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
- 401 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
I am no fan of Osborne, far from it. And I think the claim that there would need to be an emergency budget was very badly handled.
However, if you look at the facts, he did make clear that the likely need for an emergency budget was based on the Institute of Fiscal Studies' calculation of a £30bn deficit post-Brexit.
Furthermore, the budget he set out was clearly described as 'illustrative' - however certain sections of the press and leave campaigners chose to describe it, or readers chose not to pay any attention to it.
MadCap, As everyone knows, the Chancellor proposes and Parliament decides. So he wasn't promising what you say he was.
The great thing is, since any individual can make a complaint to the CPS in this regard, we may yet see that issue raised.
PS, Mike, you weren't paying close enough attention. Step away from those mushrooms and read it again.
It's not the case that according to the author of the article, that appears to be 'just a matter of personal opinion' by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer but rather it is the author of the article, reporting what Prof Watt said.
I agree it would be a great shame if the thread had to close.
However, at the moment it's pretty much the only thread on the forum that needs moderating, so it would be helpful if people remembered to act with courtesy and respect towards other members and their views, regardless of how much they may disagree. Sarcasm and snarkiness simply lead to bad feelings, which perpetuate on the thread and can spread to the rest of the forum.
I'm a non-revolutionary economic Marxist, by the way. (Can't be doing with all that historical inevitability stuff.)
I had to chuckle at the fun to be had over here if the campaigns of both Trump and Clinton were held at the same level of factual integrity and faced criminal sanction if they pointed to known non-truths.
I fear that nothing would ever get done other than the lawyers getting even richer.
While welcome, it does actually require people to want to read about the facts.... which may be where it all goes pear-shaped.
During the referendum campaign in the UK, there was a similar thing - I know that the BBC news website did some of it, and The Guardian had a column that took some of the claims and subjected them to fact-checking. I don't know how widespread it was otherwise.
Sadly, it has always been open to folks to do their own fact-checking ... that so many don't suggests that the websites and newspapers are preaching to the converted somewhat.
As an aside, I don't suppose you saw the thing about the Sun recently? They obviously didn't do any fact-checking ;biggrin
;bowdown
If there is nothing for the ministers to vote on for or against when it comes to a negotiating position, why would there need to be a vote? Simply send notification
;thumbsup
She can't 'simply send notification' because the Prime Minister doesn't have the authority to do it!!!
The PM can only act in this regard if Parliament have indicated (by vote) that it wants her to.
When they vote, they aren't being asked to vote on a negotiating position.
They're being asked to vote on whether or not to agree that they want the Article 50 notification to be made.
That (as per the current interpretation of the law) is what is required.
The govt could, of course, get on with it and asl Parliament to give them the thumbs up.
But they have decided not to. They want to appeal the decision, go to the Supreme Court, and hope that it will overturn the initial judgement.
Ah well, that's my meal break over, back on the train until 11:10pm.........
I'm not sure what you want.
You voted Leave, and are happy to consider yourself (rightly, I suspect) individuals who voted what they thought would best realise their personal hopes.
You get snarky (rightly, imo) when you feel that all Leavers are being lumped together into an amorphous mass.
But you make, or approve of, comments that seem to lump all Remainers into an apparently intellectually snobby amorphous mass.
Can you not see a contradiction there?
I think Leave is a terrible, terrible mistake. I'm not going to apologise for not agreeing with those who think otherwise, and I'd appreciate it if those who disagree with that would extend me (and others) the same courtesy of assuming that I am a rational, thoughtful person, as you seem to expect you are entitled to.
There was no subsequent prosecution because at the time it wasn't an offence, as you say - although it s now, by virtue of the very amendments we were talking about. (apparently)
Mushrooms? What mushrooms - I've harvested plenty but never inhaled! ;whistle
I suppose I was looking it as a report (so expected to be largely factual) rather than any kind of blog/opinion piece. In which case it wouldn't be appropriate for the reporter to write an article 'challenging' anything about the case or Watt's comments.
Of course, reporters can exhibit bias without inserting their own opinion, just by virtue of the facts they select for inclusion and those they choose to exclude. Or by using emotive or perjorative langauge. Without reading the full transcript of the announcement (press release or whatever) I can't say if that has happened here.
If the reporter was intending to bias the reader in favour of a criminal prosecution, they could easily have ignored completely the issue of any potential 'remain' dodginess - but they didn't. They seem to have addressed the question (whether this was asked in a press conference, or via interview, I don't know) 'well, what about the claims of the remain campaign that could be called into question?'.
tbh, I found it quite a neutral piece in style.
Was watching some political programme (Might have been Andrew Marr or one of the others later in the day), Gina Miller had just finished saying how the PM should be grateful to her for providing a legal vehicle for her to now trigger article 50, asked if she though MP's on the remain side would use this as an opportunity to block triggering Article 50 and try to stop the UK leaving the EU altogether she said no. There then followed a series of excerpts of interviews with Jeremy Corbyn and other high profile labour MP's who were shown clearly saying they would vote to block article 50 if their 'demands' for certain guarantee's are not met by the PM, this was soon added to by Senior Lib Dems and other's all stating similar 'demands'.
When the cameras turned back to her it appeared to me she was having difficulty containing her delight at hearing this 'news' - although Labour have now backtracked again and 'clarified' the situation saying they are not going to block it but only table amendments, which they have called bottom lines (so if they are not in the bill to trigger Article 50 they will not vote for it then - so effectively voting to block it).
They can table as many amendments as they like - how unrealistic is that? They are forgetting the simple fact that the negotiations are a two way street and the EU could easily say 'NO', where would that leave all their 'demands' and amendments then?
Also, just supposing for one minute the Gov'ts appeal is successful, the next step (if it was chosen by the people bringing the case) is to take it to the European court - how ironic is that? can you imagine the outcry there would be then, of course they could just say they will not take it as it is an issue that only the UK courts can decide on.
I have asked many times why the remainers are so sure that everything will fall apart once we leave the EU but have yet, to my knowledge, been given one fact that proves their fears.
I am happy to admit that I as a leave voter can also not prove that we will be better off out of the EU, however for better or worse economically I do believe that the EU was becoming too big and far reaching and was heading in a direction that was becoming unmanageable. I am also prepared to accept some economic hardship in the short term for what I feel will be better long term prospects.
The problem is that no one really knows just how much this will affect us, but why are why trying to tear our country down in order to stick with the EU? What is it that is so great and that people think will not be the case when/if we leave?
As someone mentioned in an earlier post the EU's reaction to our leave vote has been far from good and has also strengthened my resolve that we are better off out. Also there was another meeting that they kept us out of which was about forming an EU army, something that they know we wouldn't approve. They have said we can't discuss trade deals until we are out but then exclude us from their own future plans, it is double standards.
On an aside, Preston thanks for your comment a page or two back as I like you felt that there was a certain tone to that post. In general I think that the moderation on this site is great, however I do feel that certain posters have been able to get away with posts that may be able to be interperated as more personal. I personally haven't taken any offense and am not out to label anyone or try to get anyone in trouble, however I do feel that as a leave voter I have been lumped into a derogatory category and assumptions made despite my best efforts to discuss this fairly and with an open mind.
I am not going to comment any further on this thread now, apart from to answer any direct questions or comments people may have in response to this post. After that I intend to stick to the rest of the forum which brings me light hearted joy and humor despite being a hammers fan in what is proving to be a dismal season!
The second was her Tory party speech something in which she failed even acknowledge those who voted remain for a narrative of an over whelming majority - there was no such thing, there was a narrow majority. Her narrative should in my opinion be one of unifying first through respect and recognition of both sides views and a commitment to try and serve both views as best possible within a difficult negotiation. But by seeing only one side as if it were a 80-20 split she cannot fail but alienate, and her job should be to unify a country which has not been this divided for as long as i can remember.
On reflection I feel she has made a political decision or even deal to push through brexit no matter what to appease the leave press, in return they will be sure to support her during the process and in a subsequent general election.
Murdoch made the now famous quote of when I go to Downing street they do as I say, when I go to Europe they take no notice of me..... Well I think TM is doing what he says.
There is no 'appeal' from national courts to ECJ.
Perhaps if we didn't spend so much time looking at ourselves and look around at the rest of the world we might realise that other countries have problems a lot worse than ours and we might have a better perspective of things but I suppose being an island is not helpful
In 24 hours time the USA could be facing the prospect of President Trump, I think when it comes to laughing stock of the world we're bottom half of the table.
Aslef - I didn't get chance to continue our discussion yesterday as I had to go out. I just wanted to ask why you thought Unite included Ed Milliband literature in every ballot paper to unite members in 2010?
I know you have said it didn't make much difference as half voted for someone else but another way of spinning that is that he got as many votes as all the other candidates put together from Unite members, and this made the difference as his victory was 50.65% to 49.35%. Do you think the Unite vote made the difference?
Without actually asking people "did you vote for Ed because your union sent you a leaflet/envelope backing him" there is no way of knowing, personally I suspect most people who voted had made their mind up before they received their ballot paper but then I think the power of advertising is grossly overestimated
I feel that brexit and the Trump victory was pulled off by a unique occurrence which was getting white working class voting alongside the harder right, just as with brexit many areas that would never have voted Tory voted alongside typical Tory areas to tip the balance, likewise trump won by converting democratic areas to trump voting areas, white working class that would never usually vote repuclican.
This now shows a framework for winning an election which is appeal to working class voters from an anti immigration and anti elite position, this could effect us as France will vote next year and Le Pen and the national front will know that this is their ticket to win, the other parties know that should they allow us to even look like benefitting from Brexit in the meantime they are finished. I feel we should not trigger until those elections are over. There are of course German elections but they wouldn't would they? but I said that about Brexit and Trump so I have given up think anything impossible.
Had thought to, but wanted to see if it would just be a couple of comments, or be of wider interest.
Thread will be split imminently.