Brexit is Beautiful

More good news..


"British tourists will have to pay mobile phone operators’ roaming charges when they travel in the EU after Brexit, according to the European parliament committee that helped pioneer the legislation.

Despite a ban on the practice, holidaymakers and business travellers will face hefty bills if they use their phone within the EU from 2019, unless the British government strikes a favourable deal with the union.

Last week the European commission announced that, from June this year, “consumers will be able to call, send SMS or surf on their mobile at the same price they pay at home” when travelling in the EU.

The move, which has been years in the making, would significantly reduce travel costs. However, a leaked analysis on UK withdrawal from the EU confirmed this would not apply to Britons post-Brexit...."

Went to Wales once ..never been back..

Erm, just remind me where the Guardian stood on the question of the referendum?

Have to laugh at the loony left, clutching at any straws to justify their losing position.

Feb 6, 2017 -- 4:42AM, Breedingmad wrote:

More good news.."British tourists will have to pay mobile phone operators’ roaming charges when they travel in the EU after Brexit, according to the European parliament committee that helped pioneer the legislation.Despite a ban on the practice, holidaymakers and business travellers will face hefty bills if they use their phone within the EU from 2019, unless the British government strikes a favourable deal with the union.Last week the European commission announced that, from June this year, “consumers will be able to call, send SMS or surf on their mobile at the same price they pay at home” when travelling in the EU.The move, which has been years in the making, would significantly reduce travel costs. However, a leaked analysis on UK withdrawal from the EU confirmed this would not apply to Britons post-Brexit...."

Not true..... If they don't agree to parity with other European countries then we will put massive taxes on their Mercedes and BMW coming into the UK

It's all about what is mutually beneficial

EU is finished pretty soon anyway, France will vote to leave and so will Holland

EU will crash and burn

Well what exactly are you clutching at dingle berries? nowt like uncertainty business thrives on it...

Time we started sending some of the European shorthairs back...... Racing around the North circular like it's Le Mans

Dingle Berries?

I've encountered Breedingmad's posts before.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I have already lived in Holland and France ,if I was able to work I would be off like a shot away from this crazy Brexit rubbish.
The problems of this Country are nothing to do with the E.U. they are down to successive governments that have pandered to the
rich  business and property owning Elite at the expense of working people, blaming the E.U. is not the answer.

Read the article - and then the myriad of anti-Brexit articles in the Guardian's Businees Page thereafter.

Can we all agree not to use the Guardian or the Daily Mail as reference material for arguments on chit-chat?

Increase the peace! Spread the love! The Times are offering two-for-one on all venereal diseases!

mememe Repetition is a sign of a failed debater

Breedingmad is usually write on his left-wing views but I think he is wrong on brexit, maybe he has European heritage ?

Guardian is the truth

The Daily Mail is the opposite

Brexit is madness, the E.U. has a market of 500 million the rest of the world apart from a few nations consists of Countries that couldn't afford to buy the goods we sell to Europe
To give up the single market to stop a few immigrants coming in and stick two fingers up at E.U. bureaucrats is nothing short of total insanity by any stretch of the imagination.

But there won't be an  EU for much longer.

Breedingmad
06 Feb 17 11:26
Joined: 25 Jul 14
| Topic/replies: 19,103 | Blogger: Breedingmad's blog
mememe Repetition is a sign of a failed debater


No Breeding, if I repeat myself it's to try to get you to understand ...

but you only seem to keep confirming my point that lefties are thick.

Feb 6, 2017 -- 5:36AM, The Leopard wrote:

Guardian is the truthThe Daily Mail is the opposite

....and my pr1cks a Bloater

You are usually quite rational.

Times is owned by the evil Murdoch empire.

Brexitards are irrational they expect the E.U. to say oh your buying more goods than we sell to you so we will let you have your way,
is there anything else you want apart from free trade ,no East European immigrants, no regulations on the goods you sell us and no laws to
stop unfair competition..?What could possibly go wrong wit a dream like that?...

if Scotland win their vote for independence will they build a big wall between England and Scotland.
this would result in people climbing over the wall if English people want to see Rangers v Celtic for free.

Breedingmad
06 Feb 17 12:27
Joined: 25 Jul 14
| Topic/replies: 19,104 | Blogger: Breedingmad's blog
Brexitards are irrational they expect the E.U. to say oh your buying more goods than we sell to you so we will let you have your way,
is there anything else you want apart from free trade ,no East European immigrants, no regulations on the goods you sell us and no laws to
stop unfair competition..?What could possibly go wrong wit a dream like that?...


Breedingmad.

Are 17+ million people all irrational?  How do you know this?

People voted for Brexit for different reasons.  I voted Brexit because the EU is corrupt and has never had a clean audit report.  That's all.  No other reason.

You don't come across as being very intelligent, well having any intelligence, tbh.

Are 16 million people stupid and 17 million clever?

17 million didn't fall for Osbourne's emergency budget or tax hikes that he told us would be implemented immediately after a vote to leave.

Perhaps they are not as gullible as the 16 million.

Cue dafty BM asking me if we have left the EU yet because he doesn't understand the 'emergency' part of 'emergency budget'

By the way the German finance minister has admitted that there will be no punishment for the UK leaving the EU because London as the financial epicentre of Europe is a benefit for the entire European system. Not to mention our integral role in NATO.

Carry on dafty with your dafty lack of Brexit knowledge.

They are already packing their bags in London for Dublin and Paris  and Trump is salivating over buying up large chunks of land
along with his elitist cronies..Britain is for sale from now on.. the Brexiters have put the "For sale" sign
up now they are waiting for buyers but the trouble is they don't own anything...

More dafty nonsense BM, you must struggle to stand up with your continuous knee jerking.

You fail to understand that the EU need a strong UK economy to prop up NATO.

Carry on dafty.

Breedingmad
06 Feb 17 12:27
Joined: 25 Jul 14
| Topic/replies: 19,104 | Blogger: Breedingmad's blog
Brexitards are irrational they expect the E.U. to say oh your buying more goods than we sell to you so we will let you have your way,
is there anything else you want apart from free trade ,no East European immigrants, no regulations on the goods you sell us and no laws to
stop unfair competition..?What could possibly go wrong wit a dream like that?...


Breedingmad.

Are 17+ million people all irrational?  How do you know this?

People voted for Brexit for different reasons.  I voted Brexit because the EU is corrupt and has never had a clean audit report.  That's all.  No other reason.

You don't come across as being very intelligent, well having any intelligence, tbh.

Breedingmad
06 Feb 17 12:52
Joined: 25 Jul 14
| Topic/replies: 19,106 | Blogger: Breedingmad's blog
Are 16 million people stupid and 17 million clever?

Breeding wgere did I say 16million people are stupid?

You obviously are but that's all I can conclude with certainty.

BTW a new word for you ... obfuscation ... look it up, it's under the 'O's in the dictionary (big book with lots of words in it).  HTH

Feb 6, 2017 -- 6:20AM, The Leopard wrote:

You are usually quite rational.

You are always patronising

rtb,
there's a few uneducated forumites on here.

I suggest that Betfair implements a simple IQ test to weed out the likes of Anxious, Facts, Breedingmad, Leopard - there must be others.

What I worry about is that such types might be out on the street near where I live, or driving about in vans.

Feb 6, 2017 -- 7:33AM, rogerthebutler wrote:

Feb  6, 2017 -- 12:20PM, The Leopard wrote:You are usually quite rational.You are always patronising

Well, someone has got to be The Patron

Seriously though, give me an example of anything The Guardian has printed that has been shown to be false ( and known prior to printing, as such, by the Editor).

I am pro-Brexit...... Does that increase my IQ ?

Seriously though, give me an example of anything The Guardian has printed that has been shown to be false ( and known prior to printing, as such, by the Editor)


Security researchers call for Guardian to retract false WhatsApp “backdoor” story

just Googled it 20 Jan ... not hard was it?

Your point was?

As soon as anyone mentions the imminent collapse of the EU to breedingmad
or his ilk, the blinkers go on, and then silence.

Dispute seems to revolve around definition of "backdoor", it was not a conscious falsehood.

This article was amended on 13 January 2017 to remove the use of the word “backdoor” to describe the vulnerability, following a further statement from WhatsApp. The article was further amended on 25 January 2017 to include the views of a group of security experts who voiced concerns about the story.
.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/13/whatsapp-backdoor-allows-snooping-on-encrypted-messages

A security vulnerability that can be used to allow Facebook and others to intercept and read encrypted messages has been found within its WhatsApp messaging service.

Facebook claims that no one can intercept WhatsApp messages, not even the company and its staff, ensuring privacy for its billion-plus users. But new research shows that the company could in fact read some messages due to the way WhatsApp has implemented its end-to-end encryption protocol.


Should I be worried about the WhatsApp encryption vulnerability?

Privacy campaigners said the vulnerability is a “huge threat to freedom of speech” and warned it could be used by government agencies as a backdoor to snoop on users who believe their messages to be secure.

Some security experts say that the vulnerability is a known and acceptable “trade-off” that makes sense for the majority of WhatsApp’s users, since it makes the app easier to use on a day to day basis. They describe the risk to most users as “remote” since the vulnerability only allows the targeting of individuals or groups of individuals at specific times, rather than widespread mass surveillance of WhatsApp users, and urge users not to switch to less secure platforms.

WhatsApp has made privacy and security a primary selling point, and has become a go to communications tool of activists, dissidents and diplomats.

WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption relies on the generation of unique security keys, using the acclaimed Signal protocol, developed by Open Whisper Systems, that are traded and verified between users to guarantee communications are secure and cannot be intercepted by a middleman.

However, WhatsApp has the ability to force the generation of new encryption keys for offline users, unbeknown to the sender and recipient of the messages, and to make the sender re-encrypt messages with new keys and send them again for any messages that have not been marked as delivered.

The recipient is not made aware of this change in encryption, while the sender is only notified if they have opted-in to encryption warnings in settings, and only after the messages have been re-sent. This re-encryption and rebroadcasting of previously undelivered messages effectively allows WhatsApp to intercept and read some users’ messages.


Sign up to the new-look Media Briefing: bigger, better, brighter
Read more
The security loophole was discovered by Tobias Boelter, a cryptography and security researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. He told the Guardian: “If WhatsApp is asked by a government agency to disclose its messaging records, it can effectively grant access due to the change in keys.”

The vulnerability is not inherent to the Signal protocol. Open Whisper Systems’ messaging app, Signal, the app used and recommended by whistleblower Edward Snowden, does not suffer from the same vulnerability. If a recipient changes the security key while offline, for instance, a sent message will fail to be delivered and the sender will be notified of the change in security keys without automatically resending the message.

WhatsApp’s implementation automatically resends an undelivered message with a new key without warning the user in advance or giving them the ability to prevent it.

Boelter reported the vulnerability to Facebook in April 2016, but was told that Facebook was aware of the issue, that it was “expected behaviour” and wasn’t being actively worked on. The Guardian has verified the loophole still exists.

The WhatsApp vulnerability calls into question the privacy of messages sent across the service used around the world, including by people living in oppressive regimes.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
The WhatsApp vulnerability calls into question the privacy of messages sent across the service used around the world, including by people living in oppressive regimes. Photograph: Marcelo Sayão/EPA
Steffen Tor Jensen, head of information security and digital counter-surveillance at the European-Bahraini Organisation for Human Rights, verified Boelter’s findings. He said: “WhatsApp can effectively continue flipping the security keys when devices are offline and re-sending the message, without letting users know of the change till after it has been made, providing an extremely insecure platform.”

Boelter said: “[Some] might say that this vulnerability could only be abused to snoop on ‘single’ targeted messages, not entire conversations. This is not true if you consider that the WhatsApp server can just forward messages without sending the ‘message was received by recipient’ notification (or the double tick), which users might not notice. Using the retransmission vulnerability, the WhatsApp server can then later get a transcript of the whole conversation, not just a single message.”

The vulnerability calls into question the privacy of messages sent across the service, which is used around the world, including by people living in oppressive regimes.

Professor Kirstie Ball, co-director and founder of the Centre for Research into Information, Surveillance and Privacy, called the existence of a vulnerability within WhatsApp’s encryption “a gold mine for security agencies” and “a huge betrayal of user trust”. She added: “It is a huge threat to freedom of speech, for it to be able to look at what you’re saying if it wants to. Consumers will say, I’ve got nothing to hide, but you don’t know what information is looked for and what connections are being made.”

In the UK, the recently passed Investigatory Powers Act allows the government to intercept bulk data of users held by private companies, without suspicion of criminal activity, similar to the activity of the US National Security Agency uncovered by the Snowden revelations. The government also has the power to force companies to “maintain technical capabilities” that allow data collection through hacking and interception, and requires companies to remove “electronic protection” from data. Intentional or not, WhatsApp’s vulnerability to the end-to-end encryption could be used in such a way to facilitate government interception.

Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “If companies claim to offer end-to-end encryption, they should come clean if it is found to be compromised ... In the UK, the Investigatory Powers Act means that technical capability notices could be used to compel companies to introduce flaws – which could leave people’s data vulnerable.”

A WhatsApp spokesperson told the Guardian: “Over 1 billion people use WhatsApp today because it is simple, fast, reliable and secure. At WhatsApp, we’ve always believed that people’s conversations should be secure and private. Last year, we gave all our users a better level of security by making every message, photo, video, file and call end-to-end encrypted by default. As we introduce features like end-to-end encryption, we focus on keeping the product simple and take into consideration how it’s used every day around the world.

“In WhatsApp’s implementation of the Signal protocol, we have a “Show Security Notifications” setting (option under Settings > Account > Security) that notifies you when a contact’s security code has changed. We know the most common reasons this happens are because someone has switched phones or reinstalled WhatsApp. This is because in many parts of the world, people frequently change devices and Sim cards. In these situations, we want to make sure people’s messages are delivered, not lost in transit.”

Asked to comment specifically on whether Facebook/WhatApps had accessed users’ messages and whether it had done so at the request of government agencies or other third parties, it directed the Guardian to its site that details aggregate data on government requests by country.

WhatsApp later issued another statement saying: “WhatsApp does not give governments a ‘backdoor’ into its systems and would fight any government request to create a backdoor.”

Concerns over the privacy of WhatsApp users have been repeatedly highlighted since Facebook acquired the company for $22bn in 2014. In August 2015, Facebook announced a change to the privacy policy governing WhatsApp that allowed the social network to merge data from WhatsApp users and Facebook, including phone numbers and app usage, for advertising and development purposes.

Facebook halted the use of the shared user data for advertising purposes in November after pressure from the pan-European data protection agency group Article 29 Working Party in October. The European commission then filed charges against Facebook for providing “misleading” information in the run-up to the social network’s acquisition of messaging service WhatsApp, following its data-sharing change.

^ Easier to read on webpage, but I haven't read all of it.

Article  by :
.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/manisha-ganguly

my point was leopard that you posed a challenge ...

Seriously though, give me an example of anything The Guardian has printed that has been shown to be false ( and known prior to printing, as such, by the Editor).

and within a few seconds I found the WhatsApp story.  It wasn't hard.

So, are there lots of others and/or why couldn't you have looked before your challenge.

Are you a typical blinkered thick leftie?

I don't know.

Read this again, slowly (even mouth the words if it helps )

Seriously though, give me an example of anything The Guardian has printed that has been shown to be false ( and known prior to printing, as such, by the Editor).

The Editor did not know it was possibly misnamed as a "backdoor" but they have since fine tuned the wording, whereas the Daily Mail prints rubbish every day.
.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-for-guardian-to-retract-false-whatsapp-backdoor-story/

Guardian :

We ran a series of articles highlighting and discussing a verified vulnerability in WhatsApp and its potential implications.  WhatsApp was approached prior to publication and we included its response in the story, as well as a follow up comment which was received post-publication. While we stand by our reporting we have amended the article’s use of the term ‘backdoor’ in line with the response and footnoted the articles to acknowledge this. We are aware of Zeynep Tufekci’s open letter and have offered her the chance to write a response for the Guardian. This offer remains open and we continue to welcome debate.

leopard, oh leopard.

You post a lot of nonsense on this forum.

Saw your million posts (ok, slight exaggeration, I admit) on the McCann thread.

Please tell me you don't live in the West Midlands and are allowed out.

on march 15th Wilders will win the most amount of seats in the dutch election.

but he will be well short of a majority.

almost all of the other parties will refusetoform a coalition with him.

so they will try and cobble together a coalition minus the biggest single party.

this will lead to a constitutional crisis over there and possibly worse.

Wilders, as leader of the single largest party is likely to demand an IN OUT referendum from the EUSSR.

the EUSSR and establishment politicians in Holland will seek to resist this.

and then the fun will really start.

Democracy in action Burt.

Where public opinion on Brexit stands


In terms of support for Brexit we end the year in pretty much the same place as we were on June 23rd. Among some there is a desire to jump on the slightest bit of evidence to suggest that people have changed their mind one way or the other. Overall however, the polling suggests that public opinion remains largely unchanged.
There have been numerous polls since the referendum that have asked how people would vote in another referendum tomorrow (below are all the polls I can find in the last three months):
ComRes/CNN (18th Dec) – Remain 45, Leave 47 (Remain 49, Leave 51)
Gallup International (7th Dec) – Remain 54, Leave 46 (Remain 54, Leave 46)
ComRes/Mirror (27th Nov) – Remain 46, Leave 47 (Remain 49, Leave 51)
YouGov (25th Oct) – Remain 44, Leave 43 (Remain 51, Leave 49)
BMG (24th Oct) – Remain 45, Leave 43 (Remain 51, Leave 49)
Survation/ITN (12th Oct) – Remain 44, Leave 44 (Remain 50, Leave 50)
All except the Gallup International poll are within the margin of error of the referendum result (I think the contrast is because the Gallup poll has a very large proportion of university educated respondents, which correlates with support for EU membership). On average they show only a small movement towards Remain and – looking closer – even that may be illusionary. Looking at the actual tables for the polls none of them show any real net movement between Remain and Leave voters, the small move to Remain is only because people who didn’t vote last time claim they are more likely to vote Remain this time. I would treat that with some degree of scepticism – of course, it could be those people took the result for granted and would be spurred into action in a second referendum… or it could be those who couldn’t be bothered last time probably wouldn’t be bothered in a second referendum either.
In addition, YouGov have asked a regular question for the Times on whether people think leaving was the right or wrong way for Britain to vote. That too shows no obvious evidence of Bregret:
YouGov (5th Dec) – Right 44%, Wrong 42%
YouGov (29th Nov) – Right 44%, Wrong 45%
YouGov (15th Nov) – Right 46%, Wrong 43%
YouGov (12th Oct) – Right 45%, Wrong 43%
Both sides of the debate have taken other figures to try and claim that the balance of opinion has shifted in their direction. In recent days I’ve seen several people who really should know better getting excited over voodoo polls in local newspapers that claim to show a big shift towards Remain – rather than let this post get overtaken by a rant, I’ve addressed that elsewhere. On the other side of the divide, some Brexit supporters have a tendency to misinterpret this YouGov poll to claim shows 68% now support leaving the EU. This is a little disingenuous – the poll doesn’t show that support for leaving has grown from 52% to 68%, it’s a different question asking about what the government should do. The 68% includes 23% of people who say they do NOT personally support Brexit, but that the government has a duty to do it.
Neither does there appear to be much current appetite for a second referendum. ComRes for CNN found 35% thought there should a referendum on the terms of exit, but 53% thought there should not. A similar recent question by Opinium for Keiran Pedley found very similar results – people opposed a second referendum on the terms of Brexit by 52% to 33% and also opposed one if the economy worsened, again by 52% to 33%. A poll by YouGov found that only 26% of people thought it was legitimate for those opposed to Brexit to campaign for a second referendum, 59% thought it was not.
As things stand public opinion does not appear to have moved since the referendum and people do not want a referendum, but as ever they are only a snapshot, not a prediction of how attitudes to Brexit may change in the future. Is there anything we can tell from current polls about how public attitudes towards Brexit might develop? There are two obvious “known knowns” ahead that could potentially change attitudes to Brexit: the negotiations and the economic impact.
The financial angle depends on what the economic impacts are and how long they take to show themselves. I am not an economist so won’t seek to speculate. I will urge caution though about polls showing that people would turn against Brexit if it cost them x amount of money, caused a recession, unemployment or so on. Should the economy collapse, I have no doubt that it would have a major impact on attitudes to both the government and to Brexit. I am less confident about what impact more modest economic bad news will have. Polls attempting to measure this assume that people will blame any economic ups and down on Brexit, and I don’t think they will – or at least, they will interpret it through the prism of their existing support or opposition. People who opposed Brexit will blame economic bad news on it, but people who supported it will blame it on other factors, or on obstructive Europeans, or Remoaners talking Britain down or whatnot. It is the nature of human beings that we are very good at defending our beliefs against data that might challenge them.
More interesting are the negotiations. We don’t yet know what sort of Brexit the government will be aiming for (well, not in any useful terms. We know what colour Brexit they want, but this is of limited use in judging potential public reactions) but given there are different possibilities and people have different preferences, once firm targets are announced some people will likely be disappointed.
Lots of polling evidence shows that the public would like to maintain free trade with the EU, but would also like to limit EU immigration – in Boris Johnson’s words, the public’s preference is clearly to have their cake and eat it. This is unlikely to be available.
If they have to choose, the polling evidence suggests the public are very evenly divided. There have been various polls using various different wordings that amount to a forced choice between EU market access or cutting EU immigration – all show a tight divide. An ORB poll this month found people agreeing by 44% to 40% that more control over immigration was more important than keeping EU free trade; a YouGov poll in November asking a forced choice between market access for British exporters and reducing immigration broke down as 49% for market access, 51% for immigration; ComRes in November found 42% would prioritise the single market over immigration, 43% would prioritise cutting EU immigration; NatCen found 49% of people said we should accept freedom of movement as the price of staying in the single market, 51% that we should not.
Looking only at immigration vs market access is probably taking to tight a focus anyway. I suspect the public will judge it as a overall package – as a whole, does it seem like a good deal for Britain? Even there is evidence is contradictory though: Opinium asked people to pick between a “soft Brexit” scenario and a “hard Brexit” scenario and people preferred the former by 41% to 35% (though the question also made clear that soft Brexit was economically better, which the public won’t necessarily think). YouGov have asked people to rate a number of scenarios – a hard Brexit on WTO terms, a limited trade deal along the Canadian model and a Norway type deal remaining in the EEA. On those a Canadian type deal polls significantly better than a Norway type relationship – 50% think it would be good for Britain, 65% think it would respect the referendum and 51% would be happy. In comparison the figures for a Norway type outcome would be 34% good for Britain, 33% respect the referendum, 37% happy (WTO terms would also be bad – 34% good for Britain, 66% respect result, 37% happy).
That is the narrow path which Theresa May must navigate – a Brexit that doesn’t mess up Britain’s trading relationship with Europe so much it sinks the economy, yet is not perceived by Leave voters as a betrayal. If we end up with a Brexit that has tougher consequences that some Leave voters expected then there is potential for public opinion to move against it. On the other hand, if we end up with a Brexit that retains more links with the European Union than some Leave voters hoped for there is the potential for a betrayal narrative to take hold, presumably to the benefit of UKIP. Either situation may bring division within the Conservative party, which has only a wafer thin majority to begin with.
Ultimately, I suppose those are two questions that matter about public opinion on Brexit. One, will public opinion move sufficiently against Brexit to make it avoidable? Two, how will it impact on the popularity of the Conservative government and opposition parties?
To answer the first one, as yet there has been little or no net movement in opinion since the referendum, the majority of people think the government have a duty to implement the results of the referendum and and the majority of people are opposed to revisiting the question. However, given the vote was only 52-48 it wouldn’t take much to tip opinion in favour of staying once the consequences become a bit more visible. It remains to be seen if the negotiations or economic developments do change things. Getting majority support for a second referendum is a much bigger ask and would be a necessity if there is any chance of a second referendum (well, counting 1975 a third referendum) has any chance of delivering a different result to 2016. Anti-elitism was an important factor in the vote, and the perception that an uncaring and distant political elite didn’t like what the public said so wants them to vote again differently would be a very powerful narrative.
As for the political parties, Brexit is the mission that has been forced upon Theresa May’s government and the yardstick they will inevitably be judged by. Thus far the public think they have been carrying it out badly, yet this has not damaged their position in the polls (presumably because it is still early days). If Brexit doesn’t work out well for them, they will suffer – especially given the high expectations of some Brexit supporters. The government’s great challenge will be to sell the compromises that will be necessary, the difficulty will be persuading the public that such compromises are either unavoidable or in Britain’s interests… as opposed to being the result of government ineptitude, backsliding or lack of ambition. If people believe the latter – that a government led by someone who never really wanted Brexit anyway is failing to be ambitious enough in our Brexit negotiations, I imagine it will be UKIP who benefit. If they deliver Brexit that’s hardness is beyond doubt, but the economy collapses, who knows who will benefit…

Bigmo, could you post a fuller version, please?

Feb 6, 2017 -- 9:46AM, mememe wrote:

leopard, oh leopard.You post a lot of nonsense on this forum.Saw your million posts (ok, slight exaggeration, I admit) on the McCann thread.Please tell me you don't live in the West Midlands and are allowed out.

I have hardly ever posted on the McCann thread ....are you trying to create Fake facts.

The McCanns are innocent....any sane person can see that.

The Leopard ...

apologies, I thought it was the McCann thread ... but you are a prolofic poster of tosh - and I keep seeing you everywhere.

You didn't answer my question though,    Please tell me you don't live in the West Midlands and are allowed out.

Asking for a friend, like

I beg to differ.....you are the poster of right-wing Tosh.....all my posts are true and factually correct.

It's because you're intellectually challenged you see my posts as tosh.

And I do sometimes use big words.

No you don't

Notwithstanding your previous post ...

I used big words ...

see And I do sometimes use big words.

You are the one who is intellectually challenged as you are backing Trump....... and Farage has become a joke the way he sucks up to "IT"