Why are Leave voters expected to compromise?

[Nik]

Just as was to be expected - no answer, not even the beginning of one.
Anyway, not about here the Remainers would compromise if the shoe were on the other foot - let alone (the beginning of) an answer to which of the elements the original post lists they would sacrifice.

I guess with binary choices that have clearly been announced as such ('once in a lifetime', 'we'll abide by the result whatever that may be' etc.) that's what you get.

And by the way 52% vs. 48%; granted it's not a huge difference, but 10% (to be exact 8,33% not 2%) is nothing to sneeze at.
In politics things are often decided on a much smaller margin................

Have people ever heard/seen the phrase 'Leave means leave'?
To paraphrase: what part of binary choice don't you understand?

Read the original post (again), but pls. do so carefully this time.
Well, if you cannot find fault with the content, just attack the appearance/formulating of the question, I guess.....

Second referendum? Please - I guess MP's will solemnly swear to abide by the outcome this time, won't they.
The expression "...we know so much more now..." implies that people didn't know what they voted for (if only we could have this argument with EVERY election ever held).
One thing 'more' the Remainers certainly know is that there's a genuine chance that they can lose, so this time around they had better turn up in bigger numbers than the 'opposition' as opposed to last time. If only for being able to shout: "...I told you so..."

As someone pointed out so eloquently, the majority of people voted to leave against severe threats they had to endure/absorb about job losses, depreciating value of houses, economy and stock exchanges collapsing etc. Seems to me like the majority that voted to leave made an informed choice - they just want to be an independent, sovereign, self-governing country (again).
For all of the adults out there that are now living in their own place, remember what it felt like when you moved out of your parents' house and into your own place? You gained independence, the right to make your own choices (mind you, both good and bad ones), you took pride in going it on your own, not having anyone to answer to about your day-to-day going-on etc.

If what has been said is true, I'm wondering why the ballot didn't give a choice between: 'Remain' and 'Norway deal'. To me, it looks like a lot of afterthought aka. opportunistic arguments. At the time people cast their votes, who did so because of the Norway figures - be honest now.
Later on I'll probably be able to show you some liars.........

Well, that's the first mistake - never negotiate towards what you want to achieve. Simply state what you'll accept, then if necessary walk away and let the other side do the 'squirming'.

Funny talk about what could possibly work, this line of reasoning has all the makings of a typical politician because if you ask the Leave side I can tell for sure that they know what will work with certainty! You see what you get from compromising ☺?
Sadly, at this time the Leavers are outnumbered in parliament, so the Remain MP's can do a whole lot of damage by dragging their heels in order to block/obstruct/delay/put away for the future, that what is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later anyway.

If there is truly consensus about:

"...People voted for ice cream, but they didn't say which flavor..."

then it only makes sense that IF THERE WERE A SECOND REFERENDUM TO BE HELD(!) the choices on the ballot would have to be only different kinds of flavors (and NOT rehashing what the nutrition should be this time around).

Indeed, Europe is an important 'neighbor' and it only makes sense that there will be trade going on, so why are representatives of the EU acting so 'difficult'? Could it be that they're trying to make an example of the UK and if at all possible scaring the country into withdrawing its breaking away thoughts? Or is it 'just' the UK's money they are after? Who knows.
You know, the EU's is not the only market in the world - true, theirs is the closest by and fairly large at that, but that doesn't give them an absolute 'right' to demand all kinds of specialties.
Like the leaving member cannot perform any activity that goes beyond the separation date; has anyone ever told the EU that having provisions in place for the so-called Irish backstop is something that purely addresses the future well beyond the separation date?

Come to think of it, if you as an entity treat you member(state)s fairly and decently in stead of (trying to) forc(e)(ing) things they don't want down their throats, they will never ever feel a need for leaving your club. As I always say make it so that they don't even feel a need to want something else, not so that they cannot make themselves available for anything else. But that's probably just me.

The reply that lists the 'three reasons' really merely proves my point.

All that it all boils down to is: self-worth vs. economics, business attitude vs. don't rock the boat mentality, opportunities vs. failures, attractiveness of the unknown vs. happy where I am, why change it etc.

If GDP is a factor at all, how do countries like Japan, Canada, Australia etc. ever survive without being a member of the EU? Remember, to the best of my knowledge Japan is one of the G7-countries. So, by the way is Canada - and as you know, neither of them is a member of the EU!

Just for reference; the annual GDP of Japan is £ 4,872 million , that of Canada £ 1,647 million and that of Australia £ 1,408 million. The UK's income amounts to £ 2,631 million per year (all figures are UN numbers of 2017 - source: Wikipedia, List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia).

And just to clariy, I just call them as I see them - sadly I'm not paid for the contributions I make; neither here nor elsewhere (a real shame I should add, because I'd probably be raking in more than I do now).

 

[editor]

Just as was to be expected - no answer, not even the beginning of one.
Anyway, not about here the Remainers would compromise if the shoe were on the other foot - let alone (the beginning of) an answer to which of the elements the original post lists they would sacrifice.

I guess with binary choices that have clearly been announced as such ('once in a lifetime', 'we'll abide by the result whatever that may be' etc.) that's what you get.

And by the way 52% vs. 48%; granted it's not a huge difference, but 10% (to be exact 8,33% not 2%) is nothing to sneeze at.
In politics things are often decided on a much smaller margin................

Have people ever heard/seen the phrase 'Leave means leave'?
To paraphrase: what part of binary choice don't you understand?

Read the original post (again), but pls. do so carefully this time.
Well, if you cannot find fault with the content, just attack the appearance/formulating of the question, I guess.....

Second referendum? Please - I guess MP's will solemnly swear to abide by the outcome this time, won't they.
The expression "...we know so much more now..." implies that people didn't know what they voted for (if only we could have this argument with EVERY election ever held).
One thing 'more' the Remainers certainly know is that there's a genuine chance that they can lose, so this time around they had better turn up in bigger numbers than the 'opposition' as opposed to last time. If only for being able to shout: "...I told you so..."

As someone pointed out so eloquently, the majority of people voted to leave against severe threats they had to endure/absorb about job losses, depreciating value of houses, economy and stock exchanges collapsing etc. Seems to me like the majority that voted to leave made an informed choice - they just want to be an independent, sovereign, self-governing country (again).
For all of the adults out there that are now living in their own place, remember what it felt like when you moved out of your parents' house and into your own place? You gained independence, the right to make your own choices (mind you, both good and bad ones), you took pride in going it on your own, not having anyone to answer to about your day-to-day going-on etc.

If what has been said is true, I'm wondering why the ballot didn't give a choice between: 'Remain' and 'Norway deal'. To me, it looks like a lot of afterthought aka. opportunistic arguments. At the time people cast their votes, who did so because of the Norway figures - be honest now.
Later on I'll probably be able to show you some liars.........

Well, that's the first mistake - never negotiate towards what you want to achieve. Simply state what you'll accept, then if necessary walk away and let the other side do the 'squirming'.

Funny talk about what could possibly work, this line of reasoning has all the makings of a typical politician because if you ask the Leave side I can tell for sure that they know what will work with certainty! You see what you get from compromising ☺?
Sadly, at this time the Leavers are outnumbered in parliament, so the Remain MP's can do a whole lot of damage by dragging their heels in order to block/obstruct/delay/put away for the future, that what is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later anyway.

If there is truly consensus about:

"...People voted for ice cream, but they didn't say which flavor..."

then it only makes sense that IF THERE WERE A SECOND REFERENDUM TO BE HELD(!) the choices on the ballot would have to be only different kinds of flavors (and NOT rehashing what the nutrition should be this time around).

Indeed, Europe is an important 'neighbor' and it only makes sense that there will be trade going on, so why are representatives of the EU acting so 'difficult'? Could it be that they're trying to make an example of the UK and if at all possible scaring the country into withdrawing its breaking away thoughts? Or is it 'just' the UK's money they are after? Who knows.
You know, the EU's is not the only market in the world - true, theirs is the closest by and fairly large at that, but that doesn't give them an absolute 'right' to demand all kinds of specialties.
Like the leaving member cannot perform any activity that goes beyond the separation date; has anyone ever told the EU that having provisions in place for the so-called Irish backstop is something that purely addresses the future well beyond the separation date?

Come to think of it, if you as an entity treat you member(state)s fairly and decently in stead of (trying to) forc(e)(ing) things they don't want down their throats, they will never ever feel a need for leaving your club. As I always say make it so that they don't even feel a need to want something else, not so that they cannot make themselves available for anything else. But that's probably just me.

The reply that lists the 'three reasons' really merely proves my point.

All that it all boils down to is: self-worth vs. economics, business attitude vs. don't rock the boat mentality, opportunities vs. failures, attractiveness of the unknown vs. happy where I am, why change it etc.

If GDP is a factor at all, how do countries like Japan, Canada, Australia etc. ever survive without being a member of the EU? Remember, to the best of my knowledge Japan is one of the G7-countries. So, by the way is Canada - and as you know, neither of them is a member of the EU!

Just for reference; the annual GDP of Japan is £ 4,872 million , that of Canada £ 1,647 million and that of Australia £ 1,408 million. The UK's income amounts to £ 2,631 million per year (all figures are UN numbers of 2017 - source: Wikipedia, List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia).

And just to clariy, I just call them as I see them - sadly I'm not paid for the contributions I make; neither here nor elsewhere (a real shame I should add, because I'd probably be raking in more than I do now).

You're not even in the UK are you? So what's your agenda here?

 

[collectordave]

As I understood, the most important 7 things the Leave voters want to achieve are (in random order):
1. No longer be a part of (the rules of) the EU's Customs Union;
2. No longer be a part of (the rules of) the EU's Single Market;
3. Regain control of UK's borders by deciding on a case-by-case basis which people get to enter the land as well as which people do not;
4. Make the country's own laws;
5. Have the highest Court to which one has to answer and in fact of the nation be the British Supreme(?) Court in stead of the ECJ;
6. Get rid of the Common Agricultural Policy;
7. Get rid of the Common Fishing Policy.

As a remainer I would be willing to compromise on all seven points with just a few provisos.
.

1. Any compromise leavers wish to propose that does not affect the free flow of goods and services across our borders and has no impact on British business
   
2. As no 1
   
   
3. No need for compromise here as the UK has its own immigration policy anyway, they can change that anytime they wish.
   
   
4. No compromise here needed as well. The only laws valid in the UK are those passed by the Government. Of course if anyone can think of an EU law that has not been passed by the government and is law in the UK we can see if we can find a compromise quite open and willing to do that.
   
   
5. As a remainer I have great faith in the fairness of the British courts and feel that no embarrassment would accrue in having decisions made by our courts examined by other bodies.Of course if anyone finds the British system so unfair it is embarrassing for others to look at such descisions then we can try to find a compromise.
   
   
6. Yes compromise here as well as long as the UK tax payer does not have to, as they do now, pick up the bill for farmers subsidies etc. pointless leaving if that is the case.
   
   
7. As number 6.

In the end I would prefer to have the UK government as a member of the EU fighting our corner as best as they can.

 

[collectordave]

Sorry forgot to add.

Not only would I compromise but if anyone can come up with a tangible benefit for me or for the working population of the UK that outweigh the benefits allready enjoyed then I would change sides.

Of course all the above excluded.

 

[tim]

Just as was to be expected - no answer, not even the beginning of one.
Anyway, not about here the Remainers would compromise if the shoe were on the other foot - let alone (the beginning of) an answer to which of the elements the original post lists they would sacrifice.

I guess with binary choices that have clearly been announced as such ('once in a lifetime', 'we'll abide by the result whatever that may be' etc.) that's what you get.

And by the way 52% vs. 48%; granted it's not a huge difference, but 10% (to be exact 8,33% not 2%) is nothing to sneeze at.
In politics things are often decided on a much smaller margin................

Have people ever heard/seen the phrase 'Leave means leave'?
To paraphrase: what part of binary choice don't you understand?

Read the original post (again), but pls. do so carefully this time.
Well, if you cannot find fault with the content, just attack the appearance/formulating of the question, I guess.....

Second referendum? Please - I guess MP's will solemnly swear to abide by the outcome this time, won't they.
The expression "...we know so much more now..." implies that people didn't know what they voted for (if only we could have this argument with EVERY election ever held).
One thing 'more' the Remainers certainly know is that there's a genuine chance that they can lose, so this time around they had better turn up in bigger numbers than the 'opposition' as opposed to last time. If only for being able to shout: "...I told you so..."

As someone pointed out so eloquently, the majority of people voted to leave against severe threats they had to endure/absorb about job losses, depreciating value of houses, economy and stock exchanges collapsing etc. Seems to me like the majority that voted to leave made an informed choice - they just want to be an independent, sovereign, self-governing country (again).
For all of the adults out there that are now living in their own place, remember what it felt like when you moved out of your parents' house and into your own place? You gained independence, the right to make your own choices (mind you, both good and bad ones), you took pride in going it on your own, not having anyone to answer to about your day-to-day going-on etc.

If what has been said is true, I'm wondering why the ballot didn't give a choice between: 'Remain' and 'Norway deal'. To me, it looks like a lot of afterthought aka. opportunistic arguments. At the time people cast their votes, who did so because of the Norway figures - be honest now.
Later on I'll probably be able to show you some liars.........

Well, that's the first mistake - never negotiate towards what you want to achieve. Simply state what you'll accept, then if necessary walk away and let the other side do the 'squirming'.

Funny talk about what could possibly work, this line of reasoning has all the makings of a typical politician because if you ask the Leave side I can tell for sure that they know what will work with certainty! You see what you get from compromising ☺?
Sadly, at this time the Leavers are outnumbered in parliament, so the Remain MP's can do a whole lot of damage by dragging their heels in order to block/obstruct/delay/put away for the future, that what is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later anyway.

If there is truly consensus about:

"...People voted for ice cream, but they didn't say which flavor..."

then it only makes sense that IF THERE WERE A SECOND REFERENDUM TO BE HELD(!) the choices on the ballot would have to be only different kinds of flavors (and NOT rehashing what the nutrition should be this time around).

Indeed, Europe is an important 'neighbor' and it only makes sense that there will be trade going on, so why are representatives of the EU acting so 'difficult'? Could it be that they're trying to make an example of the UK and if at all possible scaring the country into withdrawing its breaking away thoughts? Or is it 'just' the UK's money they are after? Who knows.
You know, the EU's is not the only market in the world - true, theirs is the closest by and fairly large at that, but that doesn't give them an absolute 'right' to demand all kinds of specialties.
Like the leaving member cannot perform any activity that goes beyond the separation date; has anyone ever told the EU that having provisions in place for the so-called Irish backstop is something that purely addresses the future well beyond the separation date?

Come to think of it, if you as an entity treat you member(state)s fairly and decently in stead of (trying to) forc(e)(ing) things they don't want down their throats, they will never ever feel a need for leaving your club. As I always say make it so that they don't even feel a need to want something else, not so that they cannot make themselves available for anything else. But that's probably just me.

The reply that lists the 'three reasons' really merely proves my point.

All that it all boils down to is: self-worth vs. economics, business attitude vs. don't rock the boat mentality, opportunities vs. failures, attractiveness of the unknown vs. happy where I am, why change it etc.

If GDP is a factor at all, how do countries like Japan, Canada, Australia etc. ever survive without being a member of the EU? Remember, to the best of my knowledge Japan is one of the G7-countries. So, by the way is Canada - and as you know, neither of them is a member of the EU!

Just for reference; the annual GDP of Japan is £ 4,872 million , that of Canada £ 1,647 million and that of Australia £ 1,408 million. The UK's income amounts to £ 2,631 million per year (all figures are UN numbers of 2017 - source: Wikipedia, List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia).

And just to clariy, I just call them as I see them - sadly I'm not paid for the contributions I make; neither here nor elsewhere (a real shame I should add, because I'd probably be raking in more than I do now).

Toys and pram time

 

[Mr Moose]

Nothing promised by David Cameron in a bid to stop the Tories splitting or leaking votes is binding on us.

 

[Mr Moose]

Just as was to be expected - no answer, not even the beginning of one.
Anyway, not about here the Remainers would compromise if the shoe were on the other foot - let alone (the beginning of) an answer to which of the elements the original post lists they would sacrifice.

I guess with binary choices that have clearly been announced as such ('once in a lifetime', 'we'll abide by the result whatever that may be' etc.) that's what you get.

And by the way 52% vs. 48%; granted it's not a huge difference, but 10% (to be exact 8,33% not 2%) is nothing to sneeze at.
In politics things are often decided on a much smaller margin................

Have people ever heard/seen the phrase 'Leave means leave'?
To paraphrase: what part of binary choice don't you understand?

Read the original post (again), but pls. do so carefully this time.
Well, if you cannot find fault with the content, just attack the appearance/formulating of the question, I guess.....

Second referendum? Please - I guess MP's will solemnly swear to abide by the outcome this time, won't they.
The expression "...we know so much more now..." implies that people didn't know what they voted for (if only we could have this argument with EVERY election ever held).
One thing 'more' the Remainers certainly know is that there's a genuine chance that they can lose, so this time around they had better turn up in bigger numbers than the 'opposition' as opposed to last time. If only for being able to shout: "...I told you so..."

As someone pointed out so eloquently, the majority of people voted to leave against severe threats they had to endure/absorb about job losses, depreciating value of houses, economy and stock exchanges collapsing etc. Seems to me like the majority that voted to leave made an informed choice - they just want to be an independent, sovereign, self-governing country (again).
For all of the adults out there that are now living in their own place, remember what it felt like when you moved out of your parents' house and into your own place? You gained independence, the right to make your own choices (mind you, both good and bad ones), you took pride in going it on your own, not having anyone to answer to about your day-to-day going-on etc.

If what has been said is true, I'm wondering why the ballot didn't give a choice between: 'Remain' and 'Norway deal'. To me, it looks like a lot of afterthought aka. opportunistic arguments. At the time people cast their votes, who did so because of the Norway figures - be honest now.
Later on I'll probably be able to show you some liars.........

Well, that's the first mistake - never negotiate towards what you want to achieve. Simply state what you'll accept, then if necessary walk away and let the other side do the 'squirming'.

Funny talk about what could possibly work, this line of reasoning has all the makings of a typical politician because if you ask the Leave side I can tell for sure that they know what will work with certainty! You see what you get from compromising ☺?
Sadly, at this time the Leavers are outnumbered in parliament, so the Remain MP's can do a whole lot of damage by dragging their heels in order to block/obstruct/delay/put away for the future, that what is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later anyway.

If there is truly consensus about:

"...People voted for ice cream, but they didn't say which flavor..."

then it only makes sense that IF THERE WERE A SECOND REFERENDUM TO BE HELD(!) the choices on the ballot would have to be only different kinds of flavors (and NOT rehashing what the nutrition should be this time around).

Indeed, Europe is an important 'neighbor' and it only makes sense that there will be trade going on, so why are representatives of the EU acting so 'difficult'? Could it be that they're trying to make an example of the UK and if at all possible scaring the country into withdrawing its breaking away thoughts? Or is it 'just' the UK's money they are after? Who knows.
You know, the EU's is not the only market in the world - true, theirs is the closest by and fairly large at that, but that doesn't give them an absolute 'right' to demand all kinds of specialties.
Like the leaving member cannot perform any activity that goes beyond the separation date; has anyone ever told the EU that having provisions in place for the so-called Irish backstop is something that purely addresses the future well beyond the separation date?

Come to think of it, if you as an entity treat you member(state)s fairly and decently in stead of (trying to) forc(e)(ing) things they don't want down their throats, they will never ever feel a need for leaving your club. As I always say make it so that they don't even feel a need to want something else, not so that they cannot make themselves available for anything else. But that's probably just me.

The reply that lists the 'three reasons' really merely proves my point.

All that it all boils down to is: self-worth vs. economics, business attitude vs. don't rock the boat mentality, opportunities vs. failures, attractiveness of the unknown vs. happy where I am, why change it etc.

If GDP is a factor at all, how do countries like Japan, Canada, Australia etc. ever survive without being a member of the EU? Remember, to the best of my knowledge Japan is one of the G7-countries. So, by the way is Canada - and as you know, neither of them is a member of the EU!

Just for reference; the annual GDP of Japan is £ 4,872 million , that of Canada £ 1,647 million and that of Australia £ 1,408 million. The UK's income amounts to £ 2,631 million per year (all figures are UN numbers of 2017 - source: Wikipedia, List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia).

And just to clariy, I just call them as I see them - sadly I'm not paid for the contributions I make; neither here nor elsewhere (a real shame I should add, because I'd probably be raking in more than I do now).

Are you trying to bore us to death? You think we haven’t heard this dreary stuff for years now?

There isn’t a simple principle to follow here, so many overlap. Respect ‘democracy’ or the right to change your mind? Whose interpretation? How well informed/deceived were people etc. Get over it. There is no obligation on Parliament to implement something it considers wrong.

 

[tim]

F

 

[redsquirrel]

- The margin of victory for Leave was not only fairly small at around 2%,.... In addition voter participation wasn’t high at all. ..... And the fact that British citizens living overseas (IIRC) is an unprecedented stitch up, and a disgraceful one at that.

The margin of victory wasn't 2%. The turnout (72.2%) was higher than it has been for any general election since 1992 I'm not sure what you are trying to say about British citizens living overseas but they certainly could vote in the referendum so long as they had been resident in the UK within at least 15 years - exactly the same rules as for general elections.

 

[Yossarian]

And just to clariy, I just call them as I see them - sadly I'm not paid for the contributions I make; neither here nor elsewhere (a real shame I should add, because I'd probably be raking in more than I do now).

Don't quit your day job.

 

[scifisam]

"Have you ever heard the phrase leave means leave?" No, that's a new one!

Right, so Nik is either a pathetic troll, here to attempt to wind up remain voters and make leave voters look bad, or far too stupid to bother engaging with.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about British citizens living overseas but they certainly could vote in the referendum so long as they had been resident in the UK within at least 15 years - exactly the same rules as for general elections.

They should have been allowed to vote regardless of how long they've lived overseas - because at least for those who live in EU countries the result directly affects them.

 

[Maltin]

Right, so Nik is either a pathetic troll, here to attempt to wind up remain voters and make leave voters look bad, or far too stupid to bother engaging with.

I don’t think it’s an either/or situation.

 

[rubbershoes]

I think Putin is a wise and strong leader

 

[philosophical]

Just as was to be expected - no answer, not even the beginning of one.
Anyway, not about here the Remainers would compromise if the shoe were on the other foot - let alone (the beginning of) an answer to which of the elements the original post lists they would sacrifice.

I guess with binary choices that have clearly been announced as such ('once in a lifetime', 'we'll abide by the result whatever that may be' etc.) that's what you get.

And by the way 52% vs. 48%; granted it's not a huge difference, but 10% (to be exact 8,33% not 2%) is nothing to sneeze at.
In politics things are often decided on a much smaller margin................

Have people ever heard/seen the phrase 'Leave means leave'?
To paraphrase: what part of binary choice don't you understand?

Read the original post (again), but pls. do so carefully this time.
Well, if you cannot find fault with the content, just attack the appearance/formulating of the question, I guess.....

Second referendum? Please - I guess MP's will solemnly swear to abide by the outcome this time, won't they.
The expression "...we know so much more now..." implies that people didn't know what they voted for (if only we could have this argument with EVERY election ever held).
One thing 'more' the Remainers certainly know is that there's a genuine chance that they can lose, so this time around they had better turn up in bigger numbers than the 'opposition' as opposed to last time. If only for being able to shout: "...I told you so..."

As someone pointed out so eloquently, the majority of people voted to leave against severe threats they had to endure/absorb about job losses, depreciating value of houses, economy and stock exchanges collapsing etc. Seems to me like the majority that voted to leave made an informed choice - they just want to be an independent, sovereign, self-governing country (again).
For all of the adults out there that are now living in their own place, remember what it felt like when you moved out of your parents' house and into your own place? You gained independence, the right to make your own choices (mind you, both good and bad ones), you took pride in going it on your own, not having anyone to answer to about your day-to-day going-on etc.

If what has been said is true, I'm wondering why the ballot didn't give a choice between: 'Remain' and 'Norway deal'. To me, it looks like a lot of afterthought aka. opportunistic arguments. At the time people cast their votes, who did so because of the Norway figures - be honest now.
Later on I'll probably be able to show you some liars.........

Well, that's the first mistake - never negotiate towards what you want to achieve. Simply state what you'll accept, then if necessary walk away and let the other side do the 'squirming'.

Funny talk about what could possibly work, this line of reasoning has all the makings of a typical politician because if you ask the Leave side I can tell for sure that they know what will work with certainty! You see what you get from compromising ☺?
Sadly, at this time the Leavers are outnumbered in parliament, so the Remain MP's can do a whole lot of damage by dragging their heels in order to block/obstruct/delay/put away for the future, that what is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later anyway.

If there is truly consensus about:

"...People voted for ice cream, but they didn't say which flavor..."

then it only makes sense that IF THERE WERE A SECOND REFERENDUM TO BE HELD(!) the choices on the ballot would have to be only different kinds of flavors (and NOT rehashing what the nutrition should be this time around).

Indeed, Europe is an important 'neighbor' and it only makes sense that there will be trade going on, so why are representatives of the EU acting so 'difficult'? Could it be that they're trying to make an example of the UK and if at all possible scaring the country into withdrawing its breaking away thoughts? Or is it 'just' the UK's money they are after? Who knows.
You know, the EU's is not the only market in the world - true, theirs is the closest by and fairly large at that, but that doesn't give them an absolute 'right' to demand all kinds of specialties.
Like the leaving member cannot perform any activity that goes beyond the separation date; has anyone ever told the EU that having provisions in place for the so-called Irish backstop is something that purely addresses the future well beyond the separation date?

Come to think of it, if you as an entity treat you member(state)s fairly and decently in stead of (trying to) forc(e)(ing) things they don't want down their throats, they will never ever feel a need for leaving your club. As I always say make it so that they don't even feel a need to want something else, not so that they cannot make themselves available for anything else. But that's probably just me.

The reply that lists the 'three reasons' really merely proves my point.

All that it all boils down to is: self-worth vs. economics, business attitude vs. don't rock the boat mentality, opportunities vs. failures, attractiveness of the unknown vs. happy where I am, why change it etc.

If GDP is a factor at all, how do countries like Japan, Canada, Australia etc. ever survive without being a member of the EU? Remember, to the best of my knowledge Japan is one of the G7-countries. So, by the way is Canada - and as you know, neither of them is a member of the EU!

Just for reference; the annual GDP of Japan is £ 4,872 million , that of Canada £ 1,647 million and that of Australia £ 1,408 million. The UK's income amounts to £ 2,631 million per year (all figures are UN numbers of 2017 - source: Wikipedia, List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia).

And just to clariy, I just call them as I see them - sadly I'm not paid for the contributions I make; neither here nor elsewhere (a real shame I should add, because I'd probably be raking in more than I do now).

Yeah, but what is the solution to the situation on the Irish border leavers had planned before they voted leave?

 

[maomao]

Yeah, but what is the solution to the situation in the Irish border leavers had planned before they voted leave?

United Ireland.

 

[JuanTwoThree]

They should have been allowed to vote regardless of how long they've lived overseas - because at least for those who live in EU countries the result directly affects them.

It's unconscionable that longterm residents of the EU, which is to say those that had the most to lose (not merely financially), were not able to vote.

'Associate Citizenship' might be a way forward for people like me, but it's not something that has come up much recently. Quite the opposite in fact:

Associate citizenship for Brits was not included in final resolution draft.

 

[philosophical]

United Ireland.

No compromise needed to achieve that then?

 

[redsquirrel]

They should have been allowed to vote regardless of how long they've lived overseas - because at least for those who live in EU countries the result directly affects them.

And does the same apply to GEs?

I can't get that interested in fiddling about with representative democracy but why should non-tax paying ex-pats be allowed a vote for attacking the welfare of people in the UK.

 

[philosophical]

United Ireland.

If you're suggesting leave voters voted that way in order to achieve a United Ireland can you provide evidence for that?
The key word on the voting slip was 'Ieave' which suggests division in the island of Ireland, not unity.

 

[Serge Forward]

Yeah, but what is the solution to the situation on the Irish border leavers had planned before they voted leave?

I think it was always a case of "Border? What border?"

 

[JuanTwoThree]

And does the same apply to GEs?

I can't get that interested in fiddling about with representative democracy but why should non-tax paying ex-pats be allowed a vote for attacking the welfare of people in the UK.

Clearly I am no longer a stakeholder in what happens in the UK. In fact I think 15 years is too long a time to exercise the right to go on voting in the UK in a constituency where a person is not really resident.

But equally clearly I am a stakeholder in a process that strips me of a kind of citizenship which is the premise of my legal status in the country where I live!

 

[Wolveryeti]

The margin of victory wasn't 2%.

If 2% of those who voted switched side, Remain would have won.

 

[redsquirrel]

If 2% of those who voted switched side, Remain would have won.

Yes, a swing of 2% would have delivered a Remain result. But that doesn't make the margin of victory 2%, it makes it ~4%.

Clearly I am no longer a stakeholder in what happens in the UK. In fact I think 15 years is too long a time to exercise the right to go on voting in the UK in a constituency where a person is not really resident.

But equally clearly I am a stakeholder in a process that strips me of a kind of citizenship which is the premise of my legal status in the country where I live!

That position raises some strange conclusions. As has been pointed out repeatedly the EU referendum was advisory, it is within the power of a UK government to make a decision to remain or leave (as was Labour Party policy in the past) irrespective of the result of any, or no, referendum.

So you seem to be arguing for the ability to vote in advisory referendums but not for a government that could decide to strip you of "a kind of citizenship"* anyway.

*Your term not mine and not one I agree with.

 

[andysays]

If you're suggesting leave voters voted that way in order to achieve a United Ireland can you provide evidence for that?
The key word on the voting slip was 'Ieave' which suggests division in the island of Ireland, not unity.

There are a number of leave voters who have posted here that a united Ireland was part of what they would like to see as part of Brexit, but you have steadfastly dismissed that possibility, to the extent that you appear to prefer Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK.

 

[Baronage-Phase]

They've got to compromise because nearly half the population doesn't fucking agree with them.

 

[Ax^]

Just as was to be expected - no answer, not even the beginning of one.
Anyway, not about here the Remainers would compromise if the shoe were on the other foot - let alone (the beginning of) an answer to which of the elements the original post lists they would sacrifice.

I guess with binary choices that have clearly been announced as such ('once in a lifetime', 'we'll abide by the result whatever that may be' etc.) that's what you get.

And by the way 52% vs. 48%; granted it's not a huge difference, but 10% (to be exact 8,33% not 2%) is nothing to sneeze at.
In politics things are often decided on a much smaller margin................

Have people ever heard/seen the phrase 'Leave means leave'?
To paraphrase: what part of binary choice don't you understand?

Read the original post (again), but pls. do so carefully this time.
Well, if you cannot find fault with the content, just attack the appearance/formulating of the question, I guess.....

Second referendum? Please - I guess MP's will solemnly swear to abide by the outcome this time, won't they.
The expression "...we know so much more now..." implies that people didn't know what they voted for (if only we could have this argument with EVERY election ever held).
One thing 'more' the Remainers certainly know is that there's a genuine chance that they can lose, so this time around they had better turn up in bigger numbers than the 'opposition' as opposed to last time. If only for being able to shout: "...I told you so..."

As someone pointed out so eloquently, the majority of people voted to leave against severe threats they had to endure/absorb about job losses, depreciating value of houses, economy and stock exchanges collapsing etc. Seems to me like the majority that voted to leave made an informed choice - they just want to be an independent, sovereign, self-governing country (again).
For all of the adults out there that are now living in their own place, remember what it felt like when you moved out of your parents' house and into your own place? You gained independence, the right to make your own choices (mind you, both good and bad ones), you took pride in going it on your own, not having anyone to answer to about your day-to-day going-on etc.

If what has been said is true, I'm wondering why the ballot didn't give a choice between: 'Remain' and 'Norway deal'. To me, it looks like a lot of afterthought aka. opportunistic arguments. At the time people cast their votes, who did so because of the Norway figures - be honest now.
Later on I'll probably be able to show you some liars.........

Well, that's the first mistake - never negotiate towards what you want to achieve. Simply state what you'll accept, then if necessary walk away and let the other side do the 'squirming'.

Funny talk about what could possibly work, this line of reasoning has all the makings of a typical politician because if you ask the Leave side I can tell for sure that they know what will work with certainty! You see what you get from compromising ☺?
Sadly, at this time the Leavers are outnumbered in parliament, so the Remain MP's can do a whole lot of damage by dragging their heels in order to block/obstruct/delay/put away for the future, that what is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later anyway.

If there is truly consensus about:

"...People voted for ice cream, but they didn't say which flavor..."

then it only makes sense that IF THERE WERE A SECOND REFERENDUM TO BE HELD(!) the choices on the ballot would have to be only different kinds of flavors (and NOT rehashing what the nutrition should be this time around).

Indeed, Europe is an important 'neighbor' and it only makes sense that there will be trade going on, so why are representatives of the EU acting so 'difficult'? Could it be that they're trying to make an example of the UK and if at all possible scaring the country into withdrawing its breaking away thoughts? Or is it 'just' the UK's money they are after? Who knows.
You know, the EU's is not the only market in the world - true, theirs is the closest by and fairly large at that, but that doesn't give them an absolute 'right' to demand all kinds of specialties.
Like the leaving member cannot perform any activity that goes beyond the separation date; has anyone ever told the EU that having provisions in place for the so-called Irish backstop is something that purely addresses the future well beyond the separation date?

Come to think of it, if you as an entity treat you member(state)s fairly and decently in stead of (trying to) forc(e)(ing) things they don't want down their throats, they will never ever feel a need for leaving your club. As I always say make it so that they don't even feel a need to want something else, not so that they cannot make themselves available for anything else. But that's probably just me.

The reply that lists the 'three reasons' really merely proves my point.

All that it all boils down to is: self-worth vs. economics, business attitude vs. don't rock the boat mentality, opportunities vs. failures, attractiveness of the unknown vs. happy where I am, why change it etc.

If GDP is a factor at all, how do countries like Japan, Canada, Australia etc. ever survive without being a member of the EU? Remember, to the best of my knowledge Japan is one of the G7-countries. So, by the way is Canada - and as you know, neither of them is a member of the EU!

Just for reference; the annual GDP of Japan is £ 4,872 million , that of Canada £ 1,647 million and that of Australia £ 1,408 million. The UK's income amounts to £ 2,631 million per year (all figures are UN numbers of 2017 - source: Wikipedia, List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia).

And just to clariy, I just call them as I see them - sadly I'm not paid for the contributions I make; neither here nor elsewhere (a real shame I should add, because I'd probably be raking in more than I do now).

think reading that has killed more brains cells than the alcohol I consumed last night..

 

[Spymaster]

Just as was to be expected - no answer, not even the beginning of one.
Anyway, not about here the Remainers would compromise if the shoe were on the other foot - let alone (the beginning of) an answer to which of the elements the original post lists they would sacrifice.

I guess with binary choices that have clearly been announced as such ('once in a lifetime', 'we'll abide by the result whatever that may be' etc.) that's what you get.

And by the way 52% vs. 48%; granted it's not a huge difference, but 10% (to be exact 8,33% not 2%) is nothing to sneeze at.
In politics things are often decided on a much smaller margin................

Have people ever heard/seen the phrase 'Leave means leave'?
To paraphrase: what part of binary choice don't you understand?

Read the original post (again), but pls. do so carefully this time.
Well, if you cannot find fault with the content, just attack the appearance/formulating of the question, I guess.....

Second referendum? Please - I guess MP's will solemnly swear to abide by the outcome this time, won't they.
The expression "...we know so much more now..." implies that people didn't know what they voted for (if only we could have this argument with EVERY election ever held).
One thing 'more' the Remainers certainly know is that there's a genuine chance that they can lose, so this time around they had better turn up in bigger numbers than the 'opposition' as opposed to last time. If only for being able to shout: "...I told you so..."

As someone pointed out so eloquently, the majority of people voted to leave against severe threats they had to endure/absorb about job losses, depreciating value of houses, economy and stock exchanges collapsing etc. Seems to me like the majority that voted to leave made an informed choice - they just want to be an independent, sovereign, self-governing country (again).
For all of the adults out there that are now living in their own place, remember what it felt like when you moved out of your parents' house and into your own place? You gained independence, the right to make your own choices (mind you, both good and bad ones), you took pride in going it on your own, not having anyone to answer to about your day-to-day going-on etc.

If what has been said is true, I'm wondering why the ballot didn't give a choice between: 'Remain' and 'Norway deal'. To me, it looks like a lot of afterthought aka. opportunistic arguments. At the time people cast their votes, who did so because of the Norway figures - be honest now.
Later on I'll probably be able to show you some liars.........

Well, that's the first mistake - never negotiate towards what you want to achieve. Simply state what you'll accept, then if necessary walk away and let the other side do the 'squirming'.

Funny talk about what could possibly work, this line of reasoning has all the makings of a typical politician because if you ask the Leave side I can tell for sure that they know what will work with certainty! You see what you get from compromising ☺?
Sadly, at this time the Leavers are outnumbered in parliament, so the Remain MP's can do a whole lot of damage by dragging their heels in order to block/obstruct/delay/put away for the future, that what is undoubtedly going to happen sooner or later anyway.

If there is truly consensus about:

"...People voted for ice cream, but they didn't say which flavor..."

then it only makes sense that IF THERE WERE A SECOND REFERENDUM TO BE HELD(!) the choices on the ballot would have to be only different kinds of flavors (and NOT rehashing what the nutrition should be this time around).

Indeed, Europe is an important 'neighbor' and it only makes sense that there will be trade going on, so why are representatives of the EU acting so 'difficult'? Could it be that they're trying to make an example of the UK and if at all possible scaring the country into withdrawing its breaking away thoughts? Or is it 'just' the UK's money they are after? Who knows.
You know, the EU's is not the only market in the world - true, theirs is the closest by and fairly large at that, but that doesn't give them an absolute 'right' to demand all kinds of specialties.
Like the leaving member cannot perform any activity that goes beyond the separation date; has anyone ever told the EU that having provisions in place for the so-called Irish backstop is something that purely addresses the future well beyond the separation date?

Come to think of it, if you as an entity treat you member(state)s fairly and decently in stead of (trying to) forc(e)(ing) things they don't want down their throats, they will never ever feel a need for leaving your club. As I always say make it so that they don't even feel a need to want something else, not so that they cannot make themselves available for anything else. But that's probably just me.

The reply that lists the 'three reasons' really merely proves my point.

All that it all boils down to is: self-worth vs. economics, business attitude vs. don't rock the boat mentality, opportunities vs. failures, attractiveness of the unknown vs. happy where I am, why change it etc.

If GDP is a factor at all, how do countries like Japan, Canada, Australia etc. ever survive without being a member of the EU? Remember, to the best of my knowledge Japan is one of the G7-countries. So, by the way is Canada - and as you know, neither of them is a member of the EU!

Just for reference; the annual GDP of Japan is £ 4,872 million , that of Canada £ 1,647 million and that of Australia £ 1,408 million. The UK's income amounts to £ 2,631 million per year (all figures are UN numbers of 2017 - source: Wikipedia, List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia).

And just to clariy, I just call them as I see them - sadly I'm not paid for the contributions I make; neither here nor elsewhere (a real shame I should add, because I'd probably be raking in more than I do now).

Are you a bot?

 

[philosophical]

There are a number of leave voters who have posted here that a united Ireland was part of what they would like to see as part of Brexit, but you have steadfastly dismissed that possibility, to the extent that you appear to prefer Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK.

I believe you are mistaken.
I have steadfastly challenged leave voters to address the practicalities of the new style border their vote inevitably creates.
I have no issues with a United Ireland personally, and I speak as a dual national with only my Irish passport these days, and a brother who lives in County Clare.
Even if some leave voters declare they want a United Ireland their action in voting leave is to deepen division.
I am a broken record on this because I want to point out to leave voters the damage they have potentially caused and that they actually have no practical solution to the border they deliberately voted for.
Waving a hand and declaring they want a United Ireland is a good way of avoiding ownership of what they actually voted for.

 

[Sasaferrato]

they only just scraped a win and have no idea what Brexit means its complicated Europes still going to be next door so we are going to have to deal with them.

Yes, and anything we want to sell to them must meet EU standards... just like now.