• I haven't got time.

    My handcart factory is overwhelmed with orders and I need to keep the production line going.
  • Well, the Brexiteer MPs haven't exactly covered themselves in glory this week.

    Firstly, Raab discovers that Britain is an island and dependant on the Dover-Calais link for trade, and now Leave-voting Nadine Dorries is complaining that May's deal means Britain won't have any seats in the European Parliament...
  • edited November 2018

    Well, the Brexiteer MPs haven't exactly covered themselves in glory this week.

    Firstly, Raab discovers that Britain is an island and dependant on the Dover-Calais link for trade, and now Leave-voting Nadine Dorries is complaining that May's deal means Britain won't have any seats in the European Parliament...

    Think of the money we will save no epm’s
    Also is it like our mp paid for life?
  • Rearrange these letters:

    Bless Ham
  • edited November 2018
    Less Bham? ;puzzled
  • Image, I really, I mean really, hope that was meant as irony ;pray
  • You would find it hard to find politics done this badly.

    TM trying to cut one arm off instead of two legs and yet no one prepared to say it was a bad idea getting worse. The unveiling of her deal just made clear what most knew from the start that whatever deal you got had to be worse than we already have as otherwise the EU would be finished.

    As soon as a brexiteer such as Johnson, Rees Mogg etc has to write down their plan, the deal they intend extract from the EU, it all collapses as it becomes apparent it is impossible to get and always was. There is no way they can get a better deal than is on the table. Cake and eat it was never an option.

    In my view the only adult way out of this is for the brexiteers in the tory party to seek to provide their consent to another vote on another referendum and back remain due to assurances from the prime minister that the reasons leave won were legitimate concerns, concerns however that can be tackled better by remaining than accepting the poor deal on offer or leaving with no deal, as both leave the economy so much weaker. Then put together a manifesto that ensures immigration powers we already had are actioned, that they address the low paid gig economy, that they tax in a very targeted way to extra fund the NHS. Brexiteers sell it to their supporters as a time based project over the course of this parliament.

    The country would likely get a boost from remaining as confidence of business comes back, the tory party know they have four years to save themselves and the EU have some incentive to reform in that time ( as they know they need to ) as otherwise the next election will be won by a part that guarantees to leave.

    There will be a small percentage of leave voters who will no doubt attempt to smash the place up for a bit, but likely less damage than we vandalise it ourselves over the coming years by leaving, but many will be reasonable enough to weigh the decision now in front of them and I feel be quite willing to offer a chance if they are led by those who led them to leave.

    Communication will be key. Leavers must be made to feel their concerns were legitimate, they must be named and explained how they will be addressed. If the communication is good enough we may just, and its a big just, manage to pull ourselves back from the cliff edge which these very poor politicians have led us towards.
  • Sounds all too sensible to be politically feasible.

  • We need to tell the EU to go away(being polite).
    Just no deal and out. For anyone one who is interested read what the ex Australian prime minister had to say
  • Exeterhammer. I had thought about starting a discussion on Brexit, but decided against it, the reason, it is such a divisive issue that has split family, friends and the country. I felt on here it had the potential to set us against each other when we are all supposed to be on the same side supporting West Ham. But as you have started it, hopefully we can have some constructive and light hearted exchanges.
  • It is certainly possible Whitehorse and in the past couple of years I have friends from both sides of the divide that it is perfectly possible to debate it with and those that you just learnt after about 2 weeks to leave it well alone. The greatest problem is correct information as in factual information and opinion being recognised as different things but as this forum has always been encouraged in that direction it may be possible.

    I do still have conversations with people at work who still claim the EU is not democratic, one particular guy has done so little research that even recently he still maintains when asked how the EU create new legislation that Jean Claude Junker decides upon it. He has however accepted Turkey are not part of the EU I am happy to say.

    For me the concerns of leavers were always real and the issues facing many working people in this country that caused vote leave were understandable, the real question for me is whether leaving the EU is the solution to them, which I don't think it is.
  • Whitehorse- agree with you with regard to having an open but lighthearted discussion. Opinions may be strong, but it is important to tolerate and indeed respect all viewpoints. ;ok
  • edited November 2018
    I get what you meant, exeter - even if it's not what you said....

    Just to clarify what I'm getting at - there are, and have been shown to be, some (not on here, obvs) who voted leave solely out of racist and Islamophobic beliefs. These opinions I will not tolerate, nor ever respect ;ok

  • I am certainly not condoning any view that is based on those beliefs.
  • Racism is unexceptionable from anyone in any shape or form imo
  • edited November 2018
    I was reading an article in the Grauniad, and the writer said that his wife's uncle had voted Leave because his son was training to be a doctor and he didn't like the health minister, Jeremy Hunt, who was a Remainer. So much for an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of the issue. ;puzzled
  • The thing that is getting me, are the people saying that we can't have another vote because that would be undemocratic.

    I'm pretty sure that we didn't just vote in a government once and then just say "well, that's that done" No need to vote again because there is no chance that given more information over the next few years people may change their views and opinions.
  • Well there is a law that states a general election every 5 years tops. There is no law on an individual referendum stating you must have a new one but nothing to stop parliament voting for one. Oh!.....
  • edited November 2018
    Mooj, as far as I remember, we only had ONE vote to join so why would we need a second leave vote after the current leave vote ;puzzled

    Of maybe we should have a second general election every time just in case people don't like the first result
  • edited November 2018
    IronHerb said:

    Well there is a law that states a general election every 5 years tops.

    Not quite - a parliament can't be in power more than 5 years, but a general election can be held more often, depending on the circs.

    When circs change, a new vote may be needed.

    And as it turns out, there were electoral/financial irregularities in the first referendum, and electoral law was broken.

    The results, therefore, are invalid (which isn't to say that if it was re-run, they would change - but we would at least know the process was conducted lawfully and fairly.

    So riddle me this: by law, an electoral court is required to invalidate a result when electoral law has been broken. But it won't, in this instance, because the referendum was only 'advisory'. So, if it was only advisory, the govt (of whatever stripe) doesn't have to implement the results.

    Those who don't want a re-run even though electoral law was broken, you can't deny that the referendum is non-binding.
  • ^^ I'm borrowing this for all future debates.

    Cheers Mrs G ;ok
  • Mrs G surely Cameron spending millions of tax payers money to back remain can be classed financial irregularity when more than half of voters voted leave.
    Although I doubt the result would have been different if no money had been spent
  • edited November 2018

    Mrs G surely Cameron spending millions of tax payers money to back remain can be classed financial irregularity when more than half of voters voted leave.

    No. It can't. Unless you want to argue that any side that loses a vote/election has, simply by virtue of losing, committed financial irregularities.

    Obviously that would be totally illogical.

    But if, for illogical arguments sake, we said he had ... that strengthens the case for a re-run of the referendum, doesn't it. Or are you suggesting that if there were financial irregularities on both sides, they somehow cancel each other out?

    What if the election rules that were broken related not to spending/reporting thereof, but recording and counting votes? If THOSE rules were broken, would you want a re-run? Would it be OK if only one side's votes were binned and not counted? Both sides?

    imo it is right that the electoral process is regulated - it has to be fair and transparent. And in this instance, the regulations were breached. Doesn't matter which ones, or by who, or by how much. The result is invalid.
  • I think that remianers who feel entitled to a second confirming vote do so not due to being bad losers but that the referendum was contested in a very poor way in which leave farmed votes by simply saying what was necessary. Remain had the existing situation to represent them and leave simply claimed we could have best of both worlds or cake and eat it to give it its technical term. The new vote is due to it now being clear what leave looks like and if it still wins then there can be no argument.

    There are so many similes to choose from but one of the best is that when you buy a house it gets polished up and painted and you make an offer, but if the surveyors report comes back different to what you thought you were buying you pull out. Why on something so significant to the countries economic health would we say that we bought as seen, no revisiting our purchase intention now we know what it really looks like.
  • edited November 2018
    C&BS - I have chatted with a lot of remoaners where I am working who thought that the outcome would be a firm REMAIN ........... and as such didn't bother to vote, yet now want a second vote .............. because they didn't get the right result ;doh
  • edited November 2018
    I am offended by being called a remoaner.

    I don't think it helps the debate to use perjorative terms about other people.

    But to the substance of your comment - I want another vote for the reasons I have outlined. (Amongst others, which I haven't.)

    None of the reasons, listed or not, are because it wasn't the 'right result'.

  • Expat - If they didn’t vote last time that is not a reason for them to get a vote now, But everyone having a say now that it is clear so much promised by the leave campaign is not going to happen is a good reason to ask the question again. It is such an important issue, C&B’s analogy of house buying is one of the better ones.
  • As a separate point, I would be interested to know why those who oppose a second vote do so so vehemently.

    I can't see why, tbh.

    At the heart of the democratic philosophy is the idea that, at intervals, people get another chance to make a choice. That's built in - a fundamental principal.

  • edited November 2018
    Oh, and btw, this current government has no legitimate mandate, in my opinion. They don't even have majority, yet they are going to make decisions of such scale and significance that they will affect the country for generations to come ....

    on the back of a dodgy vote.

    That they won't revisit.
  • edited November 2018
    JC is not helping matters either regarding a second vote (aka People's Vote). Pity Keir Starmer is not Labour's leader.
Sign In or Register to comment.