badgerx16

But surely, at present, the price to a customer in the continental market will have dropped by virtue of the drop in exchange rates, and consequently the introduction of tarriffs would increase the price as compared to the current situation ?

But surely, at present, the price to a customer in the continental market will have dropped by virtue of the drop in exchange rates, and consequently the introduction of tarriffs would increase the price as compared to the current situation ?

Stones

I've not seen a lot of magnanimity on here.

Is there such a thing as a "sore winner" ?

We haven't left yet

Which game were you watching ?

We are cup-tying Yoshi.

Unlucky.

Wes whilst you are quite correct, there were several TV interviews immediately before and after the vote where interviewees stated that their vote was a protest against David Cameron specifically, or the Tory Government in general. ( There was also a snippet on Channel 4 where a man said he voted to leave the EU "to keep out Iraqi immigrants" ).

Being as we've only played Man U & Arsenal out of the top teams, and both away, that's a bit weak as punditry goes.

Because then you might understand more of what people are posting.

You should take a wider view of sport.

There is a lot that can be criticised in the process of bringing an accused person to trial, but the underlying principle has always been that the prosecution must prove their case - "innocent until proven guilty". Whether accused of crimes against children, or stealing an old lady's handbag, the standard is the same.

"You're happy to see a parallel legal system operate in the UK, regardless of it discriminating against women.......". If that is simply a 'yes/no' question then the answer would be no - a simple answer to a simple question, easy for you to understand. It CANNOT be allowed to discriminate against women, as that contradicts UK Common Law. However, I read it as a nuanced question with a conditional answer; I am quite content that Sharia, as with the Jewish religious law, can be applied in circumstances that do not run counter to the broader principles of UK law and social integration. As I stated in an earlier post, any 'parallel' system cannot be seen to be impose upon, over rule, or contradict UK Common Law. Here is a 'yes/no' question for you - can you understand the above paragraph ?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it that you cannot understand the following sentence; "If there are 2 people who agree to settle a domestic dispute by the intervention of a particular third party agent, and both accept the ruling as binding, is there a problem ?".

You seem to be incapable of understanding clearly written English, bizarre.

75.3% of statistics quoted by Brexiteers might be, it's only 69.7% of those used by Remainers.

Why are people expected to repeat statements ad nauseum ? Read through my earlier posts and come to your own judgement.

Well, we've already covered 3 on this page, and when you add in the Canon Law of the CofE & the Romans then that's 5 already. I suppose that we'll also have to add in European Law, at least for the next 2 years, so it seems I'm at least happy with 6 ! However, the key thing is that there is a clear adherence to the principle that the Civil Law of the UK is always paramount.

Who would want to saddle themselves with 4 Mothers-in-Law ?

Did I say that ? If there are 2 people who agree to settle a domestic dispute by the intervention of a particular third party agent, and both accept the ruling as binding, is there a problem ?

If it's for domestic issues, ( for instance as reported in the link below ), and there is no adverse social impact beyond those directly involved, then no, I don't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

If you have a problem with Sharia being used to rule on domestic issues, do you feel the same about the Beth Din being applied by Jews ?

Surely you're not implying that the facts are being distorted and used to mislead the gullible ?