EU Paid ?160 Million to Pro-Remain Groups

[Ophelia]

Christine Lagarde is making yet another doom-mongering 'major intervention'
at 10am, with that ?400 million fraud trial still looming over her.

The IMF chief will again warn against Brexit during a meeting with Osborne
at the Treasury, a geo-political courtesy return favour to the Chancellor,
who campaigned hard for her to get the job. Like pretty much every group
Remain have wheeled out, the IMF has received funding from the European
Commission. Pro-Remain groups which have made referendum interventions have
received ?160 million from the Commission in the last nine years

PwC warned leaving would cause a "serious shock" - no kidding, they're
bankrolled by the Commission to the tune of ?16 million. LSE say we're
better off Remaining - they certainly are having received ?18 million. The
WWF says EU membership "benefits our environment" - it benefits theirs by
?46 million.

Remain have barely named a group supporting them which hasn't received huge
amounts from the Commission. He who pays the piper.

http://order-order.com/2016/05/13/eu-paid-e160-million-to-pro-remain-groups/

[7]

Post by Ophelia
Christine Lagarde is making yet another doom-mongering 'major
intervention' at 10am, with that ?400 million fraud trial still looming
over her.
The IMF chief will again warn against Brexit during a meeting with Osborne
at the Treasury, a geo-political courtesy return favour to the Chancellor,
who campaigned hard for her to get the job. Like pretty much every group
Remain have wheeled out, the IMF has received funding from the European
Commission. Pro-Remain groups which have made referendum interventions
have received ?160 million from the Commission in the last nine years

Troll!!!

9 years? ;)


Do you qualify as a geriatric brextard with policies?

Then its also possible you point at this and that and
wail all day with nothing of your own to show.

[Juan Carr]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@enemygadgets.com
says...

Post by 7
Troll!!!
9 years? ;)
Do you qualify as a geriatric brextard with policies?
Then its also possible you point at this and that and
wail all day with nothing of your own to show.

You DO realise that when you play the (wo)man and not the ball
(particularly, labelling someone as a troll simply because they have an
opinion that you disagree with) then your point of view becomes null and
void?

Try answering the points originally made with a reasoned argument /
rebuttal.

It's how grown-ups debate things.

You have not been charged for this lesson.

[7]

Post by Juan Carr
says...

Post by 7
Troll!!!
9 years? ;)
Do you qualify as a geriatric brextard with policies?
Then its also possible you point at this and that and
wail all day with nothing of your own to show.

You DO realise that when you play the (wo)man and not the ball
(particularly, labelling someone as a troll simply because they have an
opinion that you disagree with) then your point of view becomes null and
void?
Try answering the points originally made with a reasoned argument /
rebuttal.

LOL is the best rebuttal you are going to get on this one. 9 years??

Post by Juan Carr
It's how grown-ups debate things.

If you can survive a LOL, you can survive anything.

Post by Juan Carr
You have not been charged for this lesson.

So what is your answer to this LOL ?

Is it justifiable to bring 9 years old ropey material to a debate?

[GB]

Post by Ophelia
PwC warned leaving would cause a "serious shock" - no kidding, they're
bankrolled by the Commission to the tune of ?16 million. LSE say we're
better off Remaining - they certainly are having received ?18 million. The
WWF says EU membership "benefits our environment" - it benefits theirs by
?46 million.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that LSE has received an
average of £2m a year from the EU over the last 9 years, and their
academic integrity has been bought for this. Interesting. That's well
under 1% of their income, so they are pretty damn cheap to buy.

Let's turn to PwC. They also received around £2m a year. Their global
income is $35 billion! So, they can be bought for under .01% of their
annual income. That's an incredible bargain.

You don't think much of these people, do you? You think they can be
bribed - that's bad enough. But so cheaply!

The alternative is that they are telling the truth, and you just don't
like it. So, you libel them. Or, rather, you repeat somebody else's
libel. Shame on you!

[Ophelia]

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia
PwC warned leaving would cause a "serious shock" - no kidding, they're
bankrolled by the Commission to the tune of ?16 million. LSE say we're
better off Remaining - they certainly are having received ?18 million. The
WWF says EU membership "benefits our environment" - it benefits theirs by
?46 million.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that LSE has received an
average of £2m a year from the EU over the last 9 years, and their
academic integrity has been bought for this. Interesting. That's well
under 1% of their income, so they are pretty damn cheap to buy.
Let's turn to PwC. They also received around £2m a year. Their global
income is $35 billion! So, they can be bought for under .01% of their
annual income. That's an incredible bargain.
You don't think much of these people, do you? You think they can be
bribed - that's bad enough. But so cheaply!
The alternative is that they are telling the truth, and you just don't
like it. So, you libel them. Or, rather, you repeat somebody else's libel.
Shame on you!

Are you thick????

I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

[7]

Post by Ophelia

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia
PwC warned leaving would cause a "serious shock" - no kidding, they're
bankrolled by the Commission to the tune of ?16 million. LSE say we're
better off Remaining - they certainly are having received ?18 million. The
WWF says EU membership "benefits our environment" - it benefits theirs
by ?46 million.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that LSE has received an
average of £2m a year from the EU over the last 9 years, and their
academic integrity has been bought for this. Interesting. That's well
under 1% of their income, so they are pretty damn cheap to buy.
Let's turn to PwC. They also received around £2m a year. Their global
income is $35 billion! So, they can be bought for under .01% of their
annual income. That's an incredible bargain.
You don't think much of these people, do you? You think they can be
bribed - that's bad enough. But so cheaply!
The alternative is that they are telling the truth, and you just don't
like it. So, you libel them. Or, rather, you repeat somebody else's
libel. Shame on you!

Are you thick????
I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

Look I admit I am thick as a plank.

At least 3 of these inches are thicker than other parts of this plank.

What do geriatric brextards offer today that I can vote on ?

If you are pointing and trolling us
with EU paid x millions of euros, I don't care.

Even after admitting to being a substantial thickie, why would I care?

What are brextards offering that I can vote on today?

[GB]

Post by Ophelia

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia
PwC warned leaving would cause a "serious shock" - no kidding, they're
bankrolled by the Commission to the tune of ?16 million. LSE say we're
better off Remaining - they certainly are having received ?18 million. The
WWF says EU membership "benefits our environment" - it benefits theirs by
?46 million.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that LSE has received an
average of £2m a year from the EU over the last 9 years, and their
academic integrity has been bought for this. Interesting. That's well
under 1% of their income, so they are pretty damn cheap to buy.
Let's turn to PwC. They also received around £2m a year. Their global
income is $35 billion! So, they can be bought for under .01% of their
annual income. That's an incredible bargain.
You don't think much of these people, do you? You think they can be
bribed - that's bad enough. But so cheaply!
The alternative is that they are telling the truth, and you just don't
like it. So, you libel them. Or, rather, you repeat somebody else's libel.
Shame on you!

Are you thick????

Nope. I am sure of that.

Post by Ophelia
I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

Indeed, you did. So, if it's libellous (which it almost certainly is,
but I'm not a lawyer), you published the libel. However, that's not
really the point. I think it's most unlikely anyone will sue you for it.

The point is that you copied that nasty little smear, because you
apparently think it's important. I was just pointing out that it isn't
important, and if you had been even slightly thoughtful and googled the
income of PwC and LSE you'd have realised how incredibly silly "Guido
Fawkes" is.

You have a perfectly good brain, and I'm suggesting that it's shameful
that you're not using it.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia
PwC warned leaving would cause a "serious shock" - no kidding, they're
bankrolled by the Commission to the tune of ?16 million. LSE say we're
better off Remaining - they certainly are having received ?18 million. The
WWF says EU membership "benefits our environment" - it benefits theirs by
?46 million.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that LSE has received an
average of £2m a year from the EU over the last 9 years, and their
academic integrity has been bought for this. Interesting. That's well
under 1% of their income, so they are pretty damn cheap to buy.
Let's turn to PwC. They also received around £2m a year. Their global
income is $35 billion! So, they can be bought for under .01% of their
annual income. That's an incredible bargain.
You don't think much of these people, do you? You think they can be
bribed - that's bad enough. But so cheaply!
The alternative is that they are telling the truth, and you just don't
like it. So, you libel them. Or, rather, you repeat somebody else's libel.
Shame on you!

Are you thick????

Nope. I am sure of that.

Post by Ophelia
I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

Indeed, you did. So, if it's libellous (which it almost certainly is,
but I'm not a lawyer), you published the libel. However, that's not
really the point. I think it's most unlikely anyone will sue you for it.
The point is that you copied that nasty little smear, because you
apparently think it's important. I was just pointing out that it isn't
important, and if you had been even slightly thoughtful and googled the
income of PwC and LSE you'd have realised how incredibly silly "Guido
Fawkes" is.
You have a perfectly good brain, and I'm suggesting that it's shameful
that you're not using it.

For Brexiteers it is an item of faith that things will be just great if we leave.

For anyone using their head it is a matter of near certain fact that things will be substantially worse if we leave.

Indeed things would probably be so bad that we would go crawling back within a few years, but then we would have to take the standard deal, not the rather cushy one we have at the moment...

[tim...]

Post by R. Mark Clayton
For Brexiteers it is an item of faith that things will be just great if we leave.

OTOH for corporate of any kind they think:

"this will be good for us"

so we'll just go and say

"it will be good for all of you"

I don't doubt for one minute that PCW have (correctly) calculated that
leaving Europe will be bad for them and every other mega-million
corporation.

It is the extrapolation that it will therefore be bad for every citizen, I
don't believe

Post by R. Mark Clayton
For anyone using their head it is a matter of near certain fact that
things will be substantially worse if we leave.

As I have asked before

define worse?

The inners simply use this good/bad evaluation to mean "total GDP" and hence
per-capita GDP

but for the average citizen it is broader that that and there are many
people who think that the "other" advantages of being out will outweigh any
long term loss of income that they may suffer. Especially when you consider
that simply earning less many not affect your cost of living if leaving the
EU makes the basket of things that you personally need to pay for cheaper.

So, there are loads of people who can use their heads and conclude "leaving
the EU will be near certainly better for me"

Post by R. Mark Clayton
Indeed things would probably be so bad that we would go crawling back
within a few years, but then we would have to take the standard deal, not
the rather cushy one we have at the moment...

Like the Norwegians do?

tim

[Ophelia]

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia
PwC warned leaving would cause a "serious shock" - no kidding, they're
bankrolled by the Commission to the tune of ?16 million. LSE say we're
better off Remaining - they certainly are having received ?18 million. The
WWF says EU membership "benefits our environment" - it benefits theirs by
?46 million.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that LSE has received an
average of £2m a year from the EU over the last 9 years, and their
academic integrity has been bought for this. Interesting. That's well
under 1% of their income, so they are pretty damn cheap to buy.
Let's turn to PwC. They also received around £2m a year. Their global
income is $35 billion! So, they can be bought for under .01% of their
annual income. That's an incredible bargain.
You don't think much of these people, do you? You think they can be
bribed - that's bad enough. But so cheaply!
The alternative is that they are telling the truth, and you just don't
like it. So, you libel them. Or, rather, you repeat somebody else's libel.
Shame on you!

Are you thick????

Nope. I am sure of that.

Post by Ophelia
I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

Indeed, you did. So, if it's libellous (which it almost certainly is, but
I'm not a lawyer), you published the libel. However, that's not really the
point. I think it's most unlikely anyone will sue you for it.
The point is that you copied that nasty little smear, because you
apparently think it's important. I was just pointing out that it isn't
important, and if you had been even slightly thoughtful and googled the
income of PwC and LSE you'd have realised how incredibly silly "Guido
Fawkes" is.
You have a perfectly good brain, and I'm suggesting that it's shameful
that you're not using it.

I will continue to copy his published pieces if I wish. If you don't like
it, prove him wrong, and do it legally.

[GB]

Post by Ophelia
I will continue to copy his published pieces if I wish. If you don't
like it, prove him wrong, and do it legally.

Of course you can copy whatever you wish. I was merely suggesting that
you think about it first.

I have no idea what you mean by "do it legally"?

[Ophelia]

Post by Ophelia
I will continue to copy his published pieces if I wish. If you don't
like it, prove him wrong, and do it legally.

Of course you can copy whatever you wish. I was merely suggesting that you
think about it first.
I have no idea what you mean by "do it legally"?

You are the one who brought up legalities.

Is this your way of bullying someone who posts stuff you don't like?

[GB]

Post by Ophelia

Post by Ophelia
I will continue to copy his published pieces if I wish. If you don't
like it, prove him wrong, and do it legally.

Of course you can copy whatever you wish. I was merely suggesting that you
think about it first.
I have no idea what you mean by "do it legally"?

You are the one who brought up legalities.
Is this your way of bullying someone who posts stuff you don't like?

I just pointed out that you posted a nasty little slur. I then said that
I thought the chances of you being sued were negligible, but I urged you
to think a bit more carefully before posting stuff that is damaging to
other people's reputations.

I'm sorry if you regard that as bullying.

[Ophelia]

I just pointed out that you posted a nasty little slur. I then said that I
thought the chances of you being sued were negligible, but I urged you to
think a bit more carefully before posting stuff that is damaging to other
people's reputations.
I'm sorry if you regard that as bullying.

I see you totally disregarded Colin Bignell's comments.

Let me copy them for you ...
...

Post by Ophelia
I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

Indeed, you did. So, if it's libellous (which it almost certainly is,
but I'm not a lawyer),..

"Probably not. The article simply lists amounts received by various
organisations from the EU, which presumably can be proven. The rest is
implication. It would probably only be libellous if explicit accusations
of bribery were made.

Of course, the EU funds so many organisations that it would probably be
quite difficult to find any that they don't fund. Indeed, it would seem
that Civitas, one of the very few organisations that has supported
Brexit, has also received a few million Euro from the EU."

I await your comments to him!

Meanwhile, if you take such great exception to what I post, may I direct you
to your killfile?

[GB]

Post by Ophelia

Post by GB
I just pointed out that you posted a nasty little slur. I then said
that I thought the chances of you being sued were negligible, but I
urged you to think a bit more carefully before posting stuff that is
damaging to other people's reputations.
I'm sorry if you regard that as bullying.

I see you totally disregarded Colin Bignell's comments.

No, I didn't, as it happens.

Are you denying that what you posted is a nasty little slur? Shame on
you for doing that. It really doesn't matter whether it's actionable.

[Ophelia]

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia

Post by GB
I just pointed out that you posted a nasty little slur. I then said
that I thought the chances of you being sued were negligible, but I
urged you to think a bit more carefully before posting stuff that is
damaging to other people's reputations.
I'm sorry if you regard that as bullying.

I see you totally disregarded Colin Bignell's comments.

No, I didn't, as it happens.
Are you denying that what you posted is a nasty little slur? Shame on you
for doing that. It really doesn't matter whether it's actionable.

Let me try to explain in a manner even you can understand. This is a
discussion group! Things which are posted are up for discussion. It is
quite obvious you have no idea how to discuss anything with which you don't
agree without name calling. Colin put forward his opinion which is A Good
Thing. Try to learn from it?

Now, go bully someone else who post something you dislike or is it because I
am a woman and you thing you can get away with it ... Indeed your posts to
me are nasty little slurs!

[GB]

Post by Ophelia

Post by GB
Are you denying that what you posted is a nasty little slur? Shame on
you for doing that. It really doesn't matter whether it's actionable.

Let me try to explain in a manner even you can understand. This is a
discussion group! Things which are posted are up for discussion. It is
quite obvious you have no idea how to discuss anything with which you
don't agree without name calling. Colin put forward his opinion which
is A Good Thing. Try to learn from it?

Well, Colin said that it is *probably* not libellous. Neither he nor I
is a lawyer.

I don't know what you mean by name-calling? I haven't called you
anything. I said that what you quoted was a shameful slur, and I notice
that you haven't denied that.

You, on the other hand, started off by saying "Are you thick????"

Post by Ophelia
Now, go bully someone else who post something you dislike or is it
because I am a woman and you thing you can get away with it ... Indeed
your posts to me are nasty little slurs!

That sounds like a pretty desperate argument.

[Ophelia]

Post by Ophelia

Post by GB
Are you denying that what you posted is a nasty little slur? Shame on
you for doing that. It really doesn't matter whether it's actionable.

Let me try to explain in a manner even you can understand. This is a
discussion group! Things which are posted are up for discussion. It is
quite obvious you have no idea how to discuss anything with which you
don't agree without name calling. Colin put forward his opinion which
is A Good Thing. Try to learn from it?

Well, Colin said that it is *probably* not libellous. Neither he nor I is
a lawyer.
I don't know what you mean by name-calling? I haven't called you anything.
I said that what you quoted was a shameful slur, and I notice that you
haven't denied that.
You, on the other hand, started off by saying "Are you thick????"

Post by Ophelia
Now, go bully someone else who post something you dislike or is it
because I am a woman and you thing you can get away with it ... Indeed
your posts to me are nasty little slurs!

That sounds like a pretty desperate argument.

The only desperate one is you. Please go find someone else to play with!

[unknown]

...

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia
I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

Indeed, you did. So, if it's libellous (which it almost certainly is,
but I'm not a lawyer),..

Probably not. The article simply lists amounts received by various
organisations from the EU, which presumably can be proven. The rest is
implication. It would probably only be libellous if explicit accusations
of bribery were made.

Of course, the EU funds so many organisations that it would probably be
quite difficult to find any that they don't fund. Indeed, it would seem
that Civitas, one of the very few organisations that has supported
Brexit, has also received a few million Euro from the EU.

[tim...]

Post by unknown
...

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia
I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

Indeed, you did. So, if it's libellous (which it almost certainly is,
but I'm not a lawyer),..

Probably not. The article simply lists amounts received by various
organisations from the EU, which presumably can be proven. The rest is
implication. It would probably only be libellous if explicit accusations
of bribery were made.
Of course, the EU funds so many organisations that it would probably be
quite difficult to find any that they don't fund.

They don't give anything to my company - sadly :-(

tim

[unknown]

Post by tim...

Post by unknown
...

Post by GB

Post by Ophelia
I copied a piece from Guido Fawkes!

Indeed, you did. So, if it's libellous (which it almost certainly is,
but I'm not a lawyer),..

Probably not. The article simply lists amounts received by various
organisations from the EU, which presumably can be proven. The rest is
implication. It would probably only be libellous if explicit
accusations of bribery were made.
Of course, the EU funds so many organisations that it would probably
be quite difficult to find any that they don't fund.

They don't give anything to my company - sadly :-(

Have you asked for any?

[burfordTjustice]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 18:33:20 +0100

Subject: EU Paid ?160 Million to Pro-Remain Groups
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 18:33:20 +0100
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,uk.legal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8050.1202

It is all part of the showmanship game for the subjects
to see.

UK will not leave the EU no matter how the subjects vote.
The deal is done and gift wrapped.