£100 Million To be spent on NO DEAL Marketing Campaign

[ellal]

How does it compare to the benefits of leaving? The ones that the leavers can't define?

Apparently a 'benefit' will be that UK farmers will soon be able to sell their lamb to Japan.
(but only if the EU trade deal is extended to the UK as a 'third country')

By the government's own figures it'll be worth a whopping £10m a year.

Nothing of course compared to the £390m a year that they currently sell to the EU that would be subject to a 40% tariff if we 'no deal' and thus become an uneconomical export.

The UK currently exports about 40% of the lamb it produces, and the European Union accounts for more than 90% of those exports.

Thus the predicted civil unrest we hear about will probably include farmers burning sheep on a far greater scale than the french ever did.

Dumb quitters!

 

[gasbanni]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You really still believe that?

The cost is about £170 million a week. But we get a lot of benefits, we're not just paying for nothing ... in fact, some people say that for every £1 we pay in, we get £10 back.

So, by not paying £170 million a week, the economy will be about £1.5 billion a week worse off. Is that a good deal?

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-eu-budget-and-uk-contributions-the-facts-2013/




Not everything that liars paint on the side of a buses is true ...

Are you stupid ? " No it's £170,000,000 so it's ok ! " .... numpty.

 

[gasbanni]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. You really still believe that?

The cost is about £170 million a week. But we get a lot of benefits, we're not just paying for nothing ... in fact, some people say that for every £1 we pay in, we get £10 back.

So, by not paying £170 million a week, the economy will be about £1.5 billion a week worse off. Is that a good deal?

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-eu-budget-and-uk-contributions-the-facts-2013/

Not everything that liars paint on the side of a buses is true ...

You blinkered fool.

 

[JP_]

Sorry, don't understand what you are saying? You think spending 170 million to have an economy that's 1.5 billion richer is a bad thing?

Or are you just disputing what the economists say?