On 17 May 2016 at 12:56am Trump Fan. wrote:
Once again Donald Trump shows how eminently suitable he is to be the president of the USA."Britain wouldn't be hurt "at all" in terms of trade negotiations with the United States if it exited the European Union, Donald Trump says."I don't think they'll be hurt at all. I mean, they'll have to make their own deal. Britain's been a great ally," he said in an interview with ITV's "Good Morning Britain" host Piers Morgan."Britain's such a great ally that they went into things that they shouldn't have gone into -- like, as an example, going into Iraq, OK? With me, they'll always been treated fantastically," he said. We should start to develop close links with this great man now, as he will be our greatest ally when we leave the EU.I think Boris an Donald will develop the same kind of close relationship that Thatcher and Reagan enjoyed.We need much closer relations with President Trump and the US when we tell the EU where to stick it and leave in June.
Check it out here »
On 17 May 2016 at 2:10am wrote:
You're clearly a troll. Nobody is really dumb enough to actually think like that.
On 17 May 2016 at 7:02am Earl of Lewes wrote:
The Trump issue is separate from the EU and your weak attempt at reverse psychology comes across as a little desperate. US presidents come and go. Also, Trump is behind Hillary in the polls.
On 17 May 2016 at 7:29am pn wrote:
There is a link in that Trump has traded on the immigration issue as have Brexit .The reason Gove is saying that we will be taken of the single market altogether is so he can claim we can close our borders .
Incidentally we have lost a good portion of a quarters growth already due to fears in the market that we are about to commit economic suicide .
If it goes on like this the effects will soon be felt in cuts and interest rates
On 17 May 2016 at 1:32pm Sensible wrote:
Paul you are unwell. Please do stop with your constant lies and doom mongering that are backed up by no evidence.
Whether independence comes into effect in 2017, 2018 or 2019, what will it look like? Well, the first day after Brexit will look pretty much like the previous day. All our existing arrangements will remain in place until one side or the other chooses to abandon them. We’d begin from a position of having all the same technical standards as the other EU states, all the reciprocal deals on social security, all the trade deals. What Brexit means is the freedom to start altering those deals.
Now plainly there will be some alterations: otherwise there’d be no point in Brexit. There will be areas where we want to pull out of common EU policies, because the cost of compliance outweighs the benefit of having the same rules as neighbouring states. At the same time, the other member states may well want to push ahead with deeper integration without us. But that process will be gradual and cumulative.
The man who put it best, oddly enough, was the leader of the Remain side, Stuart Rose: “It’s not going to be a step change, it’s going to be a gentle process.”
Lord Rose went on, before his horrified spin-doctors could shut him up: “Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change. Then, if you look back ten years later, there will have been some change, and if you look back 15 years later there will have been some.”
Quite. The really radical break is not voting to leave; it’s voting to stay, and thus acquiescing in the EU’s continuing economic, political, fiscal and military amalgamation, in more bailouts, in the unfolding migration disaster.
Voting to leave is the way to avoid these risks. It is, for that reason, the safer option. Leaving won’t be a sudden rupture, but a gradual reorientation. The United Kingdom will begin to follow a different trajectory, away from the enervated and distempered eurozone and toward more opulent markets across the oceans.
On 17 May 2016 at 1:43pm Not quite sensible wrote:
I agree in principle sensible, but god know where you got your timings from...
EU rules put a limit of 2 years maximum to leave (do you want to guess again?), you're talking about 1 persons "opinion" and quoting it as a fact.
Other than the timescale I don't disagree with what you're saying, but ffs do not quote an opinion as fact (the "fact" is we will need to leave in 2 years maximum).
On 17 May 2016 at 2:13pm sensible wrote:
Calm down I didn't use the word 'fact' once...
The 2 years is a timeframe and can be extended with agreement from both parties if the negotiations prove unsatisfactory to both parties.
On 17 May 2016 at 2:40pm Not quite sensible wrote:
You also didn't use the word "opinion" and you also start your post by commenting that PN is offering an opinion backed up by no evidence.
And then go on to do exactly the same thing yourself.
The EU has categorically said 2 years is the maximum it is not a starting point to be negotiate from, your post is rubbish as a result.
And as I said I do agree with the principle of your argument but from 2 years to potentially 15 years... Seriously?
On 17 May 2016 at 3:05pm Sensible wrote:
calm down..
PN always offers us his 'opinion' usually sexist, usually bigoted but always backed up by no evidence nor does he ever apologise when his lies and mistruths are exposed.
Here's what Fraser Nelson at the spectator said about the two year 'maximum' lie.
'The UK can take all the time it wants to leave the EU. Its rules require us to give two years’ notice, which we can do any time we want. Formal negotiations start within the two year period, but the UK talks to all of its European partners all the time: much work can be done before the formal process starts. So if we want six years, then we would give notice after four years. The two-year period is a minimum'
So yes you could invoke article 50 after 13 years of preparation and then have 2 years to complete it and it would be 15 years.
Instead of getting wound up and saying my post is rubbish perhaps you should do some more research.
Fraser Nelson ends by saying:
As a Europhile, I had genuinely – if naively – believed that it was possible to make the case for ‘in’ without resorting to rank dishonesty. And again, perhaps naively, I had thought that a former head of the civil service like Gus O’Donnell would intervene to help improve the public’s understanding of EU rules. To question, rather than reinforce, the false notion that we have a maximum of two years to renegotiate trade deals.'
On 17 May 2016 at 3:48pm Not quite sensible wrote:
One of us needs to read more (facts not peoples opinions), there are two ways it could be extended:
1. article 50 of the Treaty on European Union states 2 years can only be extended with unanimous support (that will never happen)
2. We don't give immediate notice
So you're assuming a hell of a lot (ie it *could* be four years before we give notice), not sure what you're basing it on (opinion and limited knowledge).
When the referendum was put before the house of commons it was clearly explained how it will happen and I'll quote David Camoron here:
“if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start
straight away”
Do you want to guess again???
The fact is
Check it out here »
On 17 May 2016 at 4:56pm Clifford wrote:
I love the way Paul Newman ascribes the UK's faltering growth to the referendum debate. Nothing to do, eh Paul. with the absolute incompetence of the government and its 'long term economic plan'? I'm surprised Paul didn't blame the unions as well.
On 17 May 2016 at 5:35pm Russian Doll wrote:
The election of Trump will mark the beginning of a golden age in US Russian relations.We should also be making overtures towards Vladimir Putin We need to trade with Russia,and turn our backs on the EU, We can take an anti EU position together against our old enemies France and Germany.
On 17 May 2016 at 6:20pm Sensible wrote:
“if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start
straight away”
Firstly you have fallen for the stupid fear tactic of Camoron. As I have stated before it would not be in the interests of the British people to invoke it straight away and they are under no obligation to do so.
Secondly another to leave would simply be to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act.
Personally I am not in favour of the plebiscite and think the best way to leave this German empire is to have a majority pro leave government.
The EU it is worth noting has a track record of ignoring, quashing and tell referendum votes that go against it to 'vote again' but this time backed up by a massive deluge of money and spin as in Ireland.
On 17 May 2016 at 6:49pm Russian Doll wrote:
Our future is with Russia NOT the EU.
On 17 May 2016 at 7:24pm pn wrote:
Paul you are unwell. Please do stop with your constant lies and doom mongering that are backed up by no evidence
I`m fighting fit thanks invertebrate anonytwat . UK growth 0.4 per cent in the first quarter -down from 0.6 per cent in last year’s final quarter( ONS). The Eurozone (previously a drag) went 0.3 per cent to 0.6 per cent . Deloitte chief economist, Ian Stewart. ‘The dominant concern is the referendum… Corporates are pulling in their horns, with expectations for hiring and capital spending at three-year lows.’ Minutes of the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee concur. Of course there are other ways to interpret something that quacks like a duck and walks like a duck but it would take a special kind of dumb. Ahhhh……
One might reasonably argue that this is not so much the impending threat to our services manufacturing growth and creditworthiness as the sheer uncertainly itself . Fair enough , that does make it worse .
The prospect of leaving without the fact of it would be debilitating to our economy, leave us powerless in the EU and at the mercy of our competitors . It would stall investment entirely and growth and leave us in an ever weaker position to do any negotiating we think we can do .
Investors always fear the down side and hate uncertainty. It would be even worse with the same abysmal end
If it is outside the Parliamentary term it is highly likely that Labour would include in its manifesto a mandate to at least join the EEA if not revoke the result . It is inconceivable that article 50 will not be invoked immediately which gives us 2 years, in fact it is not at all sure that Conservative Party would go to the electorate with an offer to actually leave ( who would wnat to be in goverrnment and face the sh1t storm when the money runs out ). That 2 years is certainly not going to be extended easily although it might be possible. Who knows but we will almost certainly be on a short timetable post referendum .
We do not have a bi lateral agreement with any of the countries in the or with the EU . Without that it is quite simple all goods and services will be off shore, their origin hardly arises, it isn`t a hand shake thing its a law thing . I have seen Daniel Hannah and John Redwood pretending it would be otherwise and as someone who has enjoyed reading both for years I saddens me to see such nonsense . I notice John Redwood left a get out clause “with good will on all sides” ie a some interim agreement /special arrangement ….. . ...pathetic , he should stick to what he understands
We don`t have to do any of this !!!!!
Lets not eh.
On 17 May 2016 at 9:33pm Earl of Lewes wrote:
Russian Doll? More like Russian Troll.
On 18 May 2016 at 9:31am Not quite sensible wrote:
Well Sensible I'm glad you know so much more about the process than the government and are able to point out the inaccuracies in the official referendum proposal. I'm also glad your able to correct David Camoron statement and spell out exactly how this will play out.
And there was me thinking your reasoning was based on a lot of "if's, but's and maybe's", but clearly I stand corrected...
On 18 May 2016 at 2:41pm Sensible wrote:
Glad I could be of service, it's a shame I have to point out when people are lying but admitting you were wrong is the first step to recovery and being able to debate sensibly.
On 18 May 2016 at 3:21pm Not quite sensible wrote:
It's a shame you need to resort to accusing people of lying, they are merely putting their own spin on things to try to get people to believe their points (you don't seem to understand that's part of the job when you're a politician).
Bit like you really... No one is fooled and most adults realise opinions are spin (apart from you who is quoting them).
Nothing you've said can't really be described as sensible or even a debate, you're telling people to ignore the only known facts and to believe your selectively chosen points on the subject (all based on peoples opinion's).
I also don't recall admitting I was wrong, yet again you've put your own spin on it.
But keep telling yourself you're in the right, one day you'll get lucky and will be by accident.
On 18 May 2016 at 3:33pm Sensible wrote:
You lied and I caught you out. Don't cry about it you baby accept that you were wrong and move on.
2 years after you notify them which doesn't have to be right away.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
It's fact. Backed up by people who know what they're talking about.
On 18 May 2016 at 3:57pm Not quite sensible wrote:
"You lied and I caught you out"
Get a grip... Quote me where I lied (oh wait you can't as I didn't)?
"Don't cry about it you baby accept that you were wrong and move on."
The sign of someone you can't form a rational argument (resort to name calling) are you 12 years old?
"2 years after you notify them which doesn't have to be right away. "
You clearly know more than the PM (or are stupid enough to believe people you are not in charge of this process - definitely the latter I think).
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
It's fact. Backed up by people who know what they're talking about. "
Funny how you've selective believe parts of this and ignored parts of this.
You're on a public forum ranting and raving, quoting opinions as fact and liking your own posts, Dude you have issues (more that just being a gullible tool). Get your own opinion, try to base them on facts and then come back when you have a point that is your own (that isn't abuse)...
On 18 May 2016 at 4:13pm Sensible wrote:
As I've stated before Cameron or whoever is in charge is under no *legal* obligation according to the *rules* set out in the *Lisbon Treaty* to notify them straight away - nor does it say anyway in the article 50 that you have straight away. Just because he wants to threaten it and gullible people like you believe it doesn't make it true - can your dim mind understand that?
You said 'EU rules put a limit of 2 years maximum to leave' - That is not true therefore a lie.
Clearly you have issues.
On 18 May 2016 at 5:35pm Not quite sensible wrote:
"You lied and I caught you out"
"Don't cry about it you baby "
"can your dim mind understand that"
Clearly one of us has issues...
"You said 'EU rules put a limit of 2 years maximum to leave' - That is not true therefore a lie. "
In reference to notifying the EU of our intention to leave it is 100% correct.
And as the PM has stated this process would be expected to start straight away you're stretching it a bit to suggest we could potentially leave it a few years to give that notice...
" So yes you could invoke article 50 after 13 years of preparation and then have 2 years to complete it and it would be 15 years."
You don't seems to be aware that an "out" result at the referendum has legal ramifications (not they cannot take 13 years to give notice as you seem to believe).
Amazing how selective you are...
On 18 May 2016 at 9:32pm unhappy american wrote:
This is quite boring so I will try to be brief:
Trump does not represent the congress or the people of the US. Just 1/2 of the conservatives; therefor 1/4.
Nobody has left the EU, but those that have JOINED the EU and those currently in the EU; do not meet the requirements on human rights and military expenditure, respectfully. Also many more issues...So, the rules do not really apply, as no one (but the UK) follows them.
The USA & UK governments are controlled by large companies - who have a very large influence on external affairs.
In the USA, we have borrowed money to arm everyone in the middle east. In the UK we borrowed money to support underpaid workers with benefits and housing allowance.
In both cases we are just using our children's future taxes to try to fund our current industries.
The problem is we have a negative growth rate, and the kids entering the workforce are facing unpaid internships and a mountain of student debt. They won't pay tax until they are 50 (if they ever get a job).
We need to leave now and sort ourselves out.
Next year there will be Grexit, Prexit, Sprexit... as they are all just being loaned money by Germany to keep buying German goods.
German banks will collapse and will ask for yet another bailout!
no thanks.