Thread: The U.K and the E.U - In or out?

^^ That petition by the failures for a rerun on Brexit was a fraud, its promoters are now under investigation.

Multiple votes by supposed individuals, shared postcodes handed out, a computer script to generate votes, what else?

The rich and upwardly mobile, including most BAME non-UK born residents make up the petitioners' numbers, and most signators are from pro-Remain London.

Electoral fraud by Pakistani and Bangladeshi constituents now resident in UK has been exposed time and again over the last three years. Electoral fraud's a cultural practice in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the concept of democracy in practice is a hazy idea in Muslim dominated cultures.

No surprise that that such fraud, along with the practice of 'baksheesh' has been imported into UK by economic immigrant Muslims as part of their trade and administrative system and cultural practices, all normal and perfectly acceptable for them in the cess-pit countries they've escaped from.

Originally Posted by ENT

perfectly acceptable for them in the cess-pit countries they've escaped from.

sounds like they elected to join another cess-pit country instead

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by ENT

perfectly acceptable for them in the cess-pit countries they've escaped from.

sounds like they elected to join another cess-pit country instead

Yup, Europe, aka the united Republic of Belgium, France and Germany.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by Ronin

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Ronin

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

^ indeed, the economists have done so well in recent decades...

As long as folks keep buying the BS from the banks and their paid for politicians then social development will always struggle due to so much money being skimmed off by the banks and financial institutions.

Britain's banking institutions are at the very heart of global banking corruption, and the City of London offers the base for their corrupt dealings; they won't be going anywhere...

Another dumb post from somebody who cannot see past the end of their nose; OK traders make massive profits, we all know about that but like it or not they generate billions of pounds worth of business. When the investment banks leave, which they will the economy will stagnate. That means no new jobs and as for what remains in respect of Europe there will be import tariffs which mean more job losses as companies look to shed their losses.

Talking of people who cannot see past the end of their noses: We run a trade deficit with the EU, so do you really think those countries in the EU with whom we wish to create trade agreements are going to cut off their noses to spite their faces?

That isn't the point....

As always it's you who doesn't have a point, just coming out with tosh that the investment banks will leave London.
The EU project has failed the majority of its citizens and if given the chance to vote other countries will be following Britains lead for a brighter future.

That shows how fucking thick you are they said that some time ago and already HSBC is likely to move 1000 jobs. You are one who constantly comes out with meaningless tosh as seen no end of times when you get in spats with other posters Now do us all a favour and STFU muppet.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

Originally Posted by buriramboy

LMAO at investment banks leaving London. The UK can now create an environment even more attractive for investment unshackled and unburdened by EU rules and regulations, I see a great future for the UK in a few years down the road, we've got out first before the whole doomed project comes crashing down.

You really do not understand, do you?

As we speak now, the financial institutions are working out how they are going to work in the event Britain loses its passport to trade within the EU. Its worth about £25-30 billions annually and the word is that the EU are going to fuck Boris and his crew over this ASAP.

I have relatives who have connections to PWC etc and they are worried, seriously worried.

It's a fucking disaster and the £ will be screwed. Hope you bought your dollars and euros, you dumb fuckwit.

Excuse him he can't read.

Originally Posted by klong toey

Naughty Betty.
I will do your poof reading for you from now on.
Or is that proofreading.

Haha, I could claim it was my predictive text, but actually I've always been shite at spelling, and for this informal forum I don't take much care. Sorry... I will search out a woman to smack my bottom!

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Haha, I could claim it was my predictive text

I use swiftkey the other day i typed Northern Ireland.
Later i discovered swiftkey decided it was actually Northern Island .

Originally Posted by Ronin

the investment banks will now leave Britain

No, they will not. There may well be a nett loss of jobs to other offices for regulatory purposes (ie back office staff) but the traders and brokers will remain where they are. This actually reminds me of the talk when Britain was in en ever closer integrating EU in the 90's (when I was in the biz)- that Frankfurt would be the 'new financial capital' of Europe. What twaddle- and those few that tentatively acted on it 'just in case' only lost money.

Bweasels, exaggerated claims and doomsday scenario's will no more assist your case than it did during the Referendum- it will only damage it. The Referendum was legally enabled by an Act of Parliament, the result legitimate. Taking a leaf out of the PADite book and slinging mud at your (victorious) opponents will only damage your case further, as well as your credibility.

So what are the vaguely legitimate options for the sensible Bweasel? Few I fear, but we may as well look at them. Geoffrey Robinson QC says petition your local MP- fair enough, but both sides can play that game. If a Parliamentary vote is thus enabled, the vote is pretty much preordained, given that both major parties campaigned for Bremain. But it will not overturn the Referendum. Using 'Parliamentary primacy' to overturn a national Referendum will severely damage the UK's valuable status as a stable jurisdiction, and will furthermore throw party politics into turmoil. Not to mention the considerable social unrest, which could well turn nasty. This, in the once stable UK with it's jurisprudence, Rule of Law, and considerable body of legal precedent- all thrown out with the bathwater. Off the cards imo.

But the Bweasels still have a card in their sleeve- the results of the Referendum are 'non-binding', at least to the extent That Parliament is still required to invoke S.50 of the EU type act to formally commence the seperation process- a two year process thus being triggered. No time frame for this was specified in the Referendum, and PM Cameron has resigned- thus giving his successor a certain amount of weasel space, in a House full of them.But the new appointed PM faces the same dilemma- the Referendum is still valid, and certainly in any Jurisprudential sense, the result binding. But at least he isn't Cameron, who called the damn Referendum in the first place. So what to do, if you are both desperate and confident enough? Call a national election.

Do not underestimate the implications of this option- it will be divisive and contentious. And the winner (assuming a Bweasel party wins, because the UKIP will almost certainly gain many seats) still faces the Referendum result. Only another national Referendum will even vaguely legitimately overturn it- and how confident are you that the Bremains will this time win? And how divisive will the result, whatever the result, be? If this route is followed, brace yourself for an extended period of turmoil and fractiousness in UK politics, and further loss of public confidence in both the UK parliamentary system, and two faced 'establishment'. This itself is damaging.

Seems to me the best option is to proceed, invoke S.50, and commence formal negotiations with the EU. Mainly because I foresee the alternative as only causing further damage. Britain is not 'divorcing' it's largest trade partner- but inevitably there will be some loss of mutual privilege. Frankly, it is in everyone's best interest to minimise this. Wiser heads usually prevail.

Originally Posted by sabang

Parliament is still required to invoke S.50 of the EU type act to formally commence the seperation process- a two year process thus being triggered. No time frame for this was specified in the Referendum

As this is a fairly vital issue perhaps a summary of what article 50 is and what triggering it involves might be useful

What is Article 50?
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows a member state to notify the EU of its withdrawal and obliges the EU to try to negotiate a ‘withdrawal agreement’ with that state – it involves five points laid out below.

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

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. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, 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.

For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”

The form of any withdrawal agreement would depend on the negotiations and there is therefore no guarantee the UK would find the terms acceptable. The EU Treaties would cease to apply to the UK on the entry into force of a withdrawal agreement or, if no new agreement is concluded, after two years, unless there is unanimous agreement to extend the negotiating period.

During the two-year negotiation period, EU laws would still apply to the UK. The UK would continue to participate in other EU business as normal, but it would not participate in internal EU discussions or decisions on its own withdrawal. On the EU side, the agreement would be negotiated by the European Commission following a mandate from EU ministers and concluded by EU governments “acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.” This means that the European Parliament would be an additional unpredictable factor in striking a deal.

However, if the final agreement cuts across policy areas within the preserve of the member states, such as certain elements of services, transport and investment protection – as many recent EU FTAs have done (for example with Peru and with Columbia) – it will be classed as a ‘mixed agreement’ and require additional ratification by every national parliament in the EU. The EU Treaties would also need to be amended to reflect the UK’s departure. In effect, this means that the final deal at the end of a negotiated UK exit from the EU would need to be ratified by EU leaders via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament and by the remaining 27 national parliaments across the EU.


Are there withdrawal options other than Article 50?
Theoretically, there is nothing to stop a British Government unilaterally withdrawing from the EU by simply repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Article 50 compels only the EU to seek a negotiation, not the withdrawing member state. However, while this may be the case in principle, such an approach would likely damage the UK’s chances of striking a preferential trade agreement with the EU after exit – since its first act as an ‘independent’ nation would have been to have reneged on its EU treaty commitments. It would also mean there is no transition period, so EU legislation along with the UK’s free trade agreements via the EU lapse immediately. Since some EU law applies in the UK directly, the UK would need to legislate to replace it.

When would Article 50 be triggered?
The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman said today “a vote to leave is a vote to leave” and suggested that Article 50 would be triggered immediately if the referendum vote were for Leave. This was confirmed by David Cameron in the House of Commons, adding that Article 50 is the only way to leave. When it is triggered is ultimately up to the UK government but it is hard to imagine that it could be significantly delayed after a leave vote. Some have suggested that, since the EU cannot throw the UK out, one way would be for the UK government to use a No vote in the referendum as a de facto negotiating mandate. But this would depend on the EU’s willingness to negotiate an exit before Article 50 was triggered.

Similarly, any alternative mechanism for exit would need to be devised and agreed by the rest of the EU – a significant gesture of goodwill. Nevertheless, any potential agreement the UK struck with the EU at any point after withdrawal would come up against the same dynamics as Article 50, most notably requiring approval by EU leaders, MEPs and national parliaments. Therefore, unless the UK is truly prepared to ‘go it alone’, any ‘unilateral withdrawal’ option is tricky.

The mechanics of leaving the EU - explaining Article 50 | Open Europe

Yup, the banks haven't run away yet.

big debate with a lot of heated exchange in the EU parliament,

Nigel doing his best to look like a fooking wanker,

jesus, he won't be missed

great speech !!

Below is Nigel Farage's full speech to the European Parliament on 28 June 2016 after Britain voted to leave the European Union

Isn’t it funny? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me – well I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you?

The reason you’re so upset, you’re so angry, has been perfectly clear, from all the angry exchanges this morning.

You as a political project are in denial. You’re in denial that your currency is failing. Just look at the Mediterranean! As a policy to impose poverty on Greece and the Mediterranean you’ve done very well.

You’re in denial over Mrs. Merkel’s call for as many people as possible to cross the Mediterranean – which has led to massive divisions between within countries and between countries.

The biggest problem you’ve got and the main reason the UK voted the way it did is because you have by stealth and deception, and without telling the truth to the rest of the peoples of Europe, you have imposed upon them a political union. When the people in 2005 in the Netherlands and France voted against that political union and rejected the constitution you simply ignored them and brought the Lisbon treaty in through the back door.

What happened last Thursday was a remarkable result – it was a seismic result. Not just for British politics, for European politics, but perhaps even for global politics too.

Because what the little people did, what the ordinary people did – what the people who’d been oppressed over the last few years who’d seen their living standards go down did – was they rejected the multinationals, they rejected the merchant banks, they rejected big politics and they said actually, we want our country back, we want our fishing waters back, we want our borders back.

We want to be an independent, self-governing, normal nation. That is what we have done and that is what must happen. In doing so we now offer a beacon of hope to democrats across the rest of the European continent. I’ll make one prediction this morning: the United Kingdom will not be the last member state to leave the European Union.

The question is what do we do next? It is up to the British government to invoke article 50 and I don’t think we should spend too long in doing it. I totally agree that the British people have voted, we need to make sure that it happens.
What I’d like to see is a grownup and sensible attitude to how we negotiate a different relationship. I know that virtually none of you have never done a proper job in your lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever created a job. But listen, just listen.

You’re quite right Mr Schultz – Ukip used to protest against the establishment and now the establishment protests against Ukip. Something has happened here. Let us listen to some simple pragmatic economics – my country and your country, between us we do an enormous amount of business in goods and services. That trade is mutually beneficial to both of us, that trade matters. If you were to cut off your noses to spite your faces and reject any idea of a sensible trade deal the consequences would be far worse for you than it would be for us.

[Laughter from MEPs]
Even no deal is better for the United Kingdom is better than the current rotten deal that we’ve got. But if we were to move to a position where tariffs were reintroduced on products like motorcars then hundreds of thousands of German works would risk losing their jobs.



Why don’t we be grown up, pragmatic, sensible, realistic and let’s cut between us a sensible tariff-free deal and thereafter recognise that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world. Do that, do it sensibly, and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future.

The U.K. Voters voted to leave the EU and that was their primary objective, to leave the EU.
It was not a vote for any specific politician.

The Bweasels bible?
5 ways to stop Brexit from happening

A threatened Scottish Referendum might just be used as a casus belli to run another Referendum- would the UK population still Brexit if it leads to the 'loss' of Scotland? Shady politics, but feasible. Then again- would it change the result? And should Scotland be included?
'Brexit-lite' & 'Re-do' depend upon the attitude of the EU, really. But I would quite like to see this sort of outcome.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

I have relatives who have connections to PWC etc and they are worried, seriously worried.

For being an Auditor fof Sale, probably.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

I have relatives who have connections to PWC etc and they are worried, seriously worried.

For being an Auditor fof Sale, probably.

good i'm glad they are worried .
working man has had to worry for the last decade

Originally Posted by Ronin

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Ronin

the investment banks will now leave Britain

No, they will not. There may well be a nett loss of jobs to other offices for regulatory purposes (ie back office staff) but the traders and brokers will remain where they are.

Try reading the news, certain investment banks said that is what they would do.

You really are a total buffoon as has already been explained to you NO investment banks will leave London just some staff will get moved. You're almost as bad as some other posters when it comes to commenting without actually having read and understood what you are commenting on.

^heh, it's like being lectured on oratory by a budgie or skydiving by a snail.

There's already one apparent effect of Brexit: peeweeannoy has been noticeably subdued in his posting of late.

Maybe with the pound in the toilet his pension will only stretch to cover sporadic Internet access.

It would appear that Sturgeon has attached far too much Importance to herself European Council president REJECTS meeting with Nicola Sturgeon This link just one of many saying the same thing .

Originally Posted by Ronin

Originally Posted by buriramboy

You really are a total buffoon as has already been explained to you NO investment banks will leave London just some staff will get moved. You're almost as bad as some other posters when it comes to commenting without actually having read and understood what you are commenting on.

The only buffoon on this board is you, as was said in the news certain investment banks said exactly that. Just about everything you ever post is grade A+ garbage based on your fantasies instead of any factual information whatsoever. Now go f*** yourself, I am not going to read any more of your s****!

Come on, wannabe, tell us about these banks you claim are leaving UK en mass.