Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.4K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 28 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 359 Fun & Games
- 81 BA Predictor Threads
- 27 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 280 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 107 Current West Ham
- 196 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 24 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 378 Match Threads
- 52 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 34 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 85 Completed Transfers
- 51 Internationals
- 44 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 104 Football Chatter
- 41 Football Chatter
- 258 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Your question can be divided into two parts.
Yes, parliament voted to invoke Article 50 so I guess they would have to vote to revoke it.
No, there is no logical step, logical went out the window when Cameron promised a referendum believing that the Tories wouldn't win a majority in 2015, they'd need the Lib Dems in a coalition again and the Lib Dems would veto it for him.
They're outraged.
Who'd have thunk it ;lol
It's down to the Tories.
1. Put party politics first, which is why we had a referendum. (Thanks Dave)
2. Put party ideology first, which is why the PM set the red lines where she did.
3. Put power within the party first, which is why we had a snap election which ended up giving the DUP the upper hand. (Showing shockingly poor political judgement, imo)
4. Put party politics first, which is why she caved to the ERG/hardliners and wouldn't compromise over the 'red lines' which might have enabled a revised deal with more support get approved in time. (Strong and stable? I think not.)
5. Has (today) gone back on her stated intention (which she tried to use to blackmail MPs into voting for her deal) to seek a longer extension to allow something new to be developed that might deliver Brexit, because it would (allegedly) split the party. (Her very own Call-me-Dave moment?)
;angry ;angry
I do definitely feel a proper debate and referendum around Europe was needed. ;ok
Even now I still do think the EU drag their feet way too much and have kicked a few "problem cans" down the road that they do not intend to deal with before its inevitably too late.
Which is why I disagree with the view that Parliament 'isn't delivering'.
Parliament has been given a destination, but no directions or map.
If so can you say why and what do you see as the benefits in leaving?
It's like anything she doesn't want to hear just gets ignored ;puzzled
Definitely not hers.
Or the ERGs.
And she 'shares the frustration of the people' . Maybe she should realise that she's the cause of it for a lot of us.
Benefits of leaving - taking control of our borders ( I am a supporter of controlled imigration); money to spend on what we chose; freedom to trade with the rest of the world ( I believe this is a major selling point) and cutting out a huge layer of bureaucracy.
Most important to me is that the public voted to exit and I I believe in democracy. I see the arguments about we did not know what we are letting ourselves in for hence another vote etc. but we don't know what we are letting ourselves in for at a general election due to 'economics with the truth' and we dont have a second vote on that.
I think it is each to their own on this but we wont know whether the decision is right or wrong for many years to come.
I want out and I want it now - there are so many issues which are not getting enough focus in parliament and it is time to stop all the stupid politics and respect the voters wish.
Hope this helps. I have avoided numbers/details as they are all suspect but I am happy that my view has changed.
-did you know that immigration policy is decided upon by the country, and the UK is one of the only member countries who didn't/doesn't demand that non-EU members have maximum 3 months before they get a job with a specified minimum salary, or show an income to provide this figure? The UK always had control of its borders, it simply chose not to control them.
-Did you also know that as one of a bloc of 500 million people, it is immensely easier to negotiate trade deals which are often better than one negotiated by a market of maximum 60 million people? From 1st April, countries will have to decide whether they want to trade with the EU market, or a competing UK market.
While I believe the referendum decision was reached unfairly (Leave.eu overspending, and accepting donations from foreign sources), and while I think the government of the time made no effort to educate voters before putting a stupidly simple and inaccurate question on the ballot, I do agree with you that the people of the UK have voted for this, and so deserve to get it as soon as possible.
A lot of English people are going to learn that Britain no longer has an empire.
What a strange thing to say. ;hmm
The majority of Leavers are English.
Many Leavers' comments on, for example, BBC HYS hark back to "a Golden Age of Empire" implying or worse, believing, that Brexit will deliver it.
So actually not so strange.
Parliament will get another chance to vote on the deal (yes, that one, that they have rejected twice already) 'next week. (Remember, we leave on Friday)
If it passes, a short extension would be granted to give the UK time to do all the paperwork.
....
So do we infer that is the deal is voted down, we leave on 29th without a deal?
Disgraceful handling of affairs, imo. She has deliberately run down the clock, to blackmail MPs.
And on a personal note - not that it is very significant in the great scheme of things - I'll be in Italy on Friday, and may need an (at the moment) totally non-existent visa to get back to Greece on Monday.
A very good point.
Knew I'd seen it somewhere. ;wink