Amazombies living in the woods

[Bleipriester]

Article 50 says how an exit has to be processed. That was clear even before the referendum was hold. They are not going to brexit, as far as I see.

And what does article 50 say exactly ?








Article 50

• 
• 

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

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. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.








So where does it say what you wrote ?

Paragraph 2:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. [...]

And the UK has done this, just has not implemented article 50 yet.


You really need to get your act together and start reading what is in front of you

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I cant see where walmart are mentioned in the article. They trade as Asda over here and are no better or worse than any other retailer, and of course they dont sell guns.
To respond to your other point I would argue that amazons business practises have destroyed thousands of small businesses in the UK.
To do that they have used their financial muscle and competitive edge gained from tax dodging.
They are a cancer on the high street.

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

You are projecting. Amazon are able to undercut legit businesses because they pay no taxes and abuse their staff. Explain how that is good for anybody apart from Bezos and of course yourself.

You claim they pay no tax. Do you really believe that Amazon pays no tax? Do you want me to look up Amazons investor relation files, and see if they pay no tax?

Because every single time I like at a company people claim pays no tax, I find they paid tons of taxes.

Let's look.....


Amazon - Investor Relations - Annual Reports, Proxies and Shareholder Letters
2015 Annual Report
Page 63....

View attachment 102925


"In 2015, 2014, and 2013, we recorded net tax provisions of $950 million, $167 million, and $161 million."

In 2015, they paid $215 in US Federal Tax, $237 in State Tax, and $417 million in international taxes.

They pay no taxes huh?
That's "no tax" in your book?

Now, it's true that Amazon paid very little in UK taxes, I would agree. But did you ever think to ask 'why' instead of just saying "internet giants who dodge taxes"?

Why not actually take a minute to really learn why?

Page 25 of the report.

View attachment 102927

See it? Amazon lost money in 2014 corporate wide. But specifically their international unit lost money in both 2014 and 2015.

Tell me sparky.... how much tax do you pay when you lose money? You complain they didn't pay taxes, when they had no profit? Can we apply that logic to individuals, and complain poor people who don't make an income, don't pay enough tax?

But let's not stop learning. Why did they record a loss? Quoted from the same page:

The decrease in International segment operating income (loss) in absolute dollars in 2014, compared to the comparable prior year period, is primarily due to increased levels of operating expenses to expand our fulfillment capacity and spending on technology infrastructure and marketing efforts, partially offset by increased unit sales, including sales by marketplace sellers.​

Let me boil that down. The reason they recorded a net operating loss, which resulted in them paying very little in UK taxes is simply because.....

THEY INVESTED HUNDREDS OF MILLION INTO YOUR COUNTRY

There you go. No "dodging taxes" as you claim. No evil company screwing over your country. They invested millions of dollars into the UK, and that's why they offset their profits with those expenses, resulting in lower taxes.

Your lesson is done. You are dismissed.

(I'm just being cheeky, but honestly, next time, instead of being an easily manipulable dullard, try finding out the reasons why first, before spewing your judgemental criticism)

Andy, you make minimum wage and get 2 weeks holiday a year. I wont be coming to you for advice o anything.

Amazon's UK business paid just £11.9m in tax last year

 

[Tommy Tainant]

And what does article 50 say exactly ?

This is the plan.







Article 50

• 
• 

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

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. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.








So where does it say what you wrote ?

Paragraph 2:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. [...]

And the UK has done this, just has not implemented article 50 yet.


You really need to get your act together and start reading what is in front of you

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

 

[Phoenall]

And what does article 50 say exactly ?








Article 50

• 
• 

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

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. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.








So where does it say what you wrote ?

Paragraph 2:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. [...]

And the UK has done this, just has not implemented article 50 yet.


You really need to get your act together and start reading what is in front of you

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

Correct there is no implementation of article 50. But the UK has stated via the ballot box its intention to leave and implement article 50. What article 50 says and what you think it says are two different things and the UK has stated it will leave when it is ready. At the moment the EU leaders are acting like spoilt brats and taking their ball away

 

[Bleipriester]

Paragraph 2:
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. [...]

And the UK has done this, just has not implemented article 50 yet.


You really need to get your act together and start reading what is in front of you

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

Correct there is no implementation of article 50. But the UK has stated via the ballot box its intention to leave and implement article 50. What article 50 says and what you think it says are two different things and the UK has stated it will leave when it is ready. At the moment the EU leaders are acting like spoilt brats and taking their ball away

A referendum is not a formal application. The EU said file the application but they didn´t.

 

[Andylusion]

"The article mentioned Amazon, and someone else mentioned Walmart"

Someone else, doesn't mean in the article.

Yeah, of course they don't sell guns. UK residence are not allowed by law to defend themselves. That's why violence is now worse in the UK, than in the US.
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

Anyway.....
This claim of yours that thousands of small business have been destroyed in the UK, is the same garbage I hear in the US all the time.

First, I highly doubt you would be able to actually prove this. Some small business have been destroyed? Maybe. You might be able to make that claim, and provide a dozen examples.

But exactly how many? I doubt thousands.

However, let us even say you are right, that some small business have been destroyed.

Is that automatically bad? No.

Again, by the numbers, small business often employ very few people. Additionally small businesses pay very low wages, far lower than Amazon and Walmart do. Further, small business often provide very few benefits. Lastly, small business by definition, has little room for upward mobility.

Take for example, my current job, verses my old job. Before this job, I had a short term job with a small company, which employed only 5 people. We built computers, and sold them special order for customers. I was paid $9 an hour. I got zero holiday pay. I got zero vacation time.

That's a small business. I have zero prospects of moving up. I basically would have to wait until someone died, and then take their job.

Now my current company, is a large international company, and we build computers. Exact same job. I'm paid about $12 an hour. I get 2 weeks paid vacation. I get holiday pay, and health insurance (if I want it), and even sick pay. They have over 300 employees at this specific location, and I have already been offered a promotion. There are dozens of ways I could move up the income ladder, from management, to IT support, and there are other options.

Additionally, the company offers college tuition reimbursement, and paid training, and certification reimbursement.

Now if this company drives out, and destroys that other small business..... which part of this is bad?

Far more jobs created. Better paying jobs created. Better benefits for the jobs created. More room for upward mobility created.

And lastly, if customers are choosing Amazon and Walmart over these small business.... why do you think that is? Better product, at a better price, or wider selection, or better service?

How is that bad?

Everything about this is all positives. Which one of these is somehow bad for the country?

What works for Andy isnt necessarily good for the community. We have had a raft of high street names close due to unfair competition from the internet giants who dodge taxes and exploit their staff.
Woolworths,Virgin,EB and most indy book stores. Amazon are a cancer.

Please explain how this is bad for the people of the country?

Is the internet giant offering the product at a higher price?
Are they offering a smaller selection?
Are they offering worse quality at the same price?
Are they offering slow, or poor service?

I'm willing to wager that they are offering a better product, or a cheaper product, or better service, and this is why people are using them.

That's why I use them. I hate shopping. HATE shopping. I go there, and they don't have the product I want, and when they do it's more expensive.

I just ordered online in fact, because I wanted a timer switch for the fan in the bathroom, so it automatically shuts off. I went to Home Depot, and they had the wrong switch, at a higher price.

You are complaining because people want what Amazon and other online stores offer.

You can "Say" that what I want isn't good for the community, but the community agrees with me. That's why they are buying from Amazon. People vote with their dollars. And right now, they are voting for Amazon.

And the real irony here, is you are actually becoming the very thing you claim to be against. Think about your position.

I want to force people, to buy from places with a smaller selection of more expensive products with worse customer service, at the super wealthy corporations, by removing cheaper alternatives.

All those stores that gouge the customer, stand a huge benefit from you forcing out Amazon. Their super wealthy CEOs would love to buy another yacht, because you forced the public to pay a massive price hike.

Whose side are you really on?

You are projecting. Amazon are able to undercut legit businesses because they pay no taxes and abuse their staff. Explain how that is good for anybody apart from Bezos and of course yourself.

You claim they pay no tax. Do you really believe that Amazon pays no tax? Do you want me to look up Amazons investor relation files, and see if they pay no tax?

Because every single time I like at a company people claim pays no tax, I find they paid tons of taxes.

Let's look.....


Amazon - Investor Relations - Annual Reports, Proxies and Shareholder Letters
2015 Annual Report
Page 63....

View attachment 102925


"In 2015, 2014, and 2013, we recorded net tax provisions of $950 million, $167 million, and $161 million."

In 2015, they paid $215 in US Federal Tax, $237 in State Tax, and $417 million in international taxes.

They pay no taxes huh?
That's "no tax" in your book?

Now, it's true that Amazon paid very little in UK taxes, I would agree. But did you ever think to ask 'why' instead of just saying "internet giants who dodge taxes"?

Why not actually take a minute to really learn why?

Page 25 of the report.

View attachment 102927

See it? Amazon lost money in 2014 corporate wide. But specifically their international unit lost money in both 2014 and 2015.

Tell me sparky.... how much tax do you pay when you lose money? You complain they didn't pay taxes, when they had no profit? Can we apply that logic to individuals, and complain poor people who don't make an income, don't pay enough tax?

But let's not stop learning. Why did they record a loss? Quoted from the same page:

The decrease in International segment operating income (loss) in absolute dollars in 2014, compared to the comparable prior year period, is primarily due to increased levels of operating expenses to expand our fulfillment capacity and spending on technology infrastructure and marketing efforts, partially offset by increased unit sales, including sales by marketplace sellers.​

Let me boil that down. The reason they recorded a net operating loss, which resulted in them paying very little in UK taxes is simply because.....

THEY INVESTED HUNDREDS OF MILLION INTO YOUR COUNTRY

There you go. No "dodging taxes" as you claim. No evil company screwing over your country. They invested millions of dollars into the UK, and that's why they offset their profits with those expenses, resulting in lower taxes.

Your lesson is done. You are dismissed.

(I'm just being cheeky, but honestly, next time, instead of being an easily manipulable dullard, try finding out the reasons why first, before spewing your judgemental criticism)

Andy, you make minimum wage and get 2 weeks holiday a year. I wont be coming to you for advice o anything.

Amazon's UK business paid just £11.9m in tax last year

Oh, so the lower class isn't respectable enough for you? The low-income people don't have any valid opinions in your book?

No snobbish attitude there?

No elites there?

Thank you. You made my point about you left-wingers. You are all the same. All arrogant, self-important pompous windbags. Arrogant, close-minded and foolish.

Funny, how you in another thread talk about going to church. What church do you go to 'brother'? The First Self-Righteous Church of Britain?

By the way, your link contradicts your lies. You said they pay no tax. You link says Tommy is a liar. Does your church say it's ok to lie like that Tommy?

Further, my post already said why Amazon paid low taxes. They invested hundreds of millions into the UK. They had low profits. In fact, negative profits.

Again, should we tax people on profits they didn't make? Let's tax the poor on income they didn't earn? Perfectly logical in Tommy land, eh?

I won't be coming to a liar like you, Tommy, for advice either. Fair enough?

 

[Phoenall]

And the UK has done this, just has not implemented article 50 yet.


You really need to get your act together and start reading what is in front of you

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

Correct there is no implementation of article 50. But the UK has stated via the ballot box its intention to leave and implement article 50. What article 50 says and what you think it says are two different things and the UK has stated it will leave when it is ready. At the moment the EU leaders are acting like spoilt brats and taking their ball away

A referendum is not a formal application. The EU said file the application but they didn´t.

And does it give a time limit, as you know the EU is trying to force the UK into going under by making demands. Well the EU is losing the battle as the rest of the world is coming out on the side of the UK and the EU is in fear of losing worldwide trading partners as a result. The application will be filed when we are good and ready, and not before. If you dont like it tough get over the hurt and take it like a man, or will you whinge and whine all the time

 

[Andylusion]

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

Correct there is no implementation of article 50. But the UK has stated via the ballot box its intention to leave and implement article 50. What article 50 says and what you think it says are two different things and the UK has stated it will leave when it is ready. At the moment the EU leaders are acting like spoilt brats and taking their ball away

A referendum is not a formal application. The EU said file the application but they didn´t.

And does it give a time limit, as you know the EU is trying to force the UK into going under by making demands. Well the EU is losing the battle as the rest of the world is coming out on the side of the UK and the EU is in fear of losing worldwide trading partners as a result. The application will be filed when we are good and ready, and not before. If you dont like it tough get over the hurt and take it like a man, or will you whinge and whine all the time

I don't blame the EU.

The fact is, the EU bent over backwards for the UK numerous times. Many many times, and many issues.

So yes the EU is miffed that the UK is backing out, after they gave endless concessions to keep them in.

And I also don't blame the EU for slapping them around a bit. That's how that works. If you back out of your company, don't expect your company to give you glowing reports.

If you back out of your marriage, don't expect your spouse to give glowing reports either.

Well, the EU isn't any different. You back out, yeah, some people are going to be put off by it.

That doesn't mean I don't support the UK. I fully understand they didn't like having to deal with laws passed in Brussels. Yes, I get that they wanted full control over their own boarders.

None of that is bad, and if that's what they want to do, that's fine.

But spare me this "the EU is pulling dirty tricks to keep us!"... you smacked them across the face with this exit vote. You are a fool if you think they are going to place nicely now.

If the Wales voted to exit the United Kingdom.... would the UK be even a fraction as accommodating as the EU is you?

 

[Bleipriester]

No, they havn´t. You are always claiming nonsense that you can´t back up. No sources, no proofs, bullshit. What´s your meaning here?

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

Correct there is no implementation of article 50. But the UK has stated via the ballot box its intention to leave and implement article 50. What article 50 says and what you think it says are two different things and the UK has stated it will leave when it is ready. At the moment the EU leaders are acting like spoilt brats and taking their ball away

A referendum is not a formal application. The EU said file the application but they didn´t.

And does it give a time limit, as you know the EU is trying to force the UK into going under by making demands. Well the EU is losing the battle as the rest of the world is coming out on the side of the UK and the EU is in fear of losing worldwide trading partners as a result. The application will be filed when we are good and ready, and not before. If you dont like it tough get over the hurt and take it like a man, or will you whinge and whine all the time

Your regime fooled you big time and the one responsible for the implementment of the referendum´s outcome, Cameron, resigned.

 

[Phoenall]

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

Correct there is no implementation of article 50. But the UK has stated via the ballot box its intention to leave and implement article 50. What article 50 says and what you think it says are two different things and the UK has stated it will leave when it is ready. At the moment the EU leaders are acting like spoilt brats and taking their ball away

A referendum is not a formal application. The EU said file the application but they didn´t.

And does it give a time limit, as you know the EU is trying to force the UK into going under by making demands. Well the EU is losing the battle as the rest of the world is coming out on the side of the UK and the EU is in fear of losing worldwide trading partners as a result. The application will be filed when we are good and ready, and not before. If you dont like it tough get over the hurt and take it like a man, or will you whinge and whine all the time

I don't blame the EU.

The fact is, the EU bent over backwards for the UK numerous times. Many many times, and many issues.

So yes the EU is miffed that the UK is backing out, after they gave endless concessions to keep them in.

And I also don't blame the EU for slapping them around a bit. That's how that works. If you back out of your company, don't expect your company to give you glowing reports.

If you back out of your marriage, don't expect your spouse to give glowing reports either.

Well, the EU isn't any different. You back out, yeah, some people are going to be put off by it.

That doesn't mean I don't support the UK. I fully understand they didn't like having to deal with laws passed in Brussels. Yes, I get that they wanted full control over their own boarders.

None of that is bad, and if that's what they want to do, that's fine.

But spare me this "the EU is pulling dirty tricks to keep us!"... you smacked them across the face with this exit vote. You are a fool if you think they are going to place nicely now.

If the Wales voted to exit the United Kingdom.... would the UK be even a fraction as accommodating as the EU is you?

They never gave any concessions at all, they just hit us with massive fines when we complained about the rules not being followed. The people have voted and now we will milk the EU for all it is worth and laugh as it flounders without our money to keep it afloat, that is all they ever wanted from the UK apart from north sea oil and fish.

 

[Phoenall]

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

Correct there is no implementation of article 50. But the UK has stated via the ballot box its intention to leave and implement article 50. What article 50 says and what you think it says are two different things and the UK has stated it will leave when it is ready. At the moment the EU leaders are acting like spoilt brats and taking their ball away

A referendum is not a formal application. The EU said file the application but they didn´t.

And does it give a time limit, as you know the EU is trying to force the UK into going under by making demands. Well the EU is losing the battle as the rest of the world is coming out on the side of the UK and the EU is in fear of losing worldwide trading partners as a result. The application will be filed when we are good and ready, and not before. If you dont like it tough get over the hurt and take it like a man, or will you whinge and whine all the time

I don't blame the EU.

The fact is, the EU bent over backwards for the UK numerous times. Many many times, and many issues.

So yes the EU is miffed that the UK is backing out, after they gave endless concessions to keep them in.

And I also don't blame the EU for slapping them around a bit. That's how that works. If you back out of your company, don't expect your company to give you glowing reports.

If you back out of your marriage, don't expect your spouse to give glowing reports either.

Well, the EU isn't any different. You back out, yeah, some people are going to be put off by it.

That doesn't mean I don't support the UK. I fully understand they didn't like having to deal with laws passed in Brussels. Yes, I get that they wanted full control over their own boarders.

None of that is bad, and if that's what they want to do, that's fine.

But spare me this "the EU is pulling dirty tricks to keep us!"... you smacked them across the face with this exit vote. You are a fool if you think they are going to place nicely now.

If the Wales voted to exit the United Kingdom.... would the UK be even a fraction as accommodating as the EU is you?

They can go at any time and we would not mind, it would build up our bank balance and put theirs in the red after all they have wasted

 

[Phoenall]

The world knows that the UK has told the EU of its intentions to leave the EU, apart from you who seems to think that article 50 should have been implemented in June.

My source is the current round of news reports regarding the dirty tricks being played by the EU to try and force the UK to stay.

No. Even if you claim it a thousand more times. There is no application to leave the EU at this time. You are entirely controlled by disinformation.

Correct there is no implementation of article 50. But the UK has stated via the ballot box its intention to leave and implement article 50. What article 50 says and what you think it says are two different things and the UK has stated it will leave when it is ready. At the moment the EU leaders are acting like spoilt brats and taking their ball away

A referendum is not a formal application. The EU said file the application but they didn´t.

And does it give a time limit, as you know the EU is trying to force the UK into going under by making demands. Well the EU is losing the battle as the rest of the world is coming out on the side of the UK and the EU is in fear of losing worldwide trading partners as a result. The application will be filed when we are good and ready, and not before. If you dont like it tough get over the hurt and take it like a man, or will you whinge and whine all the time

Your regime fooled you big time and the one responsible for the implementment of the referendum´s outcome, Cameron, resigned.

WRONG Watch this space