jimsleftfoot

Said it tongue in cheek, you could say Fleetwood where in a similar position to Fylde, winning the Conference in 11/12 Fylde will be the next non league team to pass us by, its a club with an excellent infra structure and a chairman with a clear vision for the future unlike the clown were lumbered with.

 

Extract from Fylde's website where Joy gives his first interview,

 

"David Haythornthwaite has set out a clear vision of how he wants the organisation to progress, his enthusiasm and determination to succeed ultimately persuaded me that is was time to use my experience in the world of professional football to help him and everyone who has a stake at AFC Fylde, to achieve his vision".

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement of our illustrious leader if he sees an opportunity at a Conference North team as too good to turn down.

And they have a fantastic supporters bar!!!

I did a 4 hour segway tour which was awesome (though the wife nearly disappeared at one point as she struggled to stop it).

It's not really meant as a go at us, the average man. To me it's a bit like someone having a go at the bedroom tax I.e. the government and the establishment. The Empire 'ended' after the 2nd World War (some would argue 1997) and the Conservatives and the old money are currently running this country, quite a big link to the past. I can understand his reasoning.

I agree with Rummy, keeping old traditions make it hard to give the message that we've changed.

I personally blame the present day Italians for the Romans invading Britain nearly 2000 years ago. Particularly the ones who are completely unrelated to my invading ancestors!!!

Mr Juncker is getting ahead of himself appointing a negotiating chief, Article 50 negotiations are in the remit of heads of government, not the Commission. Sort of underlines the sort of organisation it is.

How do you know they haven't agreed to it (the other 27 anyway)?

1) Brexit caused a lot of news to happen. If you're in the news game, that tends to not be a bad thing.

2) Why is it that the UK cannot be competitive in the manufacturing sector but Germany can be? Too London and financial services centric, massive North/South divide.

3) Bigger manufacturing base, better public transport outside of London, at least one other City to rival London, better handle on Fuel & Power production.

4) Financial crisis, Eurozone countries not being a good investment.

5) Depends on viewpoint of said media.

6) English is the first language of the EU so it's not that they all speak different languages all the time. I don't think it makes things easy particularly when dealing with technical issues, but that's life, people deal with such.

7) No, I think that is problematic.

8) Are you asking a broad question or is this with specific reference to Brexit? If Brexit, I don't believe the argument that the EU was undemocratic. I do believe that democracy is a two way process requiring the public to be engaged with it. The public aren't engaged and perhaps that was the EU's biggest failure.

9) Surely a better question would be too ask would have life been better outside of the EU over the last 8 years? Arguably we've done well as a place that sat within the EU but not within the Euro zone for investment purposes.

Punitive trade agreements

- EU: Because they don't want the EU to fall apart and people often make emotional rather than rational decisions.

-ROW: We used to be that big Empire which wasn't always quite fair in its approach to trade.

Your point about remainers not knowing whether things would have been any different if we had remained - straight back at you, the same applies for Brexiters. I'm sure it will be a case of not listening to experts who talk the country down.

If the govt want to talk the country up, then let's make it a bit better outside of London.

 

Talking about lies, WW3 still not happened.interest rates have stayed the same and no emergency budget.

And article 50 hasn't been invoked either!!

Merkel absolutely did plan to bring them in quickly. It was part of the migrant-stopping deal, which gave Turkey a rather large negotiating option in that they could stop it at any time and let millions through. Personally I was in favour of Turkey joining some years ago but the recent trend there isn't positive

Merkel wanting them in and them getting in are two different things entirely.

The situation in Turkey is exactly why it wasn't going to join the EU anytime soon, Another lie!!!

Sheffield Wednesday charging Villa fans £42 for the opening fixture.

 

Second tier of English football charging £12 more than Premier League teams are allowed to.

 

Farcical

Apparently Bolton are charging Sheff U £30 for the first game of the season.

Tom's a good lad, bags of enthusiasm and he's certainly well travelled.

 

David Pannick QC, reported by David Allen Green and others on Twitter.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c8985886-3df9-11e6-a28b-4ed6c4bdada3(behind a paywall)

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/748340246513860609

https://twitter.com/johnhalton/status/748403831847981056

 

Obviously it'd be suicide to completely ignore the 52% result, but put this and Theresa May's comments about postponing (as 24h mentioned above) together and anything that does happen doesn't look likely to happen quickly.

Cheers - it makes a lot of sense considering the referendum is also only supposed to be advisory/non-legally binding.

Edit - Interesting read, particularly as the 2015 Referendum Act only states that a Referendum is to 'be held' and states nothing about what should happen if there is a vote to leave.

If he's correct, it would be illegal for a vote not to happen regardless of the referendum result.

To throw another spanner in the works, an (apparently) leading QC and expert in consitutional matters has said that invoking Article 50 would require legislation to be passed by Parliament. The article is mostly behind a paywall, but from the snippets I've read it's along the lines that because the effect of notifying the EU of the intention to invoke Article 50 would ultimately be withdrawal, and withdrawal conflicts with 1972 legislation, Parliament would have to pass new legislation to unwind the previous legislation.

 

Which means, in short, that a single Prime Minster doesn't have the prerogative to do it without Parliament agreeing. Which means legislation being drafted and interminable negotiations, i.e. more than two years if it happens at all. No idea if this is true, but apparently the chap saying it is no fool.

Who is it saying it?

 

 

 

Would be interested to see the link. I imagine it all comes down to words and interpretation and implication. Step forward the lawyers.

 

I think misinterpreted in the first place (either on purpose or accidentally). There isn't one page I can link to that gives an obvious 'no it doesn't apply' but neither is there a credible source that I can see that it does.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, new voting rules will be brought in, but this doesn't affect Article 50. My employer is advised by 2 of the big 4 accountancy firms and I have sat through 2 webinars since Friday, no mention of this issue whatsoever.

 

From 'The Slog'

A number of seemingly random events over the last five days now appear to form some kind of pattern.

• Cameron resigns but delays triggering Article 50
• Back in 2010, the EU rule was we could leave if we applied Article 50, or repealed the European Communities Act 1972. These two caveats still apply, but only till 31st March 2017, after which date these two pieces of legislation will require a QMV.
• Boris Johnson calls a press conference to say there is “no need for haste” on Article 50
• Michael Gove endorses Johnson’s view
• The VoteLeave group freezes UKIP/Nigel Farage out of discussions about the process of Brexit
• The Blairite wing of Labour moves swiftly against Jeremy Corbyn, whom they know full well is in reality deeply suspicious of the EU
• The EC wakes up to the game plan, and Merkel suggests UK be given “as much time as possible” to decide when to trigger Article 50.

One doesn’t have to be a rabbit-hole conspiracist to suspect a unified Establishment strategy to dilute and even negate what 52% of the electorate voted for five days ago.

 

A quick Google shows that this came up previously and it looks like it is rubbish. The EU have to vote to accept the exit deal (by QMV) not to accept a country leaving.

Me thinks that you have missed his point! O4U was recommending negotiations without an end-like OAFC looking for a manager

Fair enough, article 50 hasn't yet been invoked.

Negotiate exit agreement.

 

Offer a new referendum based on "Out on these specific terms" or "remain".

Exit deal only governs the exit from the EU, not future trade. They are not agreeing to preliminary talks prior to Article 50 being invoked. Once it is, there is no more 'remain' to vote on.

Norman Stoller gives £4million toward a new Oldham arts centre, didn't he once have an interest in Latics?

Sponsored the Chaddy End i.e. 'Seton Stand'! His father was the tubular bandage inventor.

The level of tariffs I indicated are guaranteed. That's a weighted average across what we currently sell that the EU imposes on those products from countries that it has absolutely no trade arrangements with.

 

I agree that having to meet EU regulations is a barrier to trade (that's why the big businesses get the Commission to impose them). They will exist for exporters to the EU regardless so no change there. I accept that processing customs is additional work, but I suggest it's a drop in the ocean compared to the savings for 96% of businesses who don't sell to the EU.

Import rates can change and it has been known for additional tariffs to be placed on top of normal duty rates for protectionist reasons. Stating what the current situation is no guarantee, especially as us leaving the EU would be a rather significant change to the status quo in itself.

I can understand that you may feel that leaving the EU might work in our favour and fair enough, maybe it will, BUT there is a significant risk that it might not. There are no guarantees.

There was a Norwegian MP on TV the other day. In 1994 they had a referendum to join the EU. They were fed all the same scare stories as we are being fed now. If they voted to stay out there would be 100,000 lost jobs, the economy would go into a tail spin, currency would drop through the floor, no trade deals etc. None of it happened when the Norwegian people refused to be bulled. They are now considering re-negotiating their current relationship with the EU, in order to get a better deal.

 

On another issue, I wonder if the 22 people who have been undecided for quite some time have made up their minds yet. If they can change their votes it might be interesting to see how it affects the outcome on this very limited forum.

Biggest oil wealth fund on the planet, as well as very high public sector employment. They also accept free movement of EU citizens in return to access for the single market (they also pay for this as well). Norway could have got a better deal out of being an EU Member, but chose not to.

At the end of the day, the Norwegian model (nor Swiss) cannot apply to us as Leave don't want to accept free movement of EU Citizens.

Then as I say we pay c3% tariffs to export to their declining market and trade freely with the world, without paying a fee or the massive regulatory costs.

The issue I have with this trail of thought, is that it is implied that it is guaranteed. It's not. Even if it this did happen, thousands of businesses having to make additional customs declarations to sell to the EU and to meet EU regulations in doing so, is a clear barrier to trade. Whether the EU market is declining or not, its still not to be sniffed at.

It's 2 years for the EU to save access to it's biggest market. I'm sure they'll pull their finger out.

They might, though they might also equally tell us to sod off as they don't want anyone else to leave.

If the absolute worst happened, the utter worst, it would cost an average 3% to sell into the EU. Unlikely as that is to be how it ends up, we could buy from abroad for 3% cheaper with savings on domestic bills and import costs for businesses. Small and medium businesses wouldn't have to follow regulations that are a drop in the ocean for the FTSE100 companies but which hurt them.

 

We could sack people who make our laws.

 

We could sell to anyone, including Germany and Greece.

 

It'll be reet.

What if the EU decides to take a more protectionist view?

But nothing changes for at least two years after the referendum. Giving time to sort things like this out.

2 years is for the divorce agreement, its going to be a lot longer discussing all the other issues so it may mean that some things don't get sorted out.

Have you asked him directly or via Social Media?

 

Honesty is the basis of Trust.

 

If it was a month ago, then that is not transparent.

 

I understand that the Trust cannot be revealing financials details, particularly if we are vulnerable and it would severely weaken our neogotiating position. But we want the Trust to warn us early. The current status quo does not feel right at the moment.