Brexit
Discuss ; ;weep
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 405 Fun & Games
- 107 BA Predictor Threads
- 33 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 294 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 113 Current West Ham
- 199 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 11 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 26 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 396 Match Threads
- 66 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 118 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 268 Other Teams & Matches
- 25 Other Players & Staff
Comments
My handcart factory is overwhelmed with orders and I need to keep the production line going.
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...
Also is it like our mp paid for life?
Bless Ham
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.
;weep
Just no deal and out. For anyone one who is interested read what the ex Australian prime minister had to say
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.
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'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.
Of maybe we should have a second general election every time just in case people don't like the first result
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.
Cheers Mrs G ;ok
Although I doubt the result would have been different if no money had been spent
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.
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.
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'.
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.
on the back of a dodgy vote.
That they won't revisit.