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
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 415 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 299 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
- 402 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
Personally, I think that TM is completely out of her depth, goes with whichever way the wind is blowing, is totally inconsistent in her views (compare her present stance with her past views of leaving the EU) and is a wannabe Thatcher (wash my mouth out) iron lady. Either that or she is playing a very clever game in which she would actually like to scupper Brexit while presenting the opposite image. ;hmm
I have also wondered of her being super smart and playing this all along to reassure that she is a brexiter, only to actually negotiate a soft brexit but rely upon them thinking she is one of them to have them accept it, as otherwise Boris the buffon would have been plotting from day 2.
There aren't many examples I can think of of 'primitive' societies behaving very much differently to how we behave now.
In western society, I don't think how things are organised is the problem (although I do think there are problems with how things are organised) I think it is people who are the problem.
What's stopping the world from being a better place, imo, is a lack of better people.
Two points, it is well documented, and carries through to this very day, that in most primitive societies there was one major difference, and that is the concept of common ownership. Most means of production and certainly goods produced were shared equally amongst the communities. Hunters went out and hunted, fishermen fished and farmers farmed. Hunters didn`t hunt in privately owned forests, no-one owned the lakes and fields. Common ownership. All goods produced would be held in common and distributed equitably. That seems a little different to the way we divvy up now.
Secondly, you contend that there is a lack of good people. Ask yourself this and then think of the hundreds, possibly thousands of people you have known since childhood. All the kids and teachers through infants school, secondary school, college, work, friends, neighbours, people you meet in the bank, the taverna, the shops. People you have met on holiday or through pursuing leisure activities, you get the drift, it will be a lot of people. With them in mind, but thinking about the following scenarios from your perspective:
If you were presented with someone who had really cheesed you off, really offended you and Mrs G, and were told without fear of consequence you could kill this person, personally murder them with your own hands, snuff the very life from them. Imagine this person was presented to you and you had three minutes, they wouldn`t fight back and you could walk away afterwards. Pretty repugnant thought isn`t it.
If you were taken to a room and you had a loaf of bread with you and in was wheeled the above person, or anyone come to that, but the chap that cheesed you off makes it a little more interesting. You were told that this person was starving, would die within minutes for the want of bread, you have bread, you have more at home, what would you do?
Thirdly, think about if you went to the room and you wanted for nothing, you had bread at home. Say a chap was wheeled in and he had about his person a loaf of bread, a particularly nice loaf. The chap is in front of you is unfortunately blind and you could take his bread without him knowing and without fear of consequence. Would you steal his bread?
Think about what you would do, think hard, and then think about the hundreds, possibly thousands of people you have known over the years and think what they would do. I honestly think you would find it hard to think of anyone that would kill, walk away or steal. You may think of the odd chap, Derek from Scunthorpe perhaps, he seemed a bit shifty, certainly not a murderer, but I bet he`d have that bread. Either way, you may come across a very, very tiny minority of people who may not be as good as you and I, but it would be a very, very tiny minority. You could ask the same questions of anyone on here and the response would be the same. There are a very small percentage of bad people, mad people, but it is not the norm. The human spirit has goodness at its very core. So I don`t think it is for the lack of good people that society fails, I think it may have something to do with the systems that operate, and the inequalities inherent in them.
But then again I may be wrong.
If you want irony, please don`t compare the Holocaust with a few spotty keyboard warriors.
Peoples NATURAL instincts are good to the core.
Your 'what ifs' are interesting, but a a very limited way of evaluating whether people will 'do the right thing' (in a Judaeo-Christian sense, at least, since not all cultures or societies operate in that type of moral framework). Your conclusion that most people are 'good' because most people wouldn't murder seems to me simplistic. Furthermore that most people won't steal based solely on a scenario where (a) they won't steal from someone less fortunate than themselves or (b) they already have the item that they could steal and it is of limited value is, to me, not a sufficient test of their honesty.
Finally, your 'primitive societies' comment: while there was no ownership of land or water, it isn't the case that all food (caught grown or gathered) or things made (tools, clothing, jewellery) was commonly owned.
Finally finally, even were it as you say (in primitive societies) it doesn't follow that this is how people are by nature - only that this is how they are in those particular circumstances. And since you argue that (modern) societal structures/systems can influence how people behave .... then you have to accept that maybe those primitive folks were only 'good' because of their circumstances.
And even more finally, even those societies had people who dd not adhere to the 'moral code' - so I'm not swayed by your argument.
PS, I now 3 people who have at one time or another been thieves. None of them really needed the stuff they stole, they just wanted it and it was there for the taking, so they took it. They are in all other respects really nice people, fine upstanding citizens, moral AND law-abiding.
PPS. I don't know any murderers, but I do know a few who occasionally drive while over the limit.
On your second point, spin and fear seem to be the political norm now, you only have to look at the American Presidential race. It is sad, but true. Perhaps we have a press and a set of politicians we deserve.
And finally, I do hope that Turkey is in by Christmas................... ;biggrin
imo, if you remove one set of beliefs and ideas, some other will come in to take their place.
And the bases instincts will re-appear, justifying themselves on a new ideology. imo.
I know that this is a thread on leaving the EU, but the point was made early on that Brexiters were likely to be little Englanders, thick and racist. Some undoubtedly would be, as would some remainers, I just wanted to give my take on Brexit. Went a bit off tangent at times.
I`ve always said from the start that the concept of the EU is pretty sound. It`s the domination (perceived or real) from Brussels that is the problem for most. Which brings me back to "taking back control" I.E. local decisions made by local people. It is what most people trust.
SPREAD ANARCHY
and someone had scrawled underneath
DON`T TELL ME WHAT TO DO
;lol
I wasn't equating genocide and mass murder with a handful of threats made on Twitter and Facebook, I was referring to your point:
"People are forced, in the extreme, not by their natural instincts to commit acts of torture and genocide, but by the state and the threat of violence."
Also, thanks for the lighter side of you, I was beginning to wonder if you had one ;biggrin
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/11/04/liz-truss-is-unfit-for-office-and-should-resign/
It's almost as if she is in cahoots with the Mail/Murdoch press.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-immigration-uk-freedom-movement-myths-eu-referendum-theresa-may-amber-rudd-a7393136.html#gallery
And this:
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-7399226?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100
I've read nearly all of this thread from the start, without contributing (too much). It doesn't affect me directly, hence I wouldn't of voted even if I could of.
How refreshing it is to see so many people debate about a subject that obviously can get people more than a bit worked up, and done with the right amount of respect.
Even when that may of got out of hand it was quickly defused.
Well done to all of you
;clap
His comment seems to me to be referring to some who voted leave, although I see how it could be interpreted as meaning all.
Perhaps you might like to ask NE to clarify.
As far as my own view goes, I have no doubt that some 'leave' voters are racists and xenophobes. Indeed, you only have to look at some of the things said and done during the campaign, never mind subsequently. And I'm not unhappy to label those calling for Gina Millar to be publicly hanged 'foaming at the mouth'. Nor do I think it wide of the mark that someone who argues (following yesterdays legal judgement) that the best way forward now is for the army to stage a coup should be described as 'swivel eyed'.
That's my opinion.
Sadly, my brother does come under the category
Contrary to what NE believes (and probably some others), which I am sure is due to my comments on this thread, I believe I have not said which way I voted or even if I did - to be honest it is irrespective since the vote, as there was a majority vote to leave I believe that should be respected (as I am sure the remain voters would have wanted it to be if the vote had been to remain) and we should now be working together to achieve the best outcome for the UK. I must admit I am frankly both quite a bit ashamed and embarrassed by certain sections of the remain side (particularly some of the higher profile and media types) who seem to think that the vote should not be respected and have acted like spoilt children, throwing their toys out of the pram, have been all huffy and throwing tantrums - Bit like that girl in Just William, doesn't get her own way so starts having a tantrum declaring "I'll scream and scream until I'm sick" until she does, just because the vote did not go their way.
There were inaccuracies and untruths banded about from both sides, the only one from the remain side to have to so far have been anywhere close was regarding the fall in the value of the pound - however as most finance and economics 'experts' seem to think this was a rebalancing of the UK economy (as the pound was 10% or so over-valued anyway) that has been overdue for 30 years, you have to wonder if some people have not just used the leave vote as a convenient excuse to do that and not get the blame (not saying that is true, only you just have to wonder).
There is a lot of anger at the decision of the judges in the recent case regarding triggering Article 50, whilst I do not condone the vitriolic comments made at some of those involved in bringing the case nor directed at the judges (on social media and in the media), I do feel that those who voted to leave have every right to question the motives of those involved and scrutinise the judges decision (which has been subject to an appealed - so this is not over yet). To say they can't, given the antics of some of the remain side since the vote to try to stop and undermine the process to leave, is hypocritical and disingenuous in the extreme - it is tantamount to saying I can say what I want but you can't have an opinion, view or voice.
I have to agree with a comment in an earlier thread that some of the more prominent remain camp have been acting with a certain sense of smugness and self satisfaction, some have even intimated this is the first step in blocking the UK from leaving the EU (this is my impression from the interviews on various news channels I have seen over the last few days).
As for all the articles that are frequently posted in this thread, most of them are conjecture, supposition and assumptions based on peoples opinions of what 'Might', 'May' or 'Could' happen based on a certain set of circumstances taking place in the future - even though they are not even certain exactly what those circumstances will consist of, or the direction they will lead. Very few contain any hard facts, apart for the fact they are someone's opinion of what 'might', 'may' or 'could' happen.
I see the FSTE (and other) indexes are taking a bit of a beating at the moment which is being attributed to 'Uncertainty' over the result of the US elections (even though big losses have only been registered across the board since the Article 50 decision by the judges). In the same period the value of the pound has risen slightly (a couple of cents against the Dollar and about 1.2 against the Euro - described as the pound 'soaring' in the press) which has been attributed to the article 50 decision. ;hmm Now, not being an 'expert' but applying common sense, it seems to me if uncertainty over the US elections are have a negative effect on share prices globally, then they would also be having a negative effect on the US dollar (hence the rise in the value of the pound) - not suggesting at all that there is some creative reporting going on in the media....... OK, yes I am ;biggrin
What has actually taken place
A referendum act was passed in 2015 - it had a choice of being made advisory or binding and chose advisory.
The referendum took place and a voted narrowly, in favour of leaving the EU.
That advice is for parliament and they conduct business through debating and passing laws through voting and then the law passes through the house of lords, and so the parliament should now debate the referendum result taking into account the vote and either vote in accordance with the advice of the people or present a case for not doing so due to national interest. Either say we are taking your advice or we are not because of.........
If voting to leave then article 50 gets triggered as part of due course of parliament exercising it's part in the sovereign democratic process.
What hasn't taken place but some people presume has
A referendum took place to choose whether to leave the EU or not and that referendum is not subject to any further democratic process, as the vote was binding.
Theresa May now has authority alone to trigger article 50 as prime Minister and negotiate terms of her own choosing.
If we take away the hyperbole of the newspapers and political agitators such as farage, then it becomes factually clear that no goal posts have been moved but rather people did not look at the original goal posts, something which people now insisting the original goalposts are adhered such as the judges from Friday's verdict to can take no blame for. No one has prevented Brexit and it is perfectly proceeding on it's path, it may reach the end or it may get stopped at a certain place and rejected. Should it do so it is only subverting democracy if someone didn't understand the original situation from the beginning, I cannot state strongly enough that if parliament does not approve the triggering of article 50 that is democracy as agreed from the outset in action, if for example however they did approve it and TM refused to trigger article 50 that would be a case of subverting democracy.
To the best of my knowledge the above is factual and not opinion.
In my opinion now however the best course is for Remainers and leavers to agree that democracy as practiced in the UK should take it's course and both sides understand what has actually taken place up to this point and what has not. Then if parliament and the lords vote to trigger then us remainers accept it, we may not agree but we accept it, and if Parliament do not vote to trigger then leavers accept that although the referendum voted narrowly on one day in June that the house did not consider it in the nations interest to leave at this immediate point. What you retain through this is democracy, rule of law and sovereignty. You don't get that if you force the issue through because you imagine the referendum was endowed with the power to by pass all further stages of the democratic process, and you don't get that if the remainers just ignore the vote. Due to the referendum a vote should take place in parliament to repeal the 1972 commonwealth act and trigger article 50, and that vote should be vigorously debated, not with the newspapers or buses but through our elected MP's.
This is because they expected a remain vote.
It can't be binding on a remain vote but advisory on a leave vote.
Just because a lot of people didn't understand that doesn't change the fact.
The govt promising to put the result of the referendum into practise was simply that - a promise. I assume (and the situation since doesn't yet show anything other than) that they were sincere in their intention to do so.
However, it was always the case that despite their wish and genuine intention to do so, they might not be able to. So judge them on that -
should they have made that promise, knowing that they might not be able to fulfil it?
should they have been clearer to the voters that they were promising to not ignore the result, but nothing is 100% guaranteed?
should the govt have made it clear to the voters that as part of the process of asking Parliament to pass the law, they promised Parliament it would be advisory only?
should they have made it clear to voters that when parliament passed the law that provided for the govt to carry out a referendum, that law was framed in such a way as to make it non-binding on parliament?
I think to say 'well, they just have to do it, because they promised' is ignoring the realities. I would be much more upset if they reneged on their promise to try to implement the result.
Note: the second paragraph.
There was also an additional para not copied then because it wasn't related o the point under discussion - I will see if I can find it - which compares the legislation that set up this referendum with an earlier one, in which there was specific language to say that it was binding, ensuring that it was legally binding as distinct from non-binding on Parliament. (Remember, Parliament passed these laws, and would have been clear on whether they has passed a binding or non-binding law. And as they are not 'the government' they can do what they like, free from constraint by the govts promises. I would like to think they will weigh up the views of all the public as expressed through the voting, as well as what in their judgement is in the national interest.
Why would anyone want to throw away all the benefits in return for what, apart from the real risk and uncertainty of a worsening of the economy and all that entails.
Would you be prepared to tell me the reasons that caused you to vote leave?