wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
I’m in my late 50’s and I could never afford to move out of the parental home…That explains the post count and your attitude to the world.
Still doesn’t jive with how you stated you last drove a truck in the eighties though…
Your understanding as to when I last drove a truck is good as your grasp of economics.
wheelnutt:
Terry T:
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out though, it’ll cost us 20% more to fix the damage these days.Best post here thus far.
Blimey you really think that post was in support of the remain cause. 
Carryfast:
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
I’m in my late 50’s and I could never afford to move out of the parental home…That explains the post count and your attitude to the world.
Still doesn’t jive with how you stated you last drove a truck in the eighties though…
Your understanding as to when I last drove a truck is good as your grasp of economics.
I stand corrected:
Carryfast:
Ironically I’ve not driven a truck since the end of the 1990’s
So you still live at home and have been out of the industry for almost 30 years.
You do know this is the professional drivers forum don’t you■■?
These little snippets sure do put your ridiculous ramblings in the proper context.
Dolph:
Winseer how do you expect to stop payments, when in fact you are still full member of EU with all of the benefits and obligations. You want to stop payments, but refuse to trigger article 50 which will lead to Brexit, do you see the oxymoron?You think you gonna save money, I think you gonna loose a lot more money once you are out of the single market, 350m for NHS are and will continue to be dream, funding for scientists…yeah right. The Tory scraped your nurse study program, so now you have to import medical staff from EU. And you rely on this politicians to negotiate Brexit with EU.
There is no winners in Brexit, simply one side(UK) will be hurt a lot more then the other, simply because the hit will be spread among 27 countries.
When you think about it, the worst that could have happen is to become like Russia and Eastern Europe in the 90’s.
But is the British populace ready for economic crisis like that, can you handle it is the question, because today generation its no where near the WW2 generation
“Invoking article 50” implies that there is some legal fast track way of leaving the EU on a “No pain” basis.
Since we’ve already been told that the process not only “involves pain” but also “isn’t legal” nor is the referendum result “Legally binding” that has already closed three doors to leaving any time soon.
What I reckon we’ll end up doing - is SUDDENLY leaving, and dropping this invoking of article 50 outright.
You can’t get legal permission to do something that the EU sees as ILLegal! They are like Pharaoh “Let my people go” right now. All this threat of pain is about stoking up the dissent in this country (sedition is an illegal act - for our own citizens!) and get the people to turn over the government, and other laws of this country.
We are a vassal of Europe by the backdoor. When we entered the EEC it wasn’t realized that we’d end up being owned by the power we beat twice in world wars.
We cannot leave the EU and truly “get back control” until the money stops being paid. This is currently not going to happen, because it’s not legal.
That leaves us with two possibilities as a path to Brexit then:
Either we break all EU laws to wrench ourselves free (Hard Brexit)
OR
We end up fighting another war in Europe.
Clearly the second option is out of the question, but please notice readers that after all this time - the EU still has NOT offered us ANY real concessions to bloody well stay in!
We’re in no-man’s land right now. We’ll be made to pay to “get back in” and they’ll try to make us pay if we accelerate the process of leaving.
The first attack wave has been successfully repulsed by Gunner Tesco.
There will be more to come - MANY more.
“Invoking Article 50” will only serve to draw the process out another couple of years. Time works in the EU’s favour here - not the UKs. We need to speed things up - not bloody well tie ourselves up in years of legal spaghetti!
I’m hoping that come the new year - Theresa May will suddenly announce that "All our EU trade routes have come to the end of their contract tenure - and we are now ready to bypass the EU for trade purposes outright.
There will be no need for “Invoking Article 50” - because at the moment our last trade route completes, and our trucks get back home - we can pull up our own drawbridge, let those foreign trucks here leave with their final consignments, and then - the flow of money to the EU coffers will STOP because you can’t charge a levy on trade that no longer exists between us.
As an Island, we can re-establish trade routes elsewhere. That will actually be good for trucking in the north of England and Scotland in particular - because instead of running stuff down here for the EU ports - they’ll now be able to get on the ferry to Scandinavia, and other places further afield - in particular the Baltic.
Look past this engineered animosity towards Russia at this time. I believe that this is a smoke screen to both put people off leaving the EU and later NATO - and to put Americans off voting for Trump.
We’re supposed to be at war with Terror - NOT “Russia” and certainly NOT the EU.
Scotland is going nowhere. It’s better off sticking with the rest of the British Isles. In any case, the EU commissioners have already stated that they “don’t want Scotland without England” remaining in the EU.
I would imagine that this is to do with the fact that Scotland would be just another “taker out” of EU cash, whilst England is a much-needed Producer.
Unpicking the trade routes - is the key to stopping the flow of money to Brussels. It’s not as simple as “cancelling a few direct debits and standing orders”.
Leaving the EU in terms of financial ties - is a LOT harder than even “Leaving Sky”. 
del trotter:
By fighting wars and conquering nations?
You mean like conscription into the EU federal army to fight Russia for Ukraine and the Baltic states etc and to repress any secessionist movement at home.
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
wheelnutt:
Carryfast:
I’m in my late 50’s and I could never afford to move out of the parental home…That explains the post count and your attitude to the world.
Still doesn’t jive with how you stated you last drove a truck in the eighties though…
Your understanding as to when I last drove a truck is good as your grasp of economics.
I stand corrected:
Carryfast:
Ironically I’ve not driven a truck since the end of the 1990’sSo you still live at home and have been out of the industry for almost 30 years.
You do know this is the professional drivers forum don’t you■■?
These little snippets sure do put your ridiculous ramblings in the proper context.
If they change the rules to no former/retired drivers allowed the forum will certainly have a few less posters.
Although I’d guess your issue isn’t that of allowing ex/retired drivers to post but more like remainer v leaver.As for out of the industry since the end of the 1990’s = almost 30 years.How do you reach that figure when I make it less than 20.
Winseer:
…
Wow, what a post! You lost me at invoking Article 50 being illegal according to the EU though, as this is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That is, the treaty by which the European Council is governed.
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.
Take particular note of paragraphs one, two, and three. Notifying the Council in accordance with Article 50 is the only legal way to do it.
No, I’m not saying that invoking it is the illegal thing - that just the law is worded that it won’t actually be legally possible to go through with it.
Too many people have “got to give their consent” - and meanwhile, we’ve got a 48% banging on here and WELL over 50% of our own parliament that say “They’ll be blocking Brexit”.
If you can’t do something right with permission - you can either lie to persuade people or do it by force against their will.
Blair knew this. Churchill knew this.
The EU are not going to let us go with article 50, therefore there is no point in us using that route at all. It’s like saying “You can only qualify for the enhanced pension - if both your parents are still alive”.
Any mathematician would be happy to define “impossible” as “having a probability of zero”. In the real world though - you just push the probability down to as near zero as possible - using contradictory laws.
Winseer:
Leaving the EU in terms of financial ties - is a LOT harder than even “Leaving Sky”.
How hard can it be to just walk away as of the start of business next week.Tear up article 50,re join EFTA with immediate effect,and negotiate access for all EFTA member states to the EU single market but unlike now with no strings regarding sovereignty attached.If Merkel says no then we are obviously in a trade war with the EU over the issue of EU blackmail in the form of sovereignty for trade.Trust me the Swiss at least will be with us in that.
Winseer:
No, I’m not saying that invoking it is the illegal thing - that just the law is worded that it won’t actually be legally possible to go through with it.Too many people have “got to give their consent” - and meanwhile, we’ve got a 48% banging on here and WELL over 50% of our own parliament that say “They’ll be blocking Brexit”.
If you can’t do something right with permission - you can either lie to persuade people or do it by force against their will.
Blair knew this. Churchill knew this.
The EU are not going to let us go with article 50, therefore there is no point in us using that route at all. It’s like saying “You can only qualify for the enhanced pension - if both your parents are still alive”.
Any mathematician would be happy to define “impossible” as “having a probability of zero”. In the real world though - you just push the probability down to as near zero as possible - using contradictory laws.
UKIP have already pointed out that circumventing article 50 if the seceding state so wishes is possible.The problem in this case being the constitutional crisis of a national government which is directly opposed to implementing a referendum decision to leave.Everything we’re seeing being an agenda which is all about playing for time so that the referendum decision can be over turned.On that note has anyone noticed how the supposed article 50 date of January has now been moved forward to March.
ChrisGlobe:
Winseer:
…Wow, what a post! You lost me at invoking Article 50 being illegal according to the EU though, as this is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That is, the treaty by which the European Council is governed.
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. That doesn’t oblige the EU to actually do anything about it.
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. Which will NOT be forthcoming.
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.
Which they WILL - indefinitely!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. Which prevents the UK from stopping the EU from vetoing anything and everything we try to decide for ourselves - including “leaving” itself.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Doesn’t actually exist if you think about it. No single country - not even Germany has the power to veto ALL the others at once.
- 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.
There is a cost to get back in, if one’s exit is successfully blocked.
Take particular note of paragraphs one, two, and three. Notifying the Council in accordance with Article 50 is the only legal way to do it.
Do something illegal, or go to war.
Blair did both over a far less important issue - Saddam Hussein killing a few villagers and being a nasty guy was of very low importance to the wider world indeed - compared to what our Brexit struggles are going to do to the world. The American Revolution is a historical event which I put on a par with our continuing Brexit fight. 
Winseer:
Do something illegal, or go to war.
The American Revolution is a historical event which I put on a par with our continuing Brexit fight.
Strange how Dolph seems so keen to point out the dithering over article 50 when the ‘dithering’ in question is all about remainers trying to play for time to over turn the decision to leave.While if those like Dolph are supposedly so keen to see the back of us why wouldn’t they be just as happy to waive article 50 in this case as we would.
As for the American War of Independence.No this is all about the types of arguments between the Federalists and anti Federalists that eventually led up to the war between the CSA v USA.
Winseer:
ChrisGlobe:
Winseer:
…Wow, what a post! You lost me at invoking Article 50 being illegal according to the EU though, as this is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That is, the treaty by which the European Council is governed.
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. That doesn’t oblige the EU to actually do anything about it.
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. Which will NOT be forthcoming.
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.
Which they WILL - indefinitely!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. Which prevents the UK from stopping the EU from vetoing anything and everything we try to decide for ourselves - including “leaving” itself.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Doesn’t actually exist if you think about it. No single country - not even Germany has the power to veto ALL the others at once.
- 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.
There is a cost to get back in, if one’s exit is successfully blocked.
Take particular note of paragraphs one, two, and three. Notifying the Council in accordance with Article 50 is the only legal way to do it.
I’d guess that more or less shows that article 50 is in fact a catch 22 deliberately put into the Lisbon Treaty to give the ‘appearance’ for a gullible public that member states have the right to secede.When the reality is the treaty effectively removed that right contained within the wording of that same article.
OVLOV JAY:
Munchkin:
Come on Jay! The most selfserving generation we have seen is the one that took full advantage of Maggie’s bribes. Buy a cheap council house, sell it 5 yrs later and use the profit to outbid on a house in a nicer area. They’re the ones to blame for property inflation and now they ■■■■■ because their grandkids can’t buy a house!
We all just have to work with what previous generations leave us and every generation is out for itself.Sent from my X17 using Tapatalk
I agree, and they’re the ones moaning right now. The 50 something’s that are property rich and desperate to hang onto the status quo for their nest egg, not giving a monkeys about what’s going on to their own children. It’s ironic when most downsize and use the collateral to help the kids, and that’s only because they won’t move out if they don’t.
But I’m actually a massive fan of right to buy, just not how it has been executed. If they had built a house for every house sold, then it would be a given that you would buy your first house that way, giving everyone an opportunity onto the ladder. Instead they let a few on, and pulled the ladder up.
Aye, but then the “middle class” con wouldn’t have worked.
In 50s myself but it’s actually those 65+ who did best. We started work in a time of massive change which set us back a bit.
Anyways, whatever is left to the kids they’ll deal with, same as we have.
Sent from my X17 using Tapatalk
Here are the latest price increases since the Brexit vote, make of it what you want.
Milk powder…up 52%…2150GBP per tonne
Chicken…up 12%…756GBP per tonne
Butter…up 58%…3140GBP per tonne
Sugar…up 37%…489GBP per tonne
Beef…up 33%…2354GBP per tonne
Pork…up 18%…1396GBP per tonne
Fresh products don’t last long in the supply chain, only a matter of time.
wheelnutt:
Here are the latest price increases since the Brexit vote, make of it what you want.Milk powder…up 52%…2150GBP per tonne
Chicken…up 12%…756GBP per tonne
Butter…up 58%…3140GBP per tonne
Sugar…up 37%…489GBP per tonne
Beef…up 33%…2354GBP per tonne
Pork…up 18%…1396GBP per tonne
As I said if you’re suggesting that is evidence of it being all about Brexit,as opposed to a structural problem within the economy ‘caused by’ EU membership and just being used a scapegoat to discredit Brexit,you’re going to need to provide similar evidence that we were in the same type of economic zb ‘before’ we joined the EEC/EU to prove any so called pattern and link.
Inconveniently for your ideas our pre EEC economic situation v our EEC/EU membership status situation,or for that matter the similar situation regarding Greece,related to it running an unsustainable EU trade deficit,say it all in that regard.IE economic stability and better prosperity before EEC/EU membership but staggering from economic crisis to economic crisis since we joined.Bearing in mind we haven’t actually even had Brexit yet nor are we likely to get it.
What is this crap about article 50 and EU not letting you use it■■?
The representative Government of the member state that wants to leave must deposit an official request to leave the EU and negotiate its exit.
To leave EU British Gov needs to do this, NOT EU, British Government. Stop blaming EU for all problems.
If you wanted out why Cameron didnt do it on 24th of June, why Teresa May is not invoking the article.
European leaders even ask for UK to hurry and be done with it, because the economic uncertainty is bad for both the UK and the EU.
And what you do, instead of invoking the article and starting negotiations. May said that border control is more important then anything, people lives, families, jobs, pretty much are “bargaining chip”, Ambur Rudd said all employer will disclose foreign employees - unheard of before policy. Because its very hard for the “stupid” Home Office to match NIN and citizenship of all working EU citizens, like me for example. May be we will wear a blue bandage with stars on the arm. May if Im not mistake said that medical personal form EU might not be able to work in EU post brexit etc. etc.
EU does not twist your arm, doesnt act in fascist ways the unelected British PM is.
EU is simply asking, after the people have voted, trigger the article and lets negotiate an exit. But this speculation and uncertainty is killing companies and ruining peoples future.
One more think, how do you feel about the murder of a person, just because he is Polish, is that EU fault to. What signals this send to the people across EU with whom you need to make deal for future partnership.
We could make a list as long as your arm involving the ■■■■ and murder of british citizens…In fact local to me.Two pensioners were murdered by an eu national…So what kind of signal does that send out also…
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
daftvader:
We could make a list as long as your arm involving the ■■■■ and murder of british citizens…In fact local to me.Two pensioners were murdered by an eu national…So what kind of signal does that send out also…Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Lets not go down this road, you know very well what I meant with the murder of the Polish national.
British criminals are all over continental EU, EU criminals are in Britain, they are all f**king criminal that should be in jail.