Cliff Edge anyone?

Which paper was the GSK article from this morning ww?

That's interesting, whitewave.

So if we leave the EU without an agreement, we have to trade under WTO rules, which say that we cannot favour the US over the EU.
I wonder if May and trump know.

Lots more information where that came from.

PS I have pm'd you about GSK.

ww just an ill- informed opinion. I've read up on it now at

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/brexit-explained/brexit-explained-10-things-know-about-world-trade-organization-wto

I wish you'd share which paper whitewave

Are you scared of being caught out again?

primrose you appear not to be reading posts very thoroughly or at least only taking on board what you want.

But what you seem to have deliberately overlooked is that I mentioned that I had been talking to my daughter. She is a PhD working as a micro-biologist in GSKs laboratories. Are you questioning the accuracy of what she has been told? I noticed that the papers had information relating to this company so mentioned in my post in order to ensure some sort of reference. However, my daughter has clearly much more detailed information, which you don't need to know.

Again? What do you mean by that remark? primrose

How giving a reference to my posts make them ill-informed opinion?

And this is GSK in Durham, which shows how much less is being spent in the future compared to what was said last year.

www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/business/15420962.GlaxoSmithKline_reveals___39m_Barnard_Castle_investment_plan___but_some_jobs_could_be_affected_in_separate_sale/

It looks to me like moving the deckchairs on the Titanic.

What do you mean by being caught out again * primrose* Are you saying that I have previously lied?

So why didn't you mention that your daughter told you that the £350m was being spent in Europe instead? Why say that was in 'the papers' when it so obviously wasn't.

That's misleading.

If it wasn't part of the press release, I'm not sure it's a smart move to start posting it on web forums. That might be commercially sensitive. You could be dropping your daughter right in it.

primrose you are so desperate to prove me wrong you are really beginning to sound ridiculous. How on earth can you presume to know what is or what is not commercial confidentiality, in relation to GSK? Do you really think I would "drop my daughter In it" for goodness sake? get a grip.

Since I have come back onto this forum this evening you have accused me of potentially lieing again, and are now trying to say that I have misled and released commercially sensitive information. What on earth is your problem? I can happily ignore all your posts until they are directed at me, as as far as I am concerned you have nothing to say that interests me why can't you treat mine in the same way.

WhiteWave
Your post @18.41 states very clearly we will then have to reapply
That is clearly wrong. The primrose link is from the Institute for Government.
They state very clearly that: the uk is a member of the WTO in its own right, it does not have to reapply to join the WTO once it leaves the eu.
If possible could you link to where you read that we have to reapply. If not, I'll believe what the Institute of Government states.

Hello. We've deleted this as it accuses another poster of bullying which is not allowed.

Hello. We've deleted this as it accuses another poster of trolling which is not allowed. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

What do you think the Institute for Government is, petra?
It's just a think tank, like any other think tank. The director is a journalist.

As is Ian Dunt! Political editor of the Erotic Review, no less!

Really? I'll take your word for that and not ask how you know.
I prefer to think of him at

www.politics.co.uk

If you're going to accuse a poster of 'trolling' whitewave, report them to GN or shut up about it.

ww I am certainly not trolling you. It's a shame that we couldn't debate GSK today, as it's an interesting topic, but nothing to do with Brexit (today). Because of the way it was posted, it's lead to confusion and argument.
When you post information in a way that makes it looks like it's reported as news - by saying things like 'in the papers' - and no one else can find it, it leads to confusion.
All I wanted to do was read something that, quite obviously, doesn't exist. There's enough real news out there to discuss, there's no need to create it.

www.theguardian.com/profile/dunt-ian

I still don't want to know why you noticed that.

You could have debated GSK if you hadn't gone on and on at whitewave about her sources. You weren't interested in it, just in asking where she got the information, asking the same question ad nauseam.
What do you know about GSK?

durhamjen I didn't ask for 'her sources', I simply wanted to know which paper she got the information from, because it sounded different to all the other news reports. This means it could have been a different report or it could have contained more or different information.
It can be frustrating for everyone if you discuss one news article and everyone else is talking about a different one.

I still don't understand why asking for clarity is such a big deal.

And I don't understand why dj is getting so hot under the collar at someone else taking a leaf out of her book and asking where information has come from. She is usually keen to have all Ts dotted and Is crossed.

Which paper did you get it from/ read it in? Is that not asking for sources? 4 times.