UKIP slag loses libel case and appeals to the EU for protection

[Tommy Tainant]

Shares slide as Brexit fears take hold - BBC News

And it gets worse.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Staples ponders U.K. withdrawal
Nothing to see here.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Whatever will be left of the UK will have to accept that it is no longer an EU state and will not maintain the same access to the single market that EU states have. That is reasonable.

Would both parties consider negotiations in trade?

No tariffs are currently in place and the UK is in compliance of regulations.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Staples ponders U.K. withdrawal
Nothing to see here.[/QUOTE

No Tommy. Nothing to see here.

Staples throwing a tantrum.

Target found out.

If they don't need the UK's business then maybe they don't need the business of those who disagree with them.

 

[Drummond]

Temporary, yeah right. LOL

"After Brexit Pound At Risk of Losing Reserve Currency Status

The world’s foremost reserve currency a century ago, sterling has been overtaken by the dollar and the euro, mirroring the U.K.’s waning influence in the global economy. Now its 5 percent share of foreign-exchange reserves is in danger of shrinking further because of Brexit, compounded by forces including China’s push to bolster the international role of the yuan."

After Brexit Pound At Risk of Losing Reserve Currency Status - MarketPulse

Aren't you amazed at the speed with which this has all developed ?

The vote was only two weeks ago. Nothing has yet emerged to prove we are on any sort of 'terminal slide', not least because we're currently as tied into the EU as we were before !

There's nothing at all to say that we won't reverse all that's occurring. Indeed ... I predict that a few years from now, the UK will be doing well, while the EU implodes from failing currencies tied into the Euro .... think 'Greece', and what could happen if much larger - yet weak - economies default on loans ......

A chain is as strong as its weakest link. Happily for us, the chain between us and the EU, binding us to them, is scheduled to snap entirely before too long ....

 

[montelatici]

Cognizant dissonance at its best. You are so deluded. Three fourths of the UK's exports are financial services, most are predicated on the UK's membership in the EU and the banking/financial services passport.

 

[westwall]

Cognizant dissonance at its best. You are so deluded. Three fourths of the UK's exports are financial services, most are predicated on the UK's membership in the EU and the banking/financial services passport.

They are? What happened before there was an EU? You doom and gloomers are hilarious to watch. Only Germany gives more money to the EU. The UK's exit is a serious blow to the EU's ability to buy off its malcontents. The ONLY people who are pissed off are globalists, and the wealthiest one percenters who were raping the people of the UK to line their nests.

 

[Drummond]

Cognizant dissonance at its best. You are so deluded. Three fourths of the UK's exports are financial services, most are predicated on the UK's membership in the EU and the banking/financial services passport.

The trouble with 'doom & gloom' conclusions, conclusions arguing for our becoming some sort of Failed State, is that they can't be reconciled with any Government choosing to give its People the chance to opt out of Europe in the first place.

Our Conservatives promised us that Referendum. It's sheer insanity to suppose that they'd do so, if in doing so, they knew they could wreck us as a viable national entity.

It therefore must follow that the status quo isn't nearly as doom-laden as you assert it to be. It wouldn't surprise me to discover that as-yet unrevealed contingency plans exist to see us through a Brexit outcome.

Or, then again ... the prospect of our opening up to a much larger trading base, will itself fix perceptions in our favour.

 

[montelatici]

Before the UK joined the EU/EEC, the UK was going broke.

 

[montelatici]

Cognizant dissonance at its best. You are so deluded. Three fourths of the UK's exports are financial services, most are predicated on the UK's membership in the EU and the banking/financial services passport.

The trouble with 'doom & gloom' conclusions, conclusions arguing for our becoming some sort of Failed State, is that they can't be reconciled with any Government choosing to give its People the chance to opt out of Europe in the first place.

Our Conservatives promised us that Referendum. It's sheer insanity to suppose that they'd do so, if in doing so, they knew they could wreck us as a viable national entity.

It therefore must follow that the status quo isn't nearly as doom-laden as you assert it to be. It wouldn't surprise me to discover that as-yet unrevealed contingency plans exist to see us through a Brexit outcome.

Or, then again ... the prospect of our opening up to a much larger trading base, will itself fix perceptions in our favour.

Just too funny.

 

[Drummond]

Before the UK joined the EU/EEC, the UK was going broke.

... eh ? Which ? The EEC, or the EU .. ?

The EEC was the forerunner of the EU, before all the power-grabbers made their entrance and turned it into something very different from the older model !

You need to be more specific if you're going to so much as try to make any such claim.

 

[Drummond]

Cognizant dissonance at its best. You are so deluded. Three fourths of the UK's exports are financial services, most are predicated on the UK's membership in the EU and the banking/financial services passport.

The trouble with 'doom & gloom' conclusions, conclusions arguing for our becoming some sort of Failed State, is that they can't be reconciled with any Government choosing to give its People the chance to opt out of Europe in the first place.

Our Conservatives promised us that Referendum. It's sheer insanity to suppose that they'd do so, if in doing so, they knew they could wreck us as a viable national entity.

It therefore must follow that the status quo isn't nearly as doom-laden as you assert it to be. It wouldn't surprise me to discover that as-yet unrevealed contingency plans exist to see us through a Brexit outcome.

Or, then again ... the prospect of our opening up to a much larger trading base, will itself fix perceptions in our favour.

Just too funny.

So 'funny', in fact, that you've no countering argument in your reply ....

 

[montelatici]

It's just fact. The Treaty of Rome was clear, the first article stated:

"HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

That's what the UK voted to enter.

And, as far as the UK's predicament at the time:

"Why did Britain join? For various reasons. Because De Gaulle left, the Commonwealth could not compete, Heath defeated Wilson, the free trade area integration model sunk. But above all, Britain joined because joining the European project was perceived to be a way to stop its relative economic decline. In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EU6 average; in 1973, it was about 10% below; it has been comparatively stable ever since. On this basis, joining the EU worked – it helped to halt Britain’s relative economic decline vis-à-vis the EU6."

Britain’s EU membership: New insight from economic history | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

You people are ignorant morons, with no knowledge of history.

 

[montelatici]

Don't make the mistake of debating me, I have forgotten more than you morons will ever learn.

 

[Drummond]

It's just fact. The Treaty of Rome was clear, the first article stated:

"HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

That's what the UK voted to enter.

And, as far as the UK's predicament at the time:

"Why did Britain join? For various reasons. Because De Gaulle left, the Commonwealth could not compete, Heath defeated Wilson, the free trade area integration model sunk. But above all, Britain joined because joining the European project was perceived to be a way to stop its relative economic decline. In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EU6 average; in 1973, it was about 10% below; it has been comparatively stable ever since. On this basis, joining the EU worked – it helped to halt Britain’s relative economic decline vis-à-vis the EU6."

Britain’s EU membership: New insight from economic history | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

You people are ignorant morons, with no knowledge of history.

Check this out ...

Treaty of Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Treaty of Rome was in 1958. It was superseded many years later by another Treaty, called the 'Maastrict Treaty' .. in 1992.

As Wikipedia says ...

The word Economic was deleted from the treaty's name by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and the treaty was repackaged as the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union on the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009.

According to article one of the current Treaty of Maastricht, the European Union is the successor of the European Community.

It's as clear as day. The nature of the EEC was rejigged so that it became less 'economic', and more 'political power' based. This was done by Treaties designed to overrule earlier versions. And it was done by creeping degrees, over many years.

As for your assertion that we joined to 'halt economic decline' ... well, it's as well that Brexit succeeded, then. When you consider the fact that we've been a major bankroller of it of late, and when you also consider that the EU is a house of cards waiting to topple (i.e wait for the next Member State to default, as Greece did !) ... then, we'll be avoiding a rapid and even catastrophic 'decline' when the EU implodes under the weight of its own debts !!!

 

[Drummond]

Don't make the mistake of debating me, I have forgotten more than you morons will ever learn.

Let me commiserate on your memory problems ! I hope you are seeking the proper remedy ...

 

[montelatici]

It's just fact. The Treaty of Rome was clear, the first article stated:

"HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

That's what the UK voted to enter.

And, as far as the UK's predicament at the time:

"Why did Britain join? For various reasons. Because De Gaulle left, the Commonwealth could not compete, Heath defeated Wilson, the free trade area integration model sunk. But above all, Britain joined because joining the European project was perceived to be a way to stop its relative economic decline. In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EU6 average; in 1973, it was about 10% below; it has been comparatively stable ever since. On this basis, joining the EU worked – it helped to halt Britain’s relative economic decline vis-à-vis the EU6."

Britain’s EU membership: New insight from economic history | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

You people are ignorant morons, with no knowledge of history.

Check this out ...

Treaty of Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Treaty of Rome was in 1958. It was superseded many years later by another Treaty, called the 'Maastrict Treaty' .. in 1992.

As Wikipedia says ...

The word Economic was deleted from the treaty's name by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and the treaty was repackaged as the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union on the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009.

According to article one of the current Treaty of Maastricht, the European Union is the successor of the European Community.

It's as clear as day. The nature of the EEC was rejigged so that it became less 'economic', and more 'political power' based. This was done by Treaties designed to overrule earlier versions. And it was done by creeping degrees, over many years.

As for your assertion that we joined to 'halt economic decline' ... well, it's as well that Brexit succeeded, then. When you consider the fact that we've been a major bankroller of it of late, and when you also consider that the EU is a house of cards waiting to topple (i.e wait for the next Member State to default, as Greece did !) ... then, we'll be avoiding a rapid and even catastrophic 'decline' when the EU implodes under the weight of its own debts !!!

Maastricht had nothing to do with the Rome Treaty. It did not change the political integration of the basic Treaty of Rome. That's what the UK joined. You are an idiot.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Before the UK joined the EU/EEC, the UK was going broke.

I remember the three day week and power cuts.Going cap in hand to the IMF. Happy days.
The fact is that there is no economic sense in cutting ties with your biggest market. It is lunacy on a Trumpian scale.

 

[Drummond]

It's just fact. The Treaty of Rome was clear, the first article stated:

"HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HER ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUCHESS OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS,

DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

That's what the UK voted to enter.

And, as far as the UK's predicament at the time:

"Why did Britain join? For various reasons. Because De Gaulle left, the Commonwealth could not compete, Heath defeated Wilson, the free trade area integration model sunk. But above all, Britain joined because joining the European project was perceived to be a way to stop its relative economic decline. In 1950, UK’s per capita GDP was almost a third larger than the EU6 average; in 1973, it was about 10% below; it has been comparatively stable ever since. On this basis, joining the EU worked – it helped to halt Britain’s relative economic decline vis-à-vis the EU6."

Britain’s EU membership: New insight from economic history | VOX, CEPR’s Policy Portal

You people are ignorant morons, with no knowledge of history.

Check this out ...

Treaty of Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Treaty of Rome was in 1958. It was superseded many years later by another Treaty, called the 'Maastrict Treaty' .. in 1992.

As Wikipedia says ...

The word Economic was deleted from the treaty's name by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, and the treaty was repackaged as the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union on the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009.

According to article one of the current Treaty of Maastricht, the European Union is the successor of the European Community.

It's as clear as day. The nature of the EEC was rejigged so that it became less 'economic', and more 'political power' based. This was done by Treaties designed to overrule earlier versions. And it was done by creeping degrees, over many years.

As for your assertion that we joined to 'halt economic decline' ... well, it's as well that Brexit succeeded, then. When you consider the fact that we've been a major bankroller of it of late, and when you also consider that the EU is a house of cards waiting to topple (i.e wait for the next Member State to default, as Greece did !) ... then, we'll be avoiding a rapid and even catastrophic 'decline' when the EU implodes under the weight of its own debts !!!

Maastricht had nothing to do with the Rome Treaty. It did not change the political integration of the basic Treaty of Rome. That's what the UK joined. You are an idiot.

Maastricht was decades later, and it had the effect of being a game-changer, meant to be such. Face up to the fact that the original EEC is done & dusted, and what now exists is a mutation of it into a power-hungry colossus, where before, mere economic ties were sought, as part of a trading environment.

The means of arranging this, on a Member State by Member State level, was to get them to sign up to Treaties that superseded the original one. This defines and characterises the current EU.

 

[Drummond]

Before the UK joined the EU/EEC, the UK was going broke.

I remember the three day week and power cuts.Going cap in hand to the IMF. Happy days.
The fact is that there is no economic sense in cutting ties with your biggest market. It is lunacy on a Trumpian scale.

We must be of a similar age, then, Tommy. I, too, remember those days. Sitting in an office, power cut off throughout the day, working by candlelight and wearing our coats to keep warm as we worked. Nice, 'happy' days .... eh ??

And what's more, I remember how those power cuts came about. Put simply, certain Trade Unions decided to take the Government of the day (Ted Heath's ... Conservative ..) head on. We were systematically starved of much-needed power generation for two working days out of five, and as a consequence, the UK experienced a crisis that has not seen any equivalent since.

It turned into a straight 'Who really governs, is it the democratically elected Government of the day, or is it Trade Union muscle ?'.

In February 1974 (and again later that year, with a re-run of the election) ... we had our answer. Shamefully, the British public decided that the Unions should win. And so they did, with Harold Wilson (Labour) being elected.

Two years later, with Wilson persistently giving Unions all the pay rises they could ever wish for, inflation topped 26 percent ... !

I'll tell you this, Tommy. With the right spirit driving us, the UK has a very bright future ahead of it. However ... it's just possible that the Trade Union Movement will once again decide to vandalise our future, making it dire instead of stellar.

They've tried to ruin us before. They just MAY try it again. Hopefully, if needed ... more Thatcher-esque legislation can and will be passed to make it impossible for them to manage it.

Of course ... we cannot possibly have trusted the EU to assist us in that effort (they might've found in favour of the Unions in any EU court action, for example), which is yet another reason why Brexit is to be applauded as the much-needed act of national salvation it is !