DavidGJH Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-03-06 3:12 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:04 PM John52 - 2018-03-06 11:16 AM DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM George Osborne never uses Gideon. Gideon is a Jewish name. Is this your typical Labour anti-Semitism manifesting itself? I can see no other reason for your continued use of Gideon when ever you mention him. You can't see that I use the name Gideon because that is his name? If his name was George and he called himself Gideon I would still call him George. Your prejudice is over riding any ability you have to see facts. As is shown by your obvious distortion of the National debt figures. No, his name since he was thirteen is George. He was christened Gideon Oliver but hated the Gideon part and from then on announced that his given name is George. He is called George by his family, friends, in politics and business as everyone but you respects his choice. Matters not David......unless he's changed the name by deed poll and expunged 'Gideon' to be replaced with 'George' he will still legally be Gideon Oliver Osborne. You can call yourself any name/s you like but when it comes to official documents, passport, driving licence etc, you can't unless it's been legally changed. It matters to anyone with an ounce of decency. If a transgender person decided that she was no longer George and from now on wished to be called Georgia I hope that anyone with an once of decency would comply with that request. Legally she is still George but the first people complaining if I and others refused to call her Georgia would be those on the liberal left, and quite rightly too. John 52's 'Gideon' is malicious. No one else calls him that. Osborne himself has asked that no one calls him Gideon anymore and everyone else has done the decent thing. Except of course John 52 who never uses the non-Hebrew name of Oliver. Why is that I wonder? His use of Gideon makes no sense whatsoever, unless of course you hate Osborne and wish to score petty racist points. So if you knew of a transgender George who now wished to be called Georgia would you insist on still calling her George until she provided proof of a legal name change? I don't agree with your politics but from what I've read of you on here I suspect that you'd happily accede to her wishes and not cause her distress by using the old name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGJH Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:04 PM ...... And as for my 'distortion' of the figures I'll deal with that separately but I found that amusing coming from the master of distortion as, in just one example, your continuing claim that the Duke of Westminster inherited £ billion tax free. That is more than distortion, it's a blatant lie. The figure for the Duke of Westminster should have read ten billion but I hadn't noticed that my number pad wasn't turned on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-03-06 2:55 PM Tracker - 2018-03-06 2:39 PM Barryd999 - 2018-03-06 1:54 PM If you don't like living with immigrants for whatever reason the only choice you have is to move. Come up here, we hardly have any which I know will annoy many but it's just the way it is. There is no work up here. Your either in the game now or your not and we are about to check out Immigrants are not an issue here either, especially cocooned from the real world of work that retirement brings. I don't think we are checking out of the game, more like hopefully modifying the game rules to suit our country and our natural people, but with controlled immigration giving us the skills we lack ourselves. However with a succession of weak willed lilly livered governments hell bent on pandering to minorities and the media I wish I could honestly believe that we will make best use of the opportunities that will once again be open to us as a free independant nation. Most of the world survives without the EU so why wouldn't we? Ask me again in five year's time! That's Barry's answer Richard if you don't like immigration which you never said youve gotta move out , maybe you could get on the big red number 350 bus he keeps waffling on about again and again and again .... its undeniable that Immigration was the main reason the majority voted out. The big bus probably did play a roll as well I guess for those who thought we were giving away £350 million for nothing. Rich never said he didnt like immigrants but he did say ("England, like so many other countries, was a more pleasant place before mass immigration swamped it so rather than the oh so convemient racist term beloved by the foreigneer worshippers I prefer patriot and self preservationist as being more realistic and fortunately I am far from alone.") which I took to mean that he would prefer like i think you and many others would that we had less immigrants or probably no immigrants perhaps. My point is you cant have that so whats the point of Brexit if thats the main reason people voted for it? We are going to make ourselves much worse off yet the immigrants will just come from somewhere else if they dont come from Europe. Its like trying to do a King Canute with the tide. Wont happen. You may get rid of a few or find that the nationalities change, we already stopped most of the spongers and its pretty much accepted now that our immigrants are generally hard working but you cant stop the tide and close yourself off, well we cannot as we are simply not set up for it. Im not sure I would like it if my home town was suddenly full of foreigners and the indigenous population moved out but I never liked living in a town anyway and as soon as I could afford to I moved to the country. Things change, economies and the way we work evolve. Going backwards wont change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:30 PM You claimed earlier that I distorted the figures. I quoted figures for the last seven years of the Labour government Wrong again. This is what you actually said DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM The debt was rising every year under Labour as your own figures show ..... If you can't even quote yourself correctly how can we believe anything else you say *-) More importantly what do you think is wrong with the name Gideon? I can't ask him why he wanted to change it. But perhaps I can ask you why you seem to think its insulting Osborne by calling him by his real name of Gideon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 4:11 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:04 PM ...... And as for my 'distortion' of the figures I'll deal with that separately but I found that amusing coming from the master of distortion as, in just one example, your continuing claim that the Duke of Westminster inherited £ billion tax free. That is more than distortion, it's a blatant lie. The figure for the Duke of Westminster should have read ten billion but I hadn't noticed that my number pad wasn't turned on. Wasn't your brain cell turned on either. ;-) Strictly speaking the £10 billion is held in trust for his benefit, but I didn't want to tax your brain cell with anything complicated. He effectively inherited it tax free. The way he did it are are the subject of a FT article (behind paywall) titled 'Duke's death hands property empire to 25-year-old-son. (googling it will bypass the paywall ;-) ) The last Duke of Westminster had to pay the biggest inheritance tax bill ever. But that was before Gideon (real name) Osborne advised the wealthy to use clever financial products to avoid tax https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/16/osborne-advised-using-financial-loopholes-to-avoid-tax-and-care-costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGJH Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 John52 - 2018-03-06 4:35 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:30 PM You claimed earlier that I distorted the figures. I quoted figures for the last seven years of the Labour government Wrong again. This is what you actually said DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM The debt was rising every year under Labour as your own figures show ..... If you can't even quote yourself correctly how can we believe anything else you say *-) More importantly what do you think is wrong with the name Gideon? I can't ask him why he wanted to change it. But perhaps I can ask you why you seem to think its insulting Osborne by calling him by his real name of Gideon? You should learn to read properly. My second sentence to you in my opening post was: 'What is clear is that from 2001 the debt was creeping inexorably upwards. In the last six years of a Labour government the debt rose two and a half times from under £400 billion to over one trillion.' Any further comments were then based on a seven year period from 2003 to 2010 as I was comparing them with the following seven year period under the Tories. But as usual and as you do frequently you divert as you don't wish to answer uncomfortable questions. And as for believing what I say how can we believe you then after you claimed more than once that the Duke of Westminster inherited ten billion pounds tax free? You've accused me of distorting the figures. I did not. Do you deny that that in the last seven years of Labour the debt went up two and a half times? Do you deny that at the end of the last Labour administration the Budget deficit, which the Tories have now eliminated, was a record-breaking £99 billion? Do you deny that after taking over in 2010 when by Labour's own admission, there was no money left. the debt under the Tories only went up by 50% as opposed to two and a half times under Labour in the preceding seven years? As for why you call Osborne Gideon, we all know the reason for that so stop squirming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I'm sure the Duke of Westminster has done nothing illegal in avoiding tax on his £10 billion inheritance. He has no need to when the Tories make it so easy for him. And I don't blame him either. I might even like him if I met him. I don't blame anyone who legally avoids tax on vast amounts of inheritance. I blame the system that allows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:02 PM we all know the reason for that Do you realise how arrogant it is to assume you speak for everyone? More importantly I ask again What do you think is wrong with the name Gideon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGJH Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 John52 - 2018-03-06 4:52 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 4:11 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:04 PM ...... And as for my 'distortion' of the figures I'll deal with that separately but I found that amusing coming from the master of distortion as, in just one example, your continuing claim that the Duke of Westminster inherited £ billion tax free. That is more than distortion, it's a blatant lie. The figure for the Duke of Westminster should have read ten billion but I hadn't noticed that my number pad wasn't turned on. Wasn't your brain cell turned on either. ;-) Strictly speaking the £10 billion is held in trust for his benefit, but I didn't want to tax your brain cell with anything complicated. He effectively inherited it tax free. The way he did it are are the subject of a FT article (behind paywall) titled 'Duke's death hands property empire to 25-year-old-son. (googling it will bypass the paywall ;-) ) The last Duke of Westminster had to pay the biggest inheritance tax bill ever. But that was before Gideon (real name) Osborne advised the wealthy to use clever financial products to avoid tax https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/16/osborne-advised-using-financial-loopholes-to-avoid-tax-and-care-costs. It appears that you're the one who doesn't understand the facts. First of all it wasn't ten million, it was just over eight million. If you can't get such a simple figure correct how can we possibly believe anything else you say? But ten million is a nice round figure if you want to lie about these horrible rich people isn't it? The Duke did not inherit ten billion. He inherited several million on which he paid inheritance tax. The family wealth and estate is held in a perfectly legal trust written to avoid large estates and companies from having to be broken up in the event of a death. The Duke cannot touch a penny of it tax free. If he receives dividends or any other form of income from the trust he will pay tax. The companies in the trust will pay all other taxes due such as corporation tax on profits. However, such trusts are not as you claim 'tax free'. Every ten years the trust has to pay 6% of its total wealth in tax. So if the present Duke lives into his eighties the trust will have paid 6% tax six times. I'm sure you can work out that when he dies the trust will already have paid 36% tax. How then can such trust be tax free? Your continuing assertion that the Duke has received ten billion pounds tax free is either a deliberate lie or the result of your ignorance of how such trusts work and are taxed. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:02 PM Do you deny that at the end of the last Labour administration the Budget deficit, which the Tories have now eliminated, was a record-breaking £99 billion? I can't take their budget deficit figures seriously. So easy to disguise spending as investment or even PFI so you can push it off the balance sheet altogether. A wheeze started by John Major and taken to its present frightening level by your mate Gideon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGJH Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 John52 - 2018-03-06 5:05 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:02 PM we all know the reason for that Do you realise how arrogant it is to assume you speak for everyone? More importantly I ask again What do you think is wrong with the name Gideon? There is nothing wrong with the name Gideon. Where have I ever said that there is anything wrong with the name? There is nothing wrong with the name George but if you had a transgender friend who now wished to be called Georgia I presume that you would ignore her wishes too as she was born a George? It is clear why you use the name Gideon so stop squirming, it's embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:15 PM It appears that you're the one who doesn't understand the facts. First of all it wasn't ten million, it was just over eight million. If you can't get such a simple figure correct how can we possibly believe anything else you say? Actually it was Billion not Million. If you can't get such a simple figure correct how can we possibly believe anything else you say? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:19 PM John52 - 2018-03-06 5:05 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:02 PM we all know the reason for that Do you realise how arrogant it is to assume you speak for everyone? More importantly I ask again What do you think is wrong with the name Gideon? There is nothing wrong with the name Gideon. Where have I ever said that there is anything wrong with the name? There is nothing wrong with the name George but if you had a transgender friend who now wished to be called Georgia I presume that you would ignore her wishes too as she was born a George? It is clear why you use the name Gideon so stop squirming, it's embarrassing. You suggested I was insulting Osborne by calling him by his real name of Gideon, so you must think there is something wrong with 'Gideon'. Wheras I can see no difference between 'Gideon' and 'George' Obviously there is a difference between a male and female name so its not a sensible comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGJH Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 John52 - 2018-03-06 5:15 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:02 PM Do you deny that at the end of the last Labour administration the Budget deficit, which the Tories have now eliminated, was a record-breaking £99 billion? I can't take their budget deficit figures seriously. So easy to disguise spending as investment or even PFI so you can push it off the balance sheet altogether. A wheeze started by John Major and taken to its present frightening level by your mate Gideon. Ha ha! Figures that you think help your cause are presented as gospel but when the same sources provide evidence that makes you uncomfortable they are no longer reliable. That is beyond pathetic. The same method of calculation is done whichever government is in power and it's done by civil servants of all political persuasions. To deny official government figures just because you don't like them is the mark of a man who is afraid of the truth and attempts to gloss over anything that is unpalatable to him. Do you have any idea how sad that makes you? Are you still denying or refusing to confirm the facts I presented about the massive rise in the debt under Labour in the seven years before they were replaced by the Tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:26 PM Are you still denying or refusing to confirm the facts I presented about the massive rise in the debt under Labour in the seven years before they were replaced by the Tories. Labour reduced the debt in the first few years. Most of Labours 'massive rise in debt' over their last 7 years was a result of the financial crisis caused by the Tories flogging off our good old Building Societies like Nortern Rock. But it still wasn't as massive as the debt rung up by the Tories in the following 7 years 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGJH Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 John52 - 2018-03-06 5:24 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:19 PM John52 - 2018-03-06 5:05 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:02 PM we all know the reason for that Do you realise how arrogant it is to assume you speak for everyone? More importantly I ask again What do you think is wrong with the name Gideon? There is nothing wrong with the name Gideon. Where have I ever said that there is anything wrong with the name? There is nothing wrong with the name George but if you had a transgender friend who now wished to be called Georgia I presume that you would ignore her wishes too as she was born a George? It is clear why you use the name Gideon so stop squirming, it's embarrassing. You suggested I was insulting Osborne by calling him by his real name of Gideon, so you must think there is something wrong with 'Gideon'. Wheras I can see no difference between 'Gideon' and 'George' Obviously there is a difference between a male and female name so its not a sensible comparison. You do have trouble comprehending the simplest of things. I said that you use Gideon for one reason and one reason only, because it is a Hebrew name. You never use Oliver which is his other name. You insult him by refusing to use the name by which he is known by everyone and wishes to be known by everyone. Would you refuse to call a transgender George by her new name of Georgia? She was born a George and may still be George legally but anyone with a sense of decency would respect her wishes. Everyone but you respects George Osborne's wishes. You in my opinion, use Gideon because it's a Hebrew word and you're anti-Semitic, just like many on the left. I won't be discussing this subject with you any further. It's pointless as you seem incapable of understanding anything but the simplest of positions. You will now make some cheap comment about me running away from the debate. I think that's probably your style but there are times when intelligent people know that further discussion is a waste of everyone's time. We're at that point now. I realise that like a petulant child stamping its feet you'll use the Gideon name at every opportunity. That's your style as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:19 PM There is nothing wrong with the name Gideon.. At least we agree on something. So why is he calling himself George? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:38 PM You do have trouble comprehending the simplest of things. I said that you use Gideon for one reason and one reason only, because it is a Hebrew name. You never use Oliver which is his other name. I didn't even know it was a Hebrew name. I used it because it is his first name. Same as I call everyone else by their first name. I ask again. His name is Gideon so why is he calling himself George? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidGJH Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 John52 - 2018-03-06 5:36 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 5:26 PM Are you still denying or refusing to confirm the facts I presented about the massive rise in the debt under Labour in the seven years before they were replaced by the Tories. Labour reduced the debt in the first few years. Most of Labours 'massive rise in debt' over their last 7 years was a result of the financial crisis caused by the Tories flogging off our good old Building Societies like Nortern Rock. But it still wasn't as massive as the debt rung up by the Tories in the following 7 years 8-) Ha ha! From 1998 until 2002 they reduced it by ten percent. The following year it was back up to 1998 levels and zoomed ever upward after. Good try! Still flogging the building societies red herring I see? An increase in the national debt of two and a half times in seven years. The biggest deficit ever when they were booted out - £99 billion pounds. Now it's zero! Oh how you must be smarting as you try to find excuses for what labour always does. Spend spend spend and ruin the economy for the Tories to pick up the pieces yet again. You still haven't told me how I distorted the figures that I gave for the last seven years of Labour and the first seven years of Conservative. Given up have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:38 PM Bulletguy - 2018-03-06 3:12 PM DavidGJH - 2018-03-06 3:04 PM John52 - 2018-03-06 11:16 AM DavidGJH - 2018-03-05 8:52 PM George Osborne never uses Gideon. Gideon is a Jewish name. Is this your typical Labour anti-Semitism manifesting itself? I can see no other reason for your continued use of Gideon when ever you mention him. You can't see that I use the name Gideon because that is his name? If his name was George and he called himself Gideon I would still call him George. Your prejudice is over riding any ability you have to see facts. As is shown by your obvious distortion of the National debt figures. No, his name since he was thirteen is George. He was christened Gideon Oliver but hated the Gideon part and from then on announced that his given name is George. He is called George by his family, friends, in politics and business as everyone but you respects his choice. Matters not David......unless he's changed the name by deed poll and expunged 'Gideon' to be replaced with 'George' he will still legally be Gideon Oliver Osborne. You can call yourself any name/s you like but when it comes to official documents, passport, driving licence etc, you can't unless it's been legally changed. It matters to anyone with an ounce of decency. If a transgender person decided that she was no longer George and from now on wished to be called Georgia I hope that anyone with an once of decency would comply with that request. Legally she is still George but the first people complaining if I and others refused to call her Georgia would be those on the liberal left, and quite rightly too. John 52's 'Gideon' is malicious. No one else calls him that. Osborne himself has asked that no one calls him Gideon anymore and everyone else has done the decent thing. Except of course John 52 who never uses the non-Hebrew name of Oliver. Why is that I wonder? His use of Gideon makes no sense whatsoever, unless of course you hate Osborne and wish to score petty racist points. So if you had a transgender George who now wished to be called Georgia would you insist on still calling her George until she provided proof of a legal name change? I don't agree with your politics but from what I've read of you on here I suspect that you'd happily accede to her wishes and not cause her distress by using the old name. It's not about 'decency' though is it? It's a matter of legal recognition which is quite different. As i posted previously Gideon Oliver are his two legal christian names and those will be on every document......unless he's had 'George' added by deed poll. Maybe has i don't know but i don't see anything malicious in either of his other names and wonder if you'd have objected so strongly had John referred to him as Oliver or 'Ollie' Osborne. Somehow i doubt it. As for transgender, George who wants to 'identify' as female and be called 'Georgia' can do so......but it's not legally recognised as such unless they change it by deed poll. Neither is their gender unless they have a GRC (Gender Recognition certificate). Would i call him/her 'Georgia' because he wants to 'identify' as 'female'? Much would depend on physical appearance really. I'd struggle to take a 20 stone bloke with beard stubble and hairy legs poking out through fishnets too seriously! But gender identity is totally another issue to a name change. Today's wacko world has some wanting to ignore gender pronouns and identify as gender fluid which all gets confusing because they themselves want to chop and change according to their whims. Only a few months ago there was a case of a six year old schoolboy (yes six FGS!!) wanting to wear a skirt to school because he wanted to 'identify' as a girl. Only problem was he also wanted to revert back to dressing as a boy whenever he chose too......so some days he'd be George in trousers and other days he'd be 'Georgia' in a frock. Seemed more a case of pushy parents to me. And then we wonder why kids heads get so messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 I still don't see the need for the obsession with reposting old posts ad nauseum? Is it beyond the wit of some to precis old postings if they feel the need to explain what they are trying to say? A few years ago John52, not his real name, just a dummy name of course, was known by another name and no doubt someone who has a better memory than I will be able to recall it - it may have been 'one foot in the mouth' - and I wonder how he would feel if people started reminding everyone else of his past and insisting on using his old name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 Barryd999 - 2018-03-06 4:16 PM antony1969 - 2018-03-06 2:55 PM Tracker - 2018-03-06 2:39 PM Barryd999 - 2018-03-06 1:54 PM If you don't like living with immigrants for whatever reason the only choice you have is to move. Come up here, we hardly have any which I know will annoy many but it's just the way it is. There is no work up here. Your either in the game now or your not and we are about to check out Immigrants are not an issue here either, especially cocooned from the real world of work that retirement brings. I don't think we are checking out of the game, more like hopefully modifying the game rules to suit our country and our natural people, but with controlled immigration giving us the skills we lack ourselves. However with a succession of weak willed lilly livered governments hell bent on pandering to minorities and the media I wish I could honestly believe that we will make best use of the opportunities that will once again be open to us as a free independant nation. Most of the world survives without the EU so why wouldn't we? Ask me again in five year's time! That's Barry's answer Richard if you don't like immigration which you never said youve gotta move out , maybe you could get on the big red number 350 bus he keeps waffling on about again and again and again .... its undeniable that Immigration was the main reason the majority voted out. The big bus probably did play a roll as well I guess for those who thought we were giving away £350 million for nothing. Rich never said he didnt like immigrants but he did say ("England, like so many other countries, was a more pleasant place before mass immigration swamped it so rather than the oh so convemient racist term beloved by the foreigneer worshippers I prefer patriot and self preservationist as being more realistic and fortunately I am far from alone.") which I took to mean that he would prefer like i think you and many others would that we had less immigrants or probably no immigrants perhaps. My point is you cant have that so whats the point of Brexit if thats the main reason people voted for it? We are going to make ourselves much worse off yet the immigrants will just come from somewhere else if they dont come from Europe. Its like trying to do a King Canute with the tide. Wont happen. You may get rid of a few or find that the nationalities change, we already stopped most of the spongers and its pretty much accepted now that our immigrants are generally hard working but you cant stop the tide and close yourself off, well we cannot as we are simply not set up for it. Im not sure I would like it if my home town was suddenly full of foreigners and the indigenous population moved out but I never liked living in a town anyway and as soon as I could afford to I moved to the country. Things change, economies and the way we work evolve. Going backwards wont change that. Who's on about going backwards ??? ... Whats wrong in wanting regulated immigration like many other countries have ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 60% of 18-30 year olds in Italy voted for Eurosceptic or right wing parties in the election ... Just how is the EU going to survive in Italy ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-03-06 7:44 PM 60% of 18-30 year olds in Italy voted for Eurosceptic or right wing parties in the election ... Just how is the EU going to survive in Italy ??? By using Britain as an example that leaving the EU leaves most people worse off. The Americans are helping them by offering us worse trading terms outside the EU than we had when we were in. So where are our expert negotiators going for trade talks next. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted March 6, 2018 Share Posted March 6, 2018 Tracker - 2018-03-06 7:05 PM A few years ago John52, not his real name, just a dummy name of course unlike you and everyone else on the forum who are using their real names *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.