The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

NEoldiron

Madcap, too ironic for words:
"Grey, who would you blame for the holocaust. The individuals who perpetrated individual acts, or Hitler and the Nazi state and its ideology?
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. "

From claretandblue's link:
"But she said Thursday's "crazy" Brexit backlash took her completely by surprise.
"On Twitter, on Facebook - there were some swearing, lots of people saying I was a traitor. 'You're ruining our democracy', ' move to France' - and much more'.
She added: "I even had an email. In the subject box it said: 'I hope you die, I sincerely hope you get cancer and die'."
Having visited the UK on previous occasions, Ms Miller said: "It was in overwhelming contrast to the very proper, polite British behaviour I'd seen before."

So who was forcing these morons - oh, of course, my mistake, it was the Daily Mail et al and Arron ?anks.

Couldn't make it up ;lol

AdMeus_CaputFilius

The papers and UKIP will attempt brow beat the MP's into voting with their constituencies rather than with their own conscience,

;hmm .......

But surely that is what they should do, after all they are voted in to represent their constituencies views, not their own personal ones. If they don't at the next election all the opposition has to do is point this out and brand them as not trustworthy, saying "Don't vote for them, they will do what they think they should and is in their own/parties interest, not what you want or yours".

If you were an MP where over 60% of the constituents you represent had voted to leave, even if you did not and still think we should not, do you vote on Article 50 to reflect their wishes - knowing that if you did not and voted on your own view, there was a good chance you would lose the next election? Not only that, but it may contribute to a more right wing element getting in to power and triggering article 50 anyway as that would be one of the core election promises.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Vorselaarhammer said:

Ok first article I've seen, indicating this could trigger a general election..

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37861456

Well the current Gov't are saying it's not going to happen and they will push on with the current plans for triggering article 50 in March anyway.

claretandbluesky

When she states however that she will simply push on she is taking a position in which she seeks to place herself beyond the laws through which the nation is governed, in my view to play the home crowd. Either way she is either dangerous as she wishes to turn the narrative against judges who were not political in any way but simply applied the law in a coherent and clear way, or she is stupid and doesn't understand what the judgement meant, as it means she cannot push on without parliaments backing as she says she is going to, even if she wants to.

She really needs start trying to bring the country together again and why she went so overtly with the brexit means brexit I have no idea. I also think she is unsure of herself and seeks approval, so all in all I cant see her seeing this through.

This is what worries me most about TM as she had an opportunity to say that whilst she hoped the legal judgement would find in the Govts favour she recognises why it failed to - it is pretty clear why they couldn't find in the Govts favour and you don't need be a lawyer. She also originally had the chance to recognise that the vote was about as close as you could get and seek to unite the nation but instead went with brexit means brexit and anyone who asked questions was accused of subverting democracy, which is of course what she seeks to do by pushing on with her agenda regardless.

NEoldiron

claretandblue, truly you speak with the voice of reason ;bowdown ;ok

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

claretandbluesky

I have wondered the same thing NEoldiron, she certainly at times looks like she would like to emulate Thatcher, but always has the look of someone unsure of herself whilst speaking and nervous of reaction, only relaxing once the home crowd applause starts to ring, she doesn't seem to sit at ease in the uniform just yet. Thatcher on the other hand was about of convinced of herself that anyone could ever be and if no one clapped she couldn't care less.

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.

TheMadcapLaughs

grey_til_I_dye said:

MadCap

If left alone the human spirit will seek a society that is just and fair

I very much wish this were true, and very much fear it isn't.

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.

TheMadcapLaughs

NEoldiron said:

Madcap, too ironic for words:
"Grey, who would you blame for the holocaust. The individuals who perpetrated individual acts, or Hitler and the Nazi state and its ideology?
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. "

From claretandblue's link:
"But she said Thursday's "crazy" Brexit backlash took her completely by surprise.
"On Twitter, on Facebook - there were some swearing, lots of people saying I was a traitor. 'You're ruining our democracy', ' move to France' - and much more'.
She added: "I even had an email. In the subject box it said: 'I hope you die, I sincerely hope you get cancer and die'."
Having visited the UK on previous occasions, Ms Miller said: "It was in overwhelming contrast to the very proper, polite British behaviour I'd seen before."

So who was forcing these morons - oh, of course, my mistake, it was the Daily Mail et al and Arron ?anks.

Couldn't make it up ;lol

NE. You seem to be equating genocide and mass murder with a handful of threats made on Twitter and Facebook. Mass atrocities are normally carried out in the name of the state or in the name of religion. There are too many examples to list. No-one forced these morons, but, as I suspect from my points raised above with grey, these morons form a very, very small percentage of the 17.4 million people that voted leave. If you want an example of a small percentage of morons, take a look at the West Ham v Chelsea game, how many were baying for blood, 30, 40, 100? out of a crowd of 50,000? Why wasn`t everyone baying for blood? Is it the fear of the law, or is it that most human beings are decent and rational, and the thought of causing another human being bodily harm is repugnant and nauseating.
If you want irony, please don`t compare the Holocaust with a few spotty keyboard warriors.
Peoples NATURAL instincts are good to the core.

MrsGrey

Madcap, you say a small % of people, but with a global population of 7.4bn, that's still a very big number of people.

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.

TheMadcapLaughs

claretandbluesky said:

I think human beings live through narratives, once this is understood those who crave power seek to dictate the narrative, if doing so efficiently enough the populous get behind them. In Nazi Germany the narrative was that the jews were responsible for all kind of ills, the narrative dehumanised them and then once that is done all manner of tragedy can unfold in clear sight. Reflecting on Nazi Germany I often wonder if there is a narrative that couldn't be sold to a populous at large. There will always be those who are beyond being sold a narrative, often the artists and intelligentsia, which is why any leader seeking power through narrative often seeks to eliminate those people, see Chairman Mao, Stalin etc.

QAs far as brexit is concerned what was the most difficult thing to take were the arguments encouraged by press and certain politicians that were factually untrue, the Syrians coming in, Turkey in by Christmas, The 12 Billion or whatever it was being paid each year. It is really hard to hear untruths being peddled and know that certain people will hear it and vote according to it, as for all the talk of subverting democracy in my view that is the worst, factually lying, not opinion pieces but factually lying. Only yesterday someone who voted leave said to me that if the courts overturn brexit by next summer we will be overrun with Syrian refugees. And today people who had a vote speaking about the ruling yesterday without reading it let alone understanding it but believing without any doubt at all they understand it through a piece printed in a newspaper.

C&B an excellent first point. In order for people to rail against their natural instincts they do indeed need to be sold a narrative. Whether that is in a religious context (the crusades, events currently unfolding in the middle east) or from a statist context (flag, nationalism,jingoism) it is still the power of one over another, or many over many. I do fear that there is always hidden deep within the human spirit this capacity for unspeakable things. But if you ask yourself what drives the human spirit to commit these acts, if you think really hard, it does come down to God and the State. And I am glad that you have pointed to the artists and intelligentsia, because amongst the artists and intelligentsia normally lurks a deep undercurrent of anti authoritarian thought, and the one thing governments of all persuasions fear, from State Communists to avowed Fascists, is the anti authoritarian. I know that this may appear extremely naive, and maybe a little too simplistic, but the Anarchist position is to eradicate religion and the state, without these two things, logic suggests that mass atrocities would be less likely to occur. It seems too simple a premise to be feasible, but sometimes the most simple of solutions are indeed the best.
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

MrsGrey

Madap, you say

But if you ask yourself what drives the human spirit to commit these acts, if you think really hard, it does come down to God and the State.

Or, put another way, beliefs and ideas.

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.

TheMadcapLaughs

Mrs G, as I say, I may be wrong. But I think it is worth exploring the World and its problems from another perspective, and I know that Anarchy is a really hard concept to grasp and seems a little leftfield, but its aims are noble and its original exponents are interesting to say the least. I haven`t even mentioned the Anarchist stance on inheritance, property, reward and money. That really would muddy the waters and cause some raised blood pressures.
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.

thornburyiron

As regards belief is atheism a belief or a lack of belief.

TheMadcapLaughs

Blimey, I don`t know. I`ll google it......................................

TheMadcapLaughs

PPS. On a lighter note, I can`t remember when I saw this but I`m sure it was on the tinternet somewhere, it was a bit of graffitti that went like this:

SPREAD ANARCHY

and someone had scrawled underneath

DON`T TELL ME WHAT TO DO

;lol

NEoldiron

Madcap,
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

TheMadcapLaughs

NE, I do have a lighter side,when I`m not planning death, destruction and the violent overthrow of the state I can be quite jocular. ;ok

NEoldiron

This is well worth reading, (although it won't appeal to Madcap's view of the law)

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.

NEoldiron

And this, which makes one think, what will Brexit achieve. Definitely not what the swivel-eyed, foaming-mouth racist/xenophobes think it will.

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

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

Can I just say.....

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

thornburyiron

Quickly defused? Why was NEIrons first paragraph not modded? Regardless of how anyone voted to use that language against 17.5 million people, including perhaps some of his close family, is disgraceful.

NEoldiron

Slaven, ;ok. I'm also amazed and proud of this forum where this non-football subject has been and still is discussed. Can't imagine it on the Spuds' boards. ;biggrin

MrsGrey

thorn, it wasn't modded because it didn't break site rules.

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.

NEoldiron

MrsGrey, that is indeed how I intended it. Thorn, if you care to read a recent post of mine I specifically stated that I did not refer to anyone on these boards.
Sadly, my brother does come under the category

AdMeus_CaputFilius

But Mrs G (only mentioning you in replying to your comment), in the same vein you could hang those same labels on some of the remain voters, they came out with very similar vitriol against higher profile people in the leave campaign (and still do) - not to mention labelling in sweeping generalisations that those who voted to leave were 'stupid, thick, uneducated, old who did not consider future generations' etc., which was very offensive to them and then use certain 'statistics' to prove their point which were actually selected only to reflect their view point and later proved to be misleading.

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

claretandbluesky

What I think happens on both sides is that we do make assumptions as you say. These get made and countered and it goes back and fourth but you hope eventually fact prevails. I may be wrong with regard the facts as i understand them below and apologise if I have but as far as I can find the facts are these.

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.

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

thornburyiron said:

Quickly defused? Why was NEIrons first paragraph not modded? Regardless of how anyone voted to use that language against 17.5 million people, including perhaps some of his close family, is disgraceful.

Glad that others have now explained it to you.......

thornburyiron

Once again supposition is being put out as fact. The referendum papers and ballot forms did not say it was advisory or binding either way. However the leaflets produced by the government and treasury posted through every door on behalf of the remain campaign clearly said that whatever the outcome of the vote the government will abide by the result.
This is because they expected a remain vote.
It can't be binding on a remain vote but advisory on a leave vote.

IronHerb

It was advisory full stop.

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

Once again supposition is being put out as fact. The referendum papers and ballot forms did not say it was advisory or binding either way. However the leaflets produced by the government and treasury posted through every door on behalf of the remain campaign clearly said that whatever the outcome of the vote the government will abide by the result.
This is because they expected a remain vote.
It can't be binding on a remain vote but advisory on a leave vote.

thornbury, it might not have said it on the ballot or leaflets, but the referendum was legally advisory only.

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.