Brexit: Article 50 Has Been Triggered !

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I've not written the article, I've just provided a link to it as it looks like an important development. As Papa Smurf would say, such articles don't necessarily represent my views.

By pessimism I was referring to the fact that the majority of your links to "articles of importance" are continuously of the ""Doom and Gloom" type.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Just like Brexiteers, who complain about Remain voters 24/7.

Sore winners..

Leave voters would be quiet if it wasn't for remainers who have started court cases, insist that we don't really know what we were voting for etc, etc. So it's a bit rich to complain about brexiteers being sore winners!

[techguyone]

I'm still waiting for a bold positive from him, have we had one yet?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

nope he's back in bold oh doom oh gloom oh despair oh heck

It takes all sorts to make a forum Papa.

---------- Post added at 18:58 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

By pessimism I was referring to the fact that the majority of your links to "articles of importance" are continuously of the ""Doom and Gloom" type.

Whether one agrees with Andrew or not he is entitled to put his side just as much as others are entitled to put their side as l am sure you don't want a forum made up of members who all agree with each other.

[Hom3r]

I want a hard brexit

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

I want a hard brexit

But enough of your Saturday nights......

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by techguyone

I'm still waiting for a bold positive from him, have we had one yet?

Like Papa Smurf, I've explained that links to newspaper articles I make do not necessarily represent my views. The newspaper articles I select represent key developments in Brexit.
There's no logic that dictates that 50% of articles will be positive and 50% negative. Posting like this would not make a poster unbiased, it would make them unrepresentative of Brexit developments.
But if you look at the article that I posted before the most recent one "Irish PM calls for Brexit transition deal, warns against punishing UK" I'm sure many Brexiters would have found it encouraging.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...&postcount=168

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Like Papa Smurf, I've explained that links to newspaper articles I make do not necessarily represent my views. The newspaper articles I select represent key developments in Brexit.
There's no logic that dictates that 50% of articles will be positive and 50% negative. Posting like this would not make a poster unbiased, it would make them unrepresentative of Brexit developments.
But if you look at the article that I posted before the most recent one "Irish PM calls for Brexit transition deal, warns against punishing UK" I'm sure many Brexiters would have found it encouraging.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...&postcount=168

Andrew, I have no problem in you expressing your view and the stance you may wish to take, that is what freedom is about and reasoned discussion is to be welcomed.

What it appears (rightly or wrongly) you are doing is just "cherry picking" news reports postulating nothing but the downside of Brexit with the odd positive one.

You don't even attempt to discuss the issues of the reports you post.

[techguyone]

Well said Pip

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

]Meanwhile more good Brexit news:



Linky

Don't you love tabloids, they absolutely will not repeat the same word twice in a paragraph unless it really it really, absolutely cannot be helped, tasty treats, grub etc

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

But if you look at the article that I posted before the most recent one "Irish PM calls for Brexit transition deal, warns against punishing UK" I'm sure many Brexiters would have found it encouraging.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...&postcount=168

That's good Andrew (I did have to do a double take to check that it actually was you )


But to be fair, I think you've posted one positive article against goodness knows how many negative articles.


But it's important to look at the publishing source of these articles.


Expect the Mail and the Express to publish pro Brexit articles and organisations such as FT and the BBC to feature anti Brexit articles. Multinational organisations such as Google and Facebook, will, pretty much always, have an anti Brexit stance; it's not a coincidence, that they are also anti Trump

[pip08456]

So the FT puts forward it will take longer than 2 years to reach a deal. Article 50 says otherwise.

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.

LINK

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by passingbat

That's good Andrew (I did have to do a double take to check that it actually was you )
But to be fair, I think you've posted one positive article against goodness knows how many negative articles.

Ha ha, I was expecting you to report to the mods that may account had been hacked But in all seriousness, I would honestly state that I don't pick bad news stories and that the stories I select are representative of the state of play of Brexit at the moment. Even the keenest Brexiteers have stated that we're in for a rough ride for the next five years or so. So even they should expect a high proportion of negative news.

Originally Posted by passingbat

But it's important to look at the publishing source of these articles.

Expect the Mail and the Express to publish pro Brexit articles and organisations such as FT and the BBC to feature anti Brexit articles. Multinational organisations such as Google and Facebook, will, pretty much always, have an anti Brexit stance; it's not a coincidence, that they are also anti Trump

The Mail, The Express and The Sun are discredited sources so caution should be used when reading their articles.
The Mail is no longer trusted by Wikipedia
The Express was found to be wrong when it said house prices had risen after the Brexit vote when the data it used covered the month before the vote.
The Sun was censured for incorrectly stating that 1 in 5 British Muslims have sympathy for Jihadis
With regard to Google and Facebook, they're more platforms than news sources themselves.
I look at a wide variety of sources and post articles from reputable sources like The Daily Telegraph, Reuters, Sky News, Financial Times, BBC and The Guardian. I won't venture my opinions of these sources as I think we'll go off on a big tangent.

---------- Post added at 21:16 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

So the FT puts forward it will take longer than 2 years to reach a deal. Article 50 says otherwise.

LINK

My reading of the article was that 2017 is reserved for negotiating the leaving element then after that a trade deal can be considered. Where does the FT talk about two years? I'm not saying it's not there, but I can't find it.

The €60bn is also an issue that has not been given much prominence by the media but is a figure we'll be hearing more of this year.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Where does the FT talk about two years? I'm not saying it's not there, but I can't find it.

The €60bn is also an issue that has not been given much prominence by the media but is a figure we'll be hearing more of this year.

OK 21Mths then.

A narrow divorce-first approach favoured by Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, would represent a big setback for Britain’s aim for a fast-track EU trade deal, completed by the end of 2018.

60bn is just a figure that's been thrown about at the moment and up to present has no factual basis. Not saying it won't be true.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

OK 21Mths then.

60bn is just a figure that's been thrown about at the moment and up to present has no factual basis. Not saying it won't be true.

Understand where you're coming from. The two years you linked to refers to a country leaving the EU. A trade deal with the EU is a separate process so wouldn't necessarily fall withing the two years - though the UK hopes it will.