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
The Remain side should have probably done more to make that distinction clear.
I wish I could forward it to our current Presidential administration :clap:
The one thing that helps is that we're all in the West Ham family and nothing can divide us - except maybe the debate on whether Noble is still any good. :biggrin: :scarf:
I have changed my mind because I see more and more control being taken by the EU and I dont like where it may end up. As I said previously the concept of a free trade area was good but the EU has expanded beyond that and it is not for me. The ECHR was a misunderstanding on my part and I have now been educated but not a major factor in my reasons for changing my view. I do however have an opinion on Noble...............
The power of the veto. Good to know that if a country believed that it would be in its own best interests, and the best interests of the EU, it could use its own judgement without fear or favour.
It's the Irish Prime Minister giving his opinion, not a diktat from the EU.
As to 'without fear or favour' - that just sounds like 'without any consequences', which is not realistic.
Any country can still use their veto, if they don't mind the problems it causes for other members of the EU, and don't mind if that comes back on them later.
He isn't saying 'do this or else' He's saying: 'you can do what you like, but there might be consequences if you choose to veto', as that will, in his opinion, cause problems for others. If a country can live with that, then they are free to veto.
To paraphrase:
It's politics - you want something, you give something.
Seems a perfectly reasonable political, and indeed human response.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47873072
Trick or treat?
It would be a ridiculous travesty if we just stumbled along, kicking the can down the road only to face the same issues in oct as we are now.
On a slightly different note, leavers have been asked to give concrete reasons on why they voted to leave. I didn`t have any concrete reasons at the time, just an ideological opposition to big government. I now have three concrete reasons: Blair. Mandelson. Campbell.
If there was a second referendum, and remain won by the same margin (52-48), it appears to me that remainers would be happy to accept that result as firm and final, and a line would be drawn under the whole sorry episode. I just can`t get my head around that.
If you object (rightly) to Leavers misstating Brexiteers opinions, why do the same to Leavers?
I have no interest in how close or not the vote was - that has never been my concern.
I do feel that the fact that elements of the Leave campaign broke electoral law is a serious issue, which on its own should result in a re-run (as it would for parliamentary elections.)
In addition, I have serious concerns about elements of the Leave campaign using 'dark' ads on social media.
I also feel it would be beneficial to have a second referendum now that people are clearer about what kind of Brexit is available.
If that vote is still for Leave, that's what it is (wrong-headed as I feel it would be.)
They have referenda all the time. What a nightmare.
I wonder if their rules say you can't ask people to vote on the same question within a certain period of time.
Who predicted Brexit and Trump. Who would have thought that the largest opposition party in Germany would be openly Fascist. Look at Italy, France, Spain and the old Eastern Block. This country has never gone down that route. Cancel brexit without addressing the the problems and people (illogically) will shift further to the right, imo.
If you aren't racist, you wont embrace that ideology just because a second referendum result would lead to a no-brexit.
Also, I don't think we should base decision about what the country does on what the far right will or won't like.
Not sure what you can't get your head round, tbh.
The conduct of a number of prominent Leave campaigners broke electoral law.
In addition, they put out knowingly false information to targeted users of social media, which may or may not be illegal, but should certainly be considered shameful.
It shouldn't simply be about 'winning', it should be about a fair and legal process.
The country is going to remain divided whether or not there is a second referendum, and whatever the result should there be one.
This brings us to the question that would be asked. We could for clarity have a straight remain or no deal, but I feel sure the leave camp wouldn't like that, but they would find it hard to not accept it as their argument at present is based upon the idea that everyone knew what they were voting for and it is represented only by that which no deal offers.
A fair but less straight forward paper could include simply remain with one box to tick, whilst in the leave section you could tick leave with the actual guaranteed deal offered by the EU or no deal. We then add both leave votes together to make one figure which is measured against the remain figure. Should the leave figure be greater then the option with the higher of the two possibilities is acted upon.
A win for leave would clearly result in us following through and leaving, however I think that a second referendum could result in a crushing win in favor of staying, in that instance we should allow ourselves the luxury of overturning the current leave position.
You will never be able to satisfy everyone and I agree that what I am suggesting has a slightly ridiculous air about it, however it appears to me that it at least produces a path that the majority of people would be able to support, or at least, live with.
Option 1 a second win for leave, so we leave
Option 2 a narrow win for remain, so we take a breath, stay in and set in stone a final decisive vote in three years
Option 3 a clear crushing win for remain, where we remain