd be paying £350million a
> >> week...
> >
> > When? We have a veto, which means they can't scrap the rebate unless we
> > agree. (Or after we leave.)
>
> As I understand it, we are not party to the next budget negotiations and
> therefore will not have a power of veto. The rest of the bloc has long been in
> favour of scrapping the rebate and I suspect it would have been a matter of
> time until a Europhile PM caved in. Of course, since we are leaving anyway, it
> shouldn't really matter...

So, when you borrowed Todal's crystal ball for a minute, what you really
meant is that either way we **wouldn't** be paying £350 million a
week...

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-04, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 15:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote...
>>
>> On 2019-07-04, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 09:05:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote...
>> >>
>> >> Very well. However, the EU has promised to scrap the rebate system. Borrowing
>> >> Todal's crystal ball for a minute, that means we'd be paying £350million a
>> >> week...
>> >
>> > When? We have a veto, which means they can't scrap the rebate unless we
>> > agree. (Or after we leave.)
>>
>> As I understand it, we are not party to the next budget negotiations and
>> therefore will not have a power of veto. The rest of the bloc has long been in
>> favour of scrapping the rebate and I suspect it would have been a matter of
>> time until a Europhile PM caved in. Of course, since we are leaving anyway, it
>> shouldn't really matter...
>
> So, when you borrowed Todal's crystal ball for a minute, what you really
> meant is that either way we **wouldn't** be paying £350 million a
> week...

Todal's crystal ball is very selective about the visions of the future it
presents. They seem to conform to whatever the operator thinks will make a
political point.

Personally, I think it's defective.

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-04, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 04/07/2019 11:03, The Todal wrote:
>> On 04/07/2019 10:37, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2019 10:21, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>>>> On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 17:49:34 UTC+1, Incubus  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The irony of a complaint about honest political debate with regard to a
>>>>> vexatious legal challenge that was mounted in order to thwart Brexit
>>>>> is off the
>>>>> scale.
>>>>

>>>> Vexatious - unlikely, mischievous and unlikely to succeed in court
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH it is shining a bright spotlight on Boris's honesty, which is
>>>> very welcome.
>>>
>>> Why?  What good does it do you, even if you can make it stick, which
>>> you can't?  Others have tried and expensively failed, even going to
>>> court over it.
>>>
>>> He will be Prime Minister whether you like it or not.  And he will
>>> lead the country to Brexit at the end of October, whether you like it
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> Unless he's lying of course, which I don't see serves any purpose.
>>>
>>> Do you not believe him about Brexit, or, ostrich-like, do you not want
>>> to believe him?  Please choose.
>>
>> He knows he is making a promise that he can't keep. He does so without
>> any nuanced explanations or clarifications. Just a simple pledge, which
>> depends on factors that he can't control. Realistically his only way of
>> delivering his pledge would be to get the old Theresa May deal through
>> the commons, on the basis that failure to do so will cause the Brexit
>> Party to draw support from both major parties in a future election. He
>> has said that he won't use Theresa May's deal, but you can't trust him
>> to keep to his undertakings.
>
> Why do you ignore leaving with no deal as a way of delivering his pledge
> which specifically included that option?
>
> That's the default position if there is no deal in place by the end of
> October and no further extension has been requested and granted,
> requiring the unanimous agreement of all 27 EU countries. Which is far
> from certain.

Tarot Todal has consulted the cards and found the Emperor reversed in the
Significator position means that Boris has no chance of success. The Five of
Coins means that pensioners would starve without a deal and the presence of The
Hanged Man indicates the illusion of choice. The Ten of Swords for the final
outcome indicates that Boris' "Brexit" is utterly doomed to failure.

The next card for clarification is The Hierophant. Jeremy Corbyn will become
Prime Minister too-oo-ooooooooooooo.

[Tim Jackson]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:17:10 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote...

So when you borrowed it to predict that we'd be paying £350 million a
week, that was wrong?

[Mike Scott]

On 04/07/2019 15:40, Tim Jackson wrote:
.....

>> Very well. However, the EU has promised to scrap the rebate system. Borrowing
>> Todal's crystal ball for a minute, that means we'd be paying £350million a
>> week...
>
> When? We have a veto, which means they can't scrap the rebate unless we
> agree. (Or after we leave.)

An interesting comment:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-budget-rebate-gunther-oetinger-second-referendum-remain-a8580616.html

"Britain would lose its EU budget rebate were it to decide to cancel
Brexit and stay in the bloc, the European Commission’s budget chief has
said.

Günther Oettinger told reporters in Brussels that such a rebate was “no
longer appropriate” in a family of nations."

I have no idea about the veracity of the report.


There's also Labour's past contribution:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6516753/Tony-Blairs-decision-to-cut-the-EU-rebate-cost-9.3billion-report-shows.html

"The former prime minister was criticised for failing to win concessions
when he decided to axe the UK’s Brussels rebate four years ago......The
Commons’ researchers calculated that the lost income is the equivalent
of £344 for every household in Britain. "



--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England

[Vidcapper]

On 04/07/2019 14:47, Pamela wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I've heard a single honest fact about Brexit from a Leaver.
>

Well, here's one : WE WON THE REFERENDUM!

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Incubus]

If we end up remaining, I have no doubt that we will be paying at least that
much.

[The Todal]

On 05/07/2019 06:59, Vidcapper wrote:
> On 04/07/2019 14:47, Pamela wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure I've heard a single honest fact about Brexit from a Leaver.
>>
>
> Well, here's one : WE WON THE REFERENDUM!
>

And batty old Anne Widdecombe gives her own version of history. Lies, or
merely stupidity? It certainly isn't honest fact to compare our
membership of a economic community with slaves on a plantation.

“There is a pattern consistent throughout history of oppressed people
turning on their oppressors, slaves against their owners, the peasantry
against the feudal barons, colonies Mr Verhofstadt against their
empires, and that is why Britain is leaving. It doesn’t matter which
language you use, we are leaving and we are pleased to be going. Nous
allons, wir gehen, we are off!”

[Incubus]

On 2019-07-05, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/2019 06:59, Vidcapper wrote:
>> On 04/07/2019 14:47, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I've heard a single honest fact about Brexit from a Leaver.
>>>
>>
>> Well, here's one : WE WON THE REFERENDUM!
>>
>
> And batty old Anne Widdecombe gives her own version of history. Lies, or
> merely stupidity? It certainly isn't honest fact to compare our
> membership of a economic community with slaves on a plantation.

Maybe you should crowdfund a private prosecution for lying while holding a
public office.

Let us know how it goes.

[Yellow]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 08:27:12 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
@gmail.com> posted:

You make a very relevant point, given very shortly the EU is to agree
its budget for the next period.

Without the UK they are going to have less money to spend of course, or
they are going to have to get the remaining net contributing countries
to cover the loss of our contribution.

Will that sum turn out to be be less that or more than £350 million a
week I wonder?

[Norman Wells]

She wasn't the one who used the word 'colony' first.

"The programme ends with two of the EU team revelling in what had been
achieved and saying about the UK people, “We got rid of them. We kicked
them out. We finally turned them into a colony, and that was our plan
from the first moment.”

https://brexitcentral.com/the-bbcs-latest-brexit-documentary-shows-the-contempt-in-which-the-eu-negotiators-hold-us/

Perhaps not so batty after all then.

[tim...]

"The Todal" <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:go8tvl...@mid.individual.net...

> On 05/07/2019 06:59, Vidcapper wrote:
>> On 04/07/2019 14:47, Pamela wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I've heard a single honest fact about Brexit from a Leaver.
>>>
>>
>> Well, here's one : WE WON THE REFERENDUM!
>>
>
> And batty old Anne Widdecombe gives her own version of history. Lies, or
> merely stupidity?

I think you have already put your finger on it

Batty old woman

tim

[Tim Jackson]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:52:35 +0100, Norman Wells wrote...

Apparently Brexiters can't recognise when someone is taking the piss out
of them.