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
- 1.8K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 46 General Chatter
- 8 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 523 Fun & Games
- 160 BA Predictor Threads
- 48 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 343 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 139 Current West Ham
- 213 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 34 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 31 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 452 Match Threads
- 121 MOTM
- 12 West Ham Nostalgia
- 37 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 42 Transfers
- 50 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 57 Internationals
- 50 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 133 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 281 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
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?
Just a minor thing .. you refer to parliament and the House of Lords as if they are distinct. But they aren't. Parliament = House of Commons + House of Lords, and for a law to be passed it has to go through both upper and lower houses.
(I'm sure you knew that, and it was just your terminology.) ;hug
She will not see out 2017 yet alone get to 2020, not up to the job in my view as the she should be prioritising the rule of law and democracy over the referendum, although not everyone in the street will understand the difference she most certainly does and so to use the language she has indicates to me she has decided to fight for one side of the nation against the other rather than truly lead by seeking to unite.
If she states that she is wholly in favour of brexit on account of the referendum result and intends support that position vigorously, but also recognises that a part of Britains position in the world now and the past is because we do things properly, according to law and democratic process, expresses that this process and rule of law has a value and if discarded now will not retain any authority in the future and risks us becoming like nations we would not aspire to be.
She can take the politics out of the situation which I think is what is needed more than anything else at this time, by stating that although she may personally be in favour of brexit she is more in favour of retaining rule of law and recognises fully what the situation is with regard this vote regardless of all the things claimed about the referendum.
Although the lords are somewhat pompous in places they are an important part of the nations governing process. On this issue and I will stress 'at this point', if the commons were to vote to trigger I don't think the lords should prevent it.
http://www.whu606.com/discussion/comment/833987/#Comment_833987 ;clap
Nigel Farage on the Andrew Marr show saying that if the Lords oppose/obstruct the procedure then it would be the end of the upper house - muppet. ;angry
Tom, here's the link if you couldn't be bovvered to find it yourself. The positives stated in the leaflet are the ones I refer to.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
Pray, tell me the positives in leaving. ;hmm
They state that they believe that the best interests of the country are served by staying in the EU.
But they will bow to popular pressure, and do what they believe will harm the country.
You've got to ask - are they fit to be entrusted with the responsibility of running the country if they will act to knowingly damage it?
#onlyfollowingorders
If I post a link which states the things which I refer to I'm not going to waste time paraphrasing them.
Please let's not see things get personal.
Thanks.
So not quite the will of the British people - more accurately, it is the will of some British people.
I accept that it is a (small) majority of those who voted, but lets not pretend it is anything other than the choice a minority of the population.
I think she needed to put fourth a narrative which acknowledged the deep divide on the subject and take a middle ground in which both sides at least felt she would have the nations interests at heart. She also needed set a tone with the EU which she began to do but then soured with her tory party speech. That speech was her downfall as she loved the applause in the room but failed to realise many outside were aghast. She has time to establish a new narrative but keeps passing the invitation up, she could have done so this week with the judges ruling but once again chose to say I am pushing ahead regardless. Not as bright as I had hoped, or poorly advised.
MPs in the Tory party were allowed to choose sides, this is true.
But but it is very clear that 'the government' is distinct from the elected Tory MPs.
After an election, it is the leader of the majority party who is invited to 'form a government.'
It was this 'government' that promised to implement the results.
I have seen nothing in their behaviour that highlights to me what a good club the EU is to be a member of ...
The agenda for that 2nd day's discussions was how the remaining members would deal with the UK's decision to leave.
That doesn't seem an unreasonable exclusion, to me.
Feels like the the UK may be on gardening leave as far as the EU is concerned.