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
It's only our money until we've paid our taxes.
Then it's the govt's money.
The EU have already made their position clear - nothing will be on the table at the start and there are some things they will not agree to, so if you attach a conditions for negotiations as part of the article 50 bill which the EU refuse to discuss or entertain, where does that leave things?
Aslef - SNP are treading a very thin line with an independence vote, I was in Falkirk last week and this obviously came up during a lunch time discussion. Interestingly about six out of ten of those in the room who voted to remain said they would vote to stay with the UK as they felt the benefits they got from the UK Devo Max deal they currently had was better than they would get from the EU - also they were wary of joining the EU as it was clear (despite what Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP said) that this could not happen until after the UK Exit and Scottish independence, and they would have to do it as a new member - not walking into the UK seat and agreements, so they would be getting the Euro and everything being an EU member entailed (including paying towards the Euro zone debt and bailouts), with the ruling bodies (EU Parliament and Commission) being further away than Westminster and Scotland having a lot less influence. Also what would happen with the borders and people who crossed it daily for work. One even posed the question that if several areas clearly had a high level of votes to stay in the UK (not wanting independence) would the SNP allow them to stay and breakaway, using the argument the SNP has for leaving the UK (majority vote to remain in the EU).
If brexit goes ahead the UK as it stood on June 22nd may have had it's course changed completely for generations to come, and as Phillip Hammond remarked a whole new model may need to be found. Despite all the spin which will be put on it in these times when the politics is taking centre stage the outlook will be clear to see, then they will make a call on whether to have a vote. I don't think we can refuse them as the union will have been demonstrated to have been significantly changed from the one they were previously part of and we obviously cannot claim once you enter a union of countries you remain forever as we just voted out of one, and as many leave voters quite reasonably suggested they did so because the union they joined changed course.
I was against Scotland leaving the United kingdom but would have a lot of sympathy with them should they hold another and would wish them well on their own.
She really does make me want to vomit. ;angry
Why? As this is surely what shoe should be doing ...
The line that would make you agree with you is , but that is Laura Kuennsberg's interpretation and quite at odds with But then that appears to be the BBC's role ...
Is it meant to be a news report but with a separate bit under her byline that is an opinion piece?
It's rather unclear.
I have no problem with journalist giving their own interpretations and views but the article must be clearly identified as opinion, rather than news.
I think that is one of the disadvantages (or perhaps weaknesses) of web newspapers. In the olden days of print newspaper, the news was on a page labelled news. The opinions and debate-type stuff was further back in the paper, on pages clearly labelled as such.
That distinction has blurred with digital news sites, when the 'front page' can have all kinds of stuff on it.
BBC used to have a more distinct style for the sidebars which they seem to have changed, making it more confusing.
Opinion on websites is still in the opinion section and is usually labelled as such but yes they promote it more on the front page than before. But I don't think many people actually ever go to the front page - they read what links people share with them, which is often opinion.
Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear - the Opinion pieces are always identified as such, just not always noticeable unless you actually look/check.
But I don't think many people actually ever go to the front page - they read what links people share with them, which is often opinion.
;nonono
I'm a minority, then.
;hmm Can I get a grant?
Apologies for second posting, but I couldn't resist it.
If you're referring to the Supreme Court appeal there's a world of difference. When you have 11 judges, 8 of whom are strongly pro Europe, there's obviously going to be suspicion. if as they claimed they were only ruling on a point of law how come only those 8 saw the law that way.
It's little wonder that people are suspicious of the judiciary.
https://www.nknews.org/2014/07/how-law-and-order-works-in-north-korea/
Do you believe it is impossible for people (any - not just judges) to put aside their personal belief (be it political, religious, whatever) and do their jobs impartially and professionally?
I don't know how many doctors or nurses will follow this instruction. I was having tests in hospital on Friday and just in general chit chat jokingly referred to this when talking to the cardiologist as he mentioned he was an expectant father. We were talking about my activities with my grandchildren so that is why it came up.
He laughed and said it would depend upon who is listening.
So in answer to your question I don't know if people can ignore their own personal beliefs within their normal jobs.
Might be time to refer to Suzie on this.
That's really not an accurate representation at all.
I shall look up the facts for you, so you can be better informed when discussing it with your cardiologist in future. ;wink
But that isn't what the BMA have done at all.
"This is a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA. It is not workplace guidance for doctors which is clear from the fact it does not refer to patients."
And what it actually said was: You can read the whole leaflet here:
https://www.bma.org.uk/-/media/files/pdfs/about the bma/equality and inclusion/bma-guide-to-effective-communication-2016.pdf
You might still disagree with the reasoning, but at the least I think you will see that it puts their reasoning forwards more fairly than the Telegraph or Mail do.
1.If you don’t know for certain what gender to use when talking about a person’s loved ones, or if you aren’t sure whether someone identifies as male or female, keep your language neutral until you know what terms they prefer to use. For example, use the word ‘partner’ instead of ‘wife’ or ‘husband’, ‘parent’ instead of ‘Mum’ or ‘Dad’, and ‘child’ instead of ‘son’ or ‘daughter’.
2. The guidance doesn't apply to clinical staff working with patients, it is for people working for the BMA, which is a professional association representing its members. A direct quote from the BMA: 'This is a guide for BMA staff and representatives aimed at promoting an inclusive workplace at the BMA. It is not workplace guidance for doctors, which is clear from the fact it does not refer to patients.”
Edit: I spent ages looking it all up, only to find grey got there first. ;weep
PS, I'll move this chunk of discussion over to the Article 50 thread, as it isn't about the US ;ok
Edit.... Better move this one too
I would expect a cardiologist (or any health professional) to carry out their professional duties regardless of their own personal beliefs or opinions.
I would expect a Muslim doctor to treat a Jewish patient as well as any other patient. I would expect a socialist doctor to work to the best of their ability on a right-wing terrorist suspect.
I expect all members of the judiciary to act impartially, based on the evidence they hear, and the relevant laws.
I have no reason to suspect that is not the case, and believe that enough checks and balances exist to deal with any instances where a member of the judiciary falls below that standard.
I think slinging mud at the judiciary because they don't come up with the answer you wanted is a hair's breadth away from totalitarianism.