The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 35 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 416 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 300 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 403 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 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
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
The happiest person may just be Theresa May as despite what she may say publicly she cannot really lose as if they vote and she wins then she can say without doubt she now has the clear mandate and support of the people and parliament, if she loses and it gets setback she can act as appalled and is not the one driving the country over the cliff anymore.
This referendum was political in its inception and remains so now, the politics just became up for grabs again however. Some would say that the problem should never have been created and we just needed create a political scenario to correct Camerons massive miscalculation, maybe this is the first step to doing so, maybe not, but the good thing either way is we begin to understand again that democracy did not end on the 23rd of June and the parliamentary sovereignty which was claimed to be fought for survives.
I wish I had made that one up. Sunds like a job for Boris before he goes to the stocks...
A: Turn back and perish.
B: Wait until a government was invented to pass a law that made the building of bridges legal.
C: Co-operate as rational thinking human beings and look to build a bridge out of wood from said forest.
Man, from the dawn of time, has co-operated in mutual beneficial ways to overcome problems. Its what we do. Or are you telling me that the government invented electricity. All great inventions and innovations are made in the minds of men. Without laws and governments are you telling me that people will stop thinking? Or are you telling me that without laws and governments we would all prefer to stumble around in the dark. If anything laws, red tape and governments stifle creativity, condemn and vilify "madmen" and visionaries as charlatans.
There was a democratic vote, ok the result may not have been one that you, or 48% of the people that voted wanted, but it was still a vote put to the people. So why do you think that democracy ended on the 23rd?
Yet the current government wanted to act in a way that did not accord with the rules of our parliamentary democracy.
It is upholding democracy, by ensuring that the PM doesn't abuse his/her power.
The govt is elected on many promises, but if they make promises they can't keep without breaking the law, we shouldn't give them the not to just go ahead and do it anyway.
We don`t always get it right. The path of human endeavour and consciousness is forever advancing and developing. I hope and think that one day the World will be truly peaceful, truly free, and truly equal. There is only one "doctrine" I have come across so far where these are its only declared objectives. No fudges, no qualifications. Peace, freedom and equality for all men. Simple.
The ruling today points this out categorically, which is also why TM will be making a pointless appeal. Parliament has not stated it intends to go against the advice of the referendum but that it has so little information at present with regard what Brexit would like, as the prime minister has been more interested in brexit means brexit and playing to the home crowd than seeking to bring everyone together.
During the forthcoming debate parliament will have to endorse the advice of the referendum or make a very good and coherent case as to why it is not with the 1.9% majority and is taking a different course. But this was always the nature of the vote, the vote could have been made binding but was not done so, it was advisory and the advice was for our sovereign parliament, they must now consider it and vote upon it, something up to now has been not allowed.
This brings me to the question Tom has written about my suggestion that democracy should not have ended on 23rd of June. The reason I suggested that some feel it should is that they wish that one very close vote to trump everything else and to be the end of it. I Democracy is never ending however and that vote is the first step, it then gets debated at the next level, and then the next which is the lords and then it gets passed. A good thing to remember is that the Lords (love em or hate em) was designed to be a safeguard against an irrational parliament, and in the case of referendum parliament should be the same safe guard, but many wish that referendum trump everything and need not be scrutinised after such a vote. When in fact this vote probably more than any other has room and need for scrutiny. If we agree with democracy we must surely agree with all aspects and it's ongoing nature. If brexit gets through parliament, and the lords then not even the staunchest remainer can complain, but where it stands at present the debate has not properly been had away from headlines and buses in truth.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37861456
It is a red herring in my book the line about not making her negotiating strategy public as we all know what it is and so do the EU. We want as much access as possible but need concessions on immigration, for which we will pay in another way. We have so little leverage that the idea that we say we wont buy cheese and BMW'S unless we get everything we want is ludicrous.
Do you mean individual MPs voting on this Triggering Bill (which sounds a bit ;cowboy )?
It is highly likely that if they vote according to what the majority of their constituents want, at least some would have to vote to remain.
;hmm
If we have a vote on when/if we trigger article 50 and the MP's block it then we are going to look jolly stupid going cap in hand back to the EU hoping that they didn't notice our little flirtation with the greener grass...
There should have been much clearer guidelines before we voted so that we would know what the next process would be following the result. Unfortunately the powers that be didn't realise that so many people would vote to leave.
Would like to get your take on a few things:
Had there been a 'slender majority' in favour of remaining would you still be arguing that 'it was only advisory' and could be legitimately impeded by an 'individual' bringing a high court action?
What's your view on the process whereby an individual can challenge the government in the high court on this? And are you comfortable with the motives she claimed to be behind her action.
Do you not think it strange that none of the high profile remainers - politicians, arts, business etc. Chose not to bring such an action - or associate themselves with the action until the outcome was announced?
Do you have a view on how the individual funded this action and whether she personally funded the ranks of Barristers lined up behind her? If not, who do you think actually funded the action? And what were their motives in remaining anonymous?
Not having a go at you - just interested in your, or others, thoughts on these matters.
The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.
A vote to change something, generally speaking, is usually examined far more thoroughly in business and in most peoples lives, than an agreement to keep things as they are. That doesn't mean no investigation/discussion, just less of one imo.
I am not bothered by her stated or unstated motives. Or allegations or insinuation abdout what they might or might not have been.
Or who paid (initially, since now the costs will largely have to be borne by the losing side.) And how much of it came from 1 person, and how much from crowdfunding via named or anonymous donations.
I'm completely unbothered about who didn't get involved with it, and why.
Finally, on the matter of it being only advisory - nobody has to argue anything, as it is not a matter of opinion. Rather it is a matter of fact, as under current UK law a referendum is not legally binding unless the statute which puts it in place expressly says that it will be binding. Which this one didn't. So it isn't.
However having read up on this more this afternoon I now actually think that this could be a blessing as if the MP's and then the Lords do pass an act of parliament to go ahead with the triggering of article 50 then it completely takes away the argument that it was undemocratic.
Also with regards to a snap election being called, given that 70% of Labour constituencies voted with a majority leave it will be either very brave, or very catastrophic for them to go against that. Of course they may pick up new voters who don't want to leave, but given that the majority of remain votes came in the cities are there enough seats there to outweigh the leaves in the rural areas?
Can the govt remove existing legal rights and protections from UK citizens on their own authority, just because they want to (for whatever reason).
The High Court looked at the law, and said NO.
Parliament is the only body authorised to do that.
Personally, that makes me very happy.