"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 16:55 5 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/10/17 14:41, pamela wrote:
On 21:58 3 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 01:52 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/10/17 23:06, pamela wrote:
For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those
who were in it.

Only the politicians, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

In that case we shouldn't worry if we get no concessions in
these negotiations because, according to what you wrote, we
will still be better off.

Great.

Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the EU
and still be better off.

Dp you have any links or cites to support that? I would be
interested to see them.

Why? Can't you think for yourself?

Oh. No. I forgot. You are a lefty-recieved-wisdom-remoaner and
you believe what people tell you.

As long as they work at the Beeb or write for the Guardian

Bless!

There must be some data to prove or disprove the claim that
"we can subsidise all our exports to the EU and still be better off."

No need for any subsidy for aircraft engines,
wings, docos, TV series, the best single malt
scotch etc etc etc or financial services in spades.

And no data yet given Britain is still in the EU.

It's not a thought experiment.

But there is no data to do the proving or disproving.

The most it can ever be at the moment is speculation/prediction.