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
- 1.9K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 51 General Chatter
- 9 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 560 Fun & Games
- 176 BA Predictor Threads
- 6 Fantasy Football
- 52 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 360 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 143 Current West Ham
- 214 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 36 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 32 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 468 Match Threads
- 138 MOTM
- 12 West Ham Nostalgia
- 37 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 43 Transfers
- 51 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 59 Internationals
- 52 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 141 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 289 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
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.
Erm, well, no they didn't.
Parliament voted for a measure that would enable them to gauge the opinion of those who wanted to express an opinion on the subject.
;quaver I just don't think you understand.
Which is not statesmanlike, or uniting the country, or taking seriously her responsibility to serve the nation (imo) but is playing politics.
Separately, the 2 yr thing is not quite as you suggest.
Once we are not an EU member, we can get on with any international negotiations we please. The EU can't stop us. There is no time restriction on that.
But we can't do that until we are not an EU member.
The 2 years is the maximum allowed time unless we all agree to extend it that we may take to achieve that 'desired' status. We can do it more quickly. We can negotiate an agreement take longer, if we like (or can).
I don't know about even-handed. We signed a deal.
I don't think it is reasonable to moan about it now that it no longer suits us. (My opinion.)
--
As an aside, if what we are seeing is that the EU is negotiating from a position of strength, and we are in a relatively weak position, all I can say is... well, of course. It was always going to be like that. Brexit - deal with it ;cool
Going off track a bit but if we wish trace the issue back further than David Cameron I trace it to Len Mclusky who launched a successful bid for the labour party which he holds to this day, when Gordon Brown left power.
The tories could only of dreamed of a majority at the last election but the installing of another non-leader in Ed Milliband over the far more popular and articulate David Milliband by Len Mclusky allowed him to achieve the impossible and paved the way for his referendum. In one swoop Len killed off New Labour and the countries viable opposition. Corbyn is massively popular with an increased grass roots labour party membership but the country at large would have to become a give anyone a go nation such as Greece became before he could ever win power.
Quality politicians are thin on the ground and from Labour at present I can see Hilary Benn and possibly Chucka Ummuna, someone I think is not a man I would particularly endorse but would keep the tories honest ( purposely intended pun .
Corbyn was best at keeping his own party honest and voted against his own party on more occasions than you could count, and yet now complains when his party don't support the leader (him), the world has truly gone mad.
I agree with you on somethings, but not on this ;biggrin
The contradiction which has arisen in geographical politics is fascinating as in my view the Labour northern heartlands which sent the leave vote due to being excluded from an elitist London based power base would find a general election a huge conundrum. Do they vote for the Tories who cause their problems but will deliver their victory in Europe or Labour who may ease their day to day problems a little but less likely deliver the exit they would consider victory, if at all.
I look for someone who recognises that the economy is the driving force of the nation and acts accordingly, but with that strong economy looks to take care of the less able and those needing help. I want someone not entrenched in a particular politics but of intelligence and common sense, as a leader someone able to get on with people and build trust abroad, someone who can communicate a narrative that builds communities and the country to be inwardly caring and outwardly looking and welcoming. I need above all else to feel that they are doing this for the right reasons and not play politics, and then if they make mistakes as we all would it's ok and just like Slav at present we would support them.
Article 50 ruling: the EU referendum was only ever "advisory"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/article-50-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory
Some key points:
A referendum is not an election. Voters can periodically change their minds about the outcome of a previous vote.
The structures of representative democracy exist to provide a filter against mob rule moods and errors.
There should never have been a referendum. The internal party political reason why it was held was not meant to deliver a Leave outcome. So much is public knowledge too. But MPs need to remember that the contingency was guarded against. Briefing paper 07212 sent to MPs on 3 June 2015 before the debate in the House on the 2015 Referendum Bill made it perfectly clear that the referendum was “advisory” and “consultative” only and that neither the government nor parliament was bound by it (section 5). It equally clearly pointed out that in matters of major constitutional import, a “simple plurality of the vote is insufficient” (section 6). Which bits of this are MPs now acting as if they either did not read or did not understand?
At the same time, an unappetising piece of information was provided by the referendum: attitudes to immigration have gone rancid in some quarters.
Mrs G. You are far better than pointing to a simple pie chart in defence of our peculiar democracy. Every government in our current system is elected without ever achieving a majority of the popular vote. You and NE also point to the issue of whipped voting and free voting. The very idea of a whipped vote surely runs against all logic when one discusses "democracy". NE suggests that MP`s vote against article 50 as MP`s should vote according to their conscious and for what they believe is right. Surely MP`s voting in any other way (I.E. 99% of the time) is simply too horrific to contemplate.
A little while back we were asked if we were proud to be British/English. I think I was one of the very few who said yes (in a strange way). In fact one poster said he was "almost ashamed to be English". We all know what almost means. It is like starting a sentence: "with all due respect." There now seems to be a huge groundswell of pride, admiration and respect for our "peculiar" democracy and our much vaunted legal system. Are we now saying that we are better than "Johnny Foreigner" in this respect? One final point, if we take such pride in the sanctity and sovereignty of our democracy and the legal system that stands above it, why do we allow it to be overruled by the European courts. Or is this just when it suits.