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
- 1.7K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 41 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 478 Fun & Games
- 139 BA Predictor Threads
- 43 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 324 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 133 Current West Ham
- 209 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 33 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 30 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 431 Match Threads
- 99 MOTM
- 11 West Ham Nostalgia
- 36 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 40 Transfers
- 48 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 56 Internationals
- 49 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 125 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 273 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
Again IMO Article 50 needs enacting immediately, let the dust fall where it will. There is far too much uncertainty so pull the plaster off fast & deal with the fall out, as i previously stated the drop in the pound more than makes up for any financial penalties.
It could be brought into question whether it is a classic example of cash for influence as the union leaders such as Mclusky seem to get access and it would appear influence to some degree due to the money paid to the Labour party. They even made threats to withdraw funding from the Labour party a while back I seem to remember, the party is definitely dependent upon them.
Do you mean formal notification should be sent to the EU, as provided for by Article 50?
If yes, go on then. Why don't you do it? Quick as yer like. ;thumbsup
What do you mean you can't, because you aren't empowered to?
Oh, you and Teresa May both, then, it would seem. ;wink
(At the moment, pending the outcome the appeal.)
The later amendment added 'or intends to' as part of that 'prevails upon' wording.
I thought the sticking point might be the meaning of 'free exercise of the franchise' ;hmm
Of course, there is precedent, because in a general election a Lib Dem leaflet that contained false information about Labour was found to come under this category of 'undue influence'.
The difference might be that (as far as I can see from the media coverage of this) the precedent was where one side was telling lies about the other, while in the current case, it is one side just telling lies. Allegedly.
But, perhaps the issues are far too complicated for the average person to understand, and far too complicated for anyone who chose to vote in the last election. The issues only seem to present themselves with absolute clarity to those who are convinced Anarchists.
Or perhaps we need to keep sarcasm and personal comments out of the thread, and stick to arguing the issues.
If people can't keep within site boundaries then the thread will be closed.
Point 1: fair enough, although most (not all) are looking for solutions within the present system not for a completely new system
Point 2: I have always said from the start that NO-ONE knows what will happen and made it quite clear that all I offer are alternative ways of looking at things, not concrete solutions to perceived future problems and have said often that I may be wrong. I honestly don`t know what will happen tomorrow, let alone in six months or six years time. There are no absolute blue prints as to how society will work best. But, the impression I get from certain posters is that if only those that voted leave would look at and understand the facts as plainly presented, then it would be inevitable that they would change their vote. If I am wrong in this assumption then please excuse the sarcasm.
Point 3: I think it would be a crying shame to close the thread, but if you were to close it, you should have done it about three pages back.
For myself, as I said earlier: I think it is right that the judiciary is separate from the government and, by extension, political pressure (and why I am strongly opposed to any switch to a system whereby judges are elected).
I have no issue whether the judicial function is carried out by a Magistrate's Court, County Court, High Court, Supreme Court, the ECJ or the ECHR - horses for courses, as far as I am concerned. I also don't really care what nationality the judges are or where they were born, as long as they do their job to the best of their ability. I also don't see that having an appropriate court rule on relevant legislation within its remit as 'abdicating power'. But that's just me.
PS, I have read most of the comment with your conclusion that those who want to stay in the EU have claimed our system of government and our legal system as something sacrosanct. Although as the thead goes back many months, I may have forgotten something.
Anyway, speaking as one 'remain' voter, I can categorically say that what you describe in no way chimes with my own view. (if anything I have posted suggests otherwise, I am happy to clarify.) ;ok
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.