Why are Leave voters expected to compromise?

[tim]

I think Ireland is one of the few countries that say 'You live here=you vote here'. Eminently sensible, as you say.

Not true, you can vote in any election if you're a British citizen, European and other local elections if you are a citizen of another EU country and local elections for other nationals.

 

[maomao]

That is the case in the UK, although if you live in a marginal seat clearly your vote counts. However, you are responding to my comments to JuanTwoThree, who lives in Spain which doesn't have a FTP system.

So you didn't refer to voting in British elections as 'rights that such a status (of UK citizenship) confers' and suggest that my wife should cast aside the clear benefits of Chinese citizenship in order to gain said rights?

 

[tim]

So you didn't refer to voting in British elections as 'rights that such a status (of UK citizenship) confers' and suggest that my wife should cast aside the clear benefits of Chinese citizenship in order to gain said rights?

In a different post not the one you quoted, I suggested that your wife as she might consider availing herself of the political and civil rights that British citizenship would entitled her to. I would if I were a foreign national who had been living in a country for 19 years. I didn't say that she should, that is her choice.

As to her having to give up her Chinese nationality, the policy, according to this FT article, of the current Chinese regime seems to be more that they don't recognise the right of Chinese citizens to renounce citizenship; or indeed of people of Chinese origin to have the rights as non-nationals recognised in China

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

Edited to add, this is the main quote, with a bigger cut and paste below:

It doesn’t matter if you have changed your passport because if you were a Chinese [national], they regard you as still a Chinese national,” said Kenneth Leung, an opposition member of Hong Kong’s legislative council.

I don't really see why you are getting so worked up!

Kong


Like many wealthy Chinese businesspeople seeking an insurance policy against their capricious if often profitable political system, Xiao Jianhua acquired foreign citizenship.

But if the billionaire investor thought that having Canadian citizenship and a diplomatic passport from Antigua and Barbuda would protect him from the powerful and ruthless Chinese security forces, he was sorely mistaken.

Mr Xiao’s abduction from Hong Kong two weeks ago by Chinese agents has both highlighted the growing demand for foreign passports and the lack of protection they provide to those who fall foul of President Xi Jinping’s crackdown on corruption and political rivals.
It doesn’t matter if you have changed your passport because if you were a Chinese [national], they regard you as still a Chinese national,” said Kenneth Leung, an opposition member of Hong Kong’s legislative council. “When mainland interests are involved at a high level, and [there are] possible violations of the law in China, this could happen anywhere, not just in Hong Kong.”

One western diplomat described this “deliberate blurring of ethnicity and nationality” by the Chinese authorities as “deeply troubling”.

I don't really see why you are getting so worked up!

 

[farmerbarleymow]

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.

I'm talking about the referendum, not GEs, which is sort of why I posted the comment on this thread.

 

[A380]

Nik you haven’t got the knack.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'm talking about the referendum, not GEs, which is sort of why I posted the comment on this thread.

But the referendum doesn't exist in isolation. The political framework you are making an argument for remaining/leaving isn't some sort of Berklian construction that just appears or disappears when you want it to.

If the referendum was undemocratic because UK citizens who have lived abroad for 15+ years didn't get the vote then every general election is also undemocratic and you are arguing for expats that haven't lived in the UK for however long to get a vote.

 

[Yossarian]

What rights would they be? Other than voting? Cause she'd lose her right to go and live as a citizen in the country of her birth and she'd have to pay money for a visa every time she went to see her mum and dad. Worth losing that for the right to tick a box in a Tory safe seat? Or the safe Labour seat we lived in previously.

Protection from deportation is one, were your wife to be falsely accused of a crime or something - also consular assistance in the event she somehow fell on the wrong side of authorities during a visit to China, although consular protection is apparently "taken at the discretion of the UK government," not a right enshrined in law as it is in many other countries.

 

[Dogsauce]

The +15yr expat vote would have made very little difference to the result, and if anything many expats tend to lean right, often being generally better off/self made types, older, and sometimes having that ‘England’s gone to the dogs’ viewpoint (if you don’t live somewhere routinely then you tend to notice the changes more when you go back for a visit)

I think you could make a stronger argument for 16 year olds getting the vote etc. which might have made a difference, but at the end of it all we are where we are.

FWIW, and I’ve mentioned this before, the referendum result wasn’t some exact mirror of what people wanted. Polls consistently showed support for remain, but this support was less motivated than the leave vote, didn’t turn out as readily. Understandble because it’s easier to get fired up in opposition to something, whilst supporting the EU to most people probably felt like voting in support of your electricity and gas supplier or something like that - some distant bureaucratic entity that doesn’t tangibly affect your life. Nobody was waving flags for lower roaming charges. The remain campaign had a hard job to do selling the benefits and was also pretty complacent, not expecting to lose.

I could see a second referendum going remain as the tables are turned a bit, Brexit is now something to vote against and more people will be fired up in opposition. Not sure it would be great for the country, and it does feel a bit like a team that succumbed to a late goal against the run of play screaming for the ref to add an extra 30 minutes to the game.

 

[Yossarian]

There's an estimated 5 to 10 million British citizens living abroad so 15 years doesn't sound like too unreasonable a cut-off - I've met too many people who conform to the stereotype of the crusty old MailOnline reader who's lived overseas for decades and complains about there being too many immigrants in Britain.

The Italian idea of having a handful of seats in Parliament to represent overseas citizens is interesting though...

 

[JuanTwoThree]

There was a difference between someone who had fucked off to Florida having some say in leave/remain (I think 15 years is too long... by about 15 years!) and someone who moved from one member of the European Union to another. Some people have hopped around like fleas and based their lifestyle on this right.

But this all moot because it didn't happen.

The problem right now is getting that Brexit to go through and not having every 24 hours like some kind of fucking horrible political Groundhog Day. When that happens I at least will know what to do next, which will probably be answering stupid questions about how many senators there are and can I name two football teams based in Madrid to prove I'm Spanish enough. The thing is that after living here since 1992 (roughly when Spain joined!) I still don't feel particularly Spanish, but not overly British any more either.

 

[krtek a houby]

I think Ireland is one of the few countries that say 'You live here=you vote here'. Eminently sensible, as you say.

Think there's talk of letting ex-pats vote in the Presidential elections, in future. And maybe that will lead to being able to vote in the bigger, more important stuff.

 

[Gramsci]

If you are an Irish or Commonwealth citizen, you already have the right. Currently, EU citizens have the right to vote in local and EU Parliamentary elections.

But they could not vote in the EU referendum. Despite some of them living here for years. Like my Polish friend who has been here for ten years.

One of my objections to the referendum was that that the people from other EU countries , who referendum would effect, didn't have a say.

 

[MikeMcc]

But they could not vote in the EU referendum. Despite some of them living here for years. Like my Polish friend who has been here for ten years.

One of my objections to the referendum was that that the people from other EU countries , who referendum would effect, didn't have a say.

A bit like England based Scots with Poor Wee Alec's Independence Referendum. If folks like me had been able to vote the Stay vote would probably have been overwhelming.

 

[Nik]

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

Ooh, worrisome inference - the next questions could be 'where do you live?' and 'what's your address?'. No thank you, I think it's wise not to give any insight into my private details. Next thing you hear is: "so, I can pay you a visit...........".

Not an agenda to be worried about; just expressing my opinion. Sorry if that conflicts with people's thoughts, but it's called freedom of speech - one of the things that go along with democracy ☺. Last I checked, a valid argument is valid, no matter where it is raised.......

If you can't handle that, here's an idea (I'm paraphrasing on what someone else said).
Why not ignore democracy and install a dictatorship?

For one thing it will rid you of those 'hindering' deviating views of those that hold a different opinion than yours (read: deviating from what you consider to be the 'right' way of thinking).

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.

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.

Aah, compromising on the compromise, but just for argument's sake I'll rebut.
1. What you propose effectively means staying in the EU's Customs Union; that's not a compromise.

2. What you propose effectively means staying in the Single Market; that's not a compromise.

3. The EU would will strongly object to that. In fact, freedom of movement for EU-citizens, EU-goods and EU-services is one of the four EU-pillars. While the UK is not a Shengen area country, this only means that at in order the country one has to show proof of EU-origin and the UK is obliged to give passage. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that how things work if a country is an EU member state - Shengen area or not. So not a compromise.

4. Mutatis mutandis, same as rebuttal 3 (ever heard that approx. 60% of the laws are made in Brussels and EU member states have to implement them?). Again, not a compromise.

5. A noble stance and I couldn't agree more, if only it weren't the case that the decisions of the European Court of Justice overrule those of any EU member state Courts.

6. If UK voters chose to go that road, then that's the way it would be. Agaimn, UK voters would have a say in it, but as things stand being an EU member state, they do NOT. Therefore, not a compromise.

7. Mutatis mutandis, same as rebuttal 6. Again, not a compromise.

Bottom line: I don't see any compromise. Neither should there be - the referendum (as well as the UK system) was a winner-takes-all proposition. The winners do not have to compromise with the losers, like it or not - that's how things work and that's how the referendum was set up.

A clear statement that for 'Remainers' (after they became aware of the result of the referendum) 'economic arguments' trump 'liberty'.

The ballot did not show words like: 'smooth transition', 'orderly fashion', 'frictionless', managed no-deal', poorer' etc. Those are just a few examples of what 'Remainers' started to interpret after the fact.

 

[Nik]

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.

If you're bored there's in fact a quite simple solution to relieve you. I'm almost sure that even where you live the window on your screen has a top right corner with a white 'X' on a red surface. Just click on it and your boredom problems will be removed instantly. Think of the benefits, you'll be free to engage in other things as you please - one of the advantages of 'Leave(ing)' J

And now for tor those that decided they do not want to be excluded form discussion:

Of course you have the right to change you mind. Something entirely different is the right to change (some say: overturn) the result of a genuine legitimate outcome of a referendum.

'Changing your mind' is usually expressed during a following peoples vote, so far it's never effected the outcome of a previous one.

If you have to ask 'whose interpretation' you haven't been paying attention. You know the drill: if you snooze, you lose.

Well, just about as well as wrong as in every election, I would say.

'Get over it' requires a bit of elaboration. If you permit I would say. 'Remain' lost and 'Leave' won, get over it.

Didn't you read the words: 'once in a lifetime' and 'we'll implement whatever the outcome of the referendum is'. And if 'Leave' was so wrong, Parliament wouldn't have put it on the ballot in the first place.

Don't quit your day job.

As written, I won't - at least not for now.

"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.

Great come back - kudos to you!

Suffice it to state that such a qualification says more about the sender than it does concerning the attacked individual.

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

On December 13, 2018 I contributed said solution to a thread - sadly after a while the thread turned into a posting of profanities, so I lost interest. In case you want to revisit the thread, it's called: Is Brexit actually going to happen?

Are you a bot?

No, I am not - you might want to check out some things I wrote above.

 

[Nik]

No voters are in a position to "compromise" over anything with any other party. They were/are merely invited to express a binary choice in a plebiscite; beyond that, the response to that expression falls to elected representatives.

Maybe things work differently where you live?

If only the public hadn't been told: 'once in a lifetime' and 'we'll implement whatever the outcome of the referendum is', you'd have a point.

You're right. The margin was in fact a still narrow 3.8%. Not a two-thirds majority. Not a twenty-point advantage. Not aven a 10% margin of victory. It was very close, and certainly far removed from any notion of a clear mandate.

You're also right about the same right voting rights being afforded to expats. But unlike a general election which has limited effects on expats, a referendum on EU membership is of immense relevance and significance to expats, and it's nothing short if insane and thoroughly unfair and undemocratic that some were excluded from it.

As I said earlier, for me the biggest issue is that the gulf between what people thought were voting for and what it has all turned out to be is too great to ignore. Some Leave voters' reasons for voting Leave still stand today of course, but undoubtedly the reasons for other Leave voters have turned out to be highly unlikely to ever materialise if not based on a plain lie. Given what is at stake and how small the referendum margin was, demanding a second vote is far from unreasonable.

Well, the difference doesn't exactly amount to 10%, but in fact to 8-plus-one-third-of-a-percent - I already wrote this. The 10% only gives a general direction.

Getting back to the topic.

Remain voters are prepared to compromise, see my earlier post can leave voters? (not heard that they should myself)

In the hypothetical case raised can anyone come up with a compromise to any of the seven points that does not lead to economic disater thousands of job losses and extra to pay for my monthly food bill?

Again, not reading (or grasping?) the opening post.
Again, letting economics prevail above liberty.

There is no topic to get back to here tbh...once voters had put down their polling booth pencil the entire process set train by their collective decision was once more back in the hands of those representing the parties of capital.

Any 'compromises' made on their behalf would be just that...and effected without any further reference to the electorate.

So what you're saying is that after a hypothetical second referendum - once more, I'm against holding a second referendum even before the first one has been implemented! - the whole thing would be back in the hands of Parliament, who then will ignore also the outcome of the second referendum.

I think that the thing Leavers often forget here is that, if the boot had been on the other foot, nothing at all would have changed - remain was, in effect, the default option, the status quo. If the referendum had been in favour of remain, we'd simply have carried on as if the entire farce had never happened. Except, obviously, the Tory party would have continued to tear itself apart as its lunatic fringe committed repeated acts of self-immolation, and Farage would have continued to do his Schrödinger's Leader impression in UKIP.

The referendum was ill-conceived, probably because, in his hubris, Cameron believed that it was be a nice easy quick fix to shut up the Eurosceptics in his party - I think he believed that the population would have voted Remain by a significant enough margin that he could have used the result to beat his swivel-eyed loons into submission, and floated blissfully along on a happy cloud, dreaming of porcine congress and knighthoods. I think that the main reasons behind the population not voting remain were a) they were utterly pissed off with government in general, and their Leave votes were a way (as it turns out, an extremely effective way) of giving "them" a bloody nose, and b) sufficient people believed the outrageous lies being peddled by the Leave campaigns that they really believed it would just be a bit like stepping off a bus.

And, just to pre-empt the inevitable "what about all the lies the remain campaign told?" riposte, I'm always interested to hear what these lies were, but nobody seems able to come up with anything specific. There was all the Project Fear stuff, which I must admit made me cringe, but not nearly as much as when it has become increasingly evident that quite a lot of that fearmongering has turned out to be closer to the truth than we thought. Anyway, feel free to offer some suggestions about Remainer lies that match the ones that people like Boris Johnston has now admitted were lies...

Talk about misjudging the true desires of the very same people you pretend to represent with your government.

As long as we're 'interpreting' why voters voted as they did, let's add 'c)' because they actually want to Leave.

As to the whole "lies the remain campaign told?":
- 800 000 Jobs will be lost;
- House prices will fall dramatically;
- The Economy will come to a standstill;
- The financial markets will crash;
- Stirling will plummet and so on.

What are now called lies from 'Leave' side, please note that the UK would have not £350 million
to weekly spend on the NHS, but if I've been informed correctly 'merely' £ 225 million IF IT SO CHOSE.

Also, once again based on the premise that I've been informed correctly, negotiation on any future arrangement that is to be entered into after the UK has left the EU is only allowed to engage in (allowed by the EU, mind you) after the UK has left. In other words, there's no way to label this a lie, for the simple reason that the UK hasn't left yet and therefore hasn't had a chance to negotiate any deal.

By the way, ever notice that the Irish backstop is a future arrangement the EU insists on being agreed on today - that is BEFORE the UK leaves. A perfect example of enforcing a double standard (looks just like AS).

Schrödinger, seriously? It looks like someone is spending way too much time watching episodes of the TV series The Big Bang theory.

RE the impact of Brexit on expats: I’m not sure how anyone could argue that any given general election in the UK is going to directly affect the lives of British expats anywhere near as much as (let alone more than) a referendum on EU membership. I struggle to think of even 10% of the policies on any political party manifesto in any election that would actually affect the lives and wellbeing of expats. Exiting the EU however could bring about as massively significant and indeed life-changing consequences as one could imagine.

And if you really want to to introduce the angle that the referendum was only advisory, well that cuts both ways. If it’s okay to exclude some expats because the referendum was ‘only’ advisory, then it’s also okay to ignore the result of the vote.

Finally, someone brave enough to admit that the outcome of the referendum is being ignored!

For reference sake, does anyone have the exact figures on EU wide migration due to changes of jobs, excluding those where people relocate to another member state that has a cost of living (COL) that's higher than the COL of their originating country? In other words, a comparable or even a lower COL?

Ah yes, that was fairly ridiculous. Mind you, I would believe anything George Osborne said about as much as I'd believe anything uttered by Johnson and Gove, so I probably discounted it as bullshit when I first heard it.

However, while we may not be looking at a catastrophe on the scale he was predicting, it looks quite likely that Brexit is going to cost us dear in terms of economic growth and stability, so while his numbers may be extravagant, the premise might be quite accurate. Which is more than could be said for the "£350m/week for the NHS" claim, which is demonstrably utterly baseless.

Written like a true Remainer.

Always finding excuses for facts they can't circumvent.

The key words are 'looks like' - just as job losses, falling house prices, collapsing of the financial market etc.

Nik you haven’t got the knack.

I don't understand what you mean, so please elaborate.

 

[maomao]

I don't understand what you mean, so please elaborate

I think he means you're a twat.

 

[Pickman's model]

If only the public hadn't been told: 'once in a lifetime' and 'we'll implement whatever the outcome of the referendum is', you'd have a point.



Well, the difference doesn't exactly amount to 10%, but in fact to 8-plus-one-third-of-a-percent - I already wrote this. The 10% only gives a general direction.



Again, not reading (or grasping?) the opening post.
Again, letting economics prevail above liberty.



So what you're saying is that after a hypothetical second referendum - once more, I'm against holding a second referendum even before the first one has been implemented! - the whole thing would be back in the hands of Parliament, who then will ignore also the outcome of the second referendum.



Talk about misjudging the true desires of the very same people you pretend to represent with your government.

As long as we're 'interpreting' why voters voted as they did, let's add 'c)' because they actually want to Leave.

As to the whole "lies the remain campaign told?":
- 800 000 Jobs will be lost;
- House prices will fall dramatically;
- The Economy will come to a standstill;
- The financial markets will crash;
- Stirling will plummet and so on.

What are now called lies from 'Leave' side, please note that the UK would have not £350 million
to weekly spend on the NHS, but if I've been informed correctly 'merely' £ 225 million IF IT SO CHOSE.

Also, once again based on the premise that I've been informed correctly, negotiation on any future arrangement that is to be entered into after the UK has left the EU is only allowed to engage in (allowed by the EU, mind you) after the UK has left. In other words, there's no way to label this a lie, for the simple reason that the UK hasn't left yet and therefore hasn't had a chance to negotiate any deal.

By the way, ever notice that the Irish backstop is a future arrangement the EU insists on being agreed on today - that is BEFORE the UK leaves. A perfect example of enforcing a double standard (looks just like AS).

Schrödinger, seriously? It looks like someone is spending way too much time watching episodes of the TV series The Big Bang theory.


Finally, someone brave enough to admit that the outcome of the referendum is being ignored!

For reference sake, does anyone have the exact figures on EU wide migration due to changes of jobs, excluding those where people relocate to another member state that has a cost of living (COL) that's higher than the COL of their originating country? In other words, a comparable or even a lower COL?



Written like a true Remainer.

Always finding excuses for facts they can't circumvent.

The key words are 'looks like' - just as job losses, falling house prices, collapsing of the financial market etc.


I don't understand what you mean, so please elaborate.

Stirling unlikely to plummet but sterling will

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Stirling unlikely to plummet but sterling will

depends on the scottish independence question

 

[Pickman's model]

depends on the scottish independence question

And Scottish sinkholes

 

[Poi E]

A bit like England based Scots with Poor Wee Alec's Independence Referendum. If folks like me had been able to vote the Stay vote would probably have been overwhelming.

..

 

[Spymaster]

No, I am not - you might want to check out some things I wrote above.

I have skim-read your posts and I agree with some of what you say but it's nothing new. There are loads of Brexit threads in support of multiple positions (including yours) on here but you come across as a pompous ringpiece which is why people are ignoring you or taking the piss.

 

[brogdale]

If only the public hadn't been told: 'once in a lifetime' and 'we'll implement whatever the outcome of the referendum is', you'd have a point.



Well, the difference doesn't exactly amount to 10%, but in fact to 8-plus-one-third-of-a-percent - I already wrote this. The 10% only gives a general direction.



Again, not reading (or grasping?) the opening post.
Again, letting economics prevail above liberty.



So what you're saying is that after a hypothetical second referendum - once more, I'm against holding a second referendum even before the first one has been implemented! - the whole thing would be back in the hands of Parliament, who then will ignore also the outcome of the second referendum.



Talk about misjudging the true desires of the very same people you pretend to represent with your government.

As long as we're 'interpreting' why voters voted as they did, let's add 'c)' because they actually want to Leave.

As to the whole "lies the remain campaign told?":
- 800 000 Jobs will be lost;
- House prices will fall dramatically;
- The Economy will come to a standstill;
- The financial markets will crash;
- Stirling will plummet and so on.

What are now called lies from 'Leave' side, please note that the UK would have not £350 million
to weekly spend on the NHS, but if I've been informed correctly 'merely' £ 225 million IF IT SO CHOSE.

Also, once again based on the premise that I've been informed correctly, negotiation on any future arrangement that is to be entered into after the UK has left the EU is only allowed to engage in (allowed by the EU, mind you) after the UK has left. In other words, there's no way to label this a lie, for the simple reason that the UK hasn't left yet and therefore hasn't had a chance to negotiate any deal.

By the way, ever notice that the Irish backstop is a future arrangement the EU insists on being agreed on today - that is BEFORE the UK leaves. A perfect example of enforcing a double standard (looks just like AS).

Schrödinger, seriously? It looks like someone is spending way too much time watching episodes of the TV series The Big Bang theory.


Finally, someone brave enough to admit that the outcome of the referendum is being ignored!

For reference sake, does anyone have the exact figures on EU wide migration due to changes of jobs, excluding those where people relocate to another member state that has a cost of living (COL) that's higher than the COL of their originating country? In other words, a comparable or even a lower COL?



Written like a true Remainer.

Always finding excuses for facts they can't circumvent.

The key words are 'looks like' - just as job losses, falling house prices, collapsing of the financial market etc.


I don't understand what you mean, so please elaborate.

The point that the basis of your thread is redundant nonsense stands, whatever the electorate were told. Any singular, exceptional expression of 'direct democracy' within a Parliamentary system of representative democracy affords voters (or non voters) no capacity to compromise, whatever their choice on the day of the plebiscite.

For your own reasons you appear unable to accept that fact.

 

[danny la rouge]

Stirling unlikely to plummet but sterling will

Stirling’s about as low as it can get.

 

[danny la rouge]

Anyway, what’s going on here, then?

 

[danny la rouge]

Hi Everybody,

Not being a Leave expert myself, I often wonder what the origin is of the Remainers call for compromise the Leave side should partake in. Let alone that it was quite clear that the Britons were told once and a again that their decision would be final and that the result would be implemented (I would say, implemented without any compromise whatsoever), let's look at it from another side.

For argument's sake, let's for one minute look at the situation as if the shoe were on the other foot. That is, Remain would have won the referendum with 52% and Leave would have peaked at 48%. I know, an unpopular stance, but bear with me.


First of all: would Remain have 'compromised' with Leave in order to 'get the country back together again'?
Secondly: which elements would they have sacrificed, if any?

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.

Now, (again for argument's sake) let's say that in order to 'compromise' the Remainers had to give up 3* of the above 7* items, which would they choose to part themselves of?

I've not yet seen that question raised when a Remainer talks about a need for the Leave side to 'compromise' since figures are so close. And again, for a moment let's park the whole issue of it having been a binary choice.

I haven't seen anyone present the above hypothetical casus and should someone already have, please accept my apologies for having wasted your time and consider my message as if it had never been posted.

* Granted, 3 out of 7 doesn't accurately reflect the 52%/48% and in fact the Remainers should be prepared to give up more than merely three items, but for now let's leave (no pun intended) it at that.

Your question is based on a set of faulty assumptions. So you’re unlikely to get the answer you’re looking for. Also, you seem to be arguing with some of the more ardent remainers on here, so I don’t expect any light from this thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

Stirling’s about as low as it can get.

david stirling's six feet under

 

[collectordave]

If I start with the topic title

"Why are Leave voters expected to compromise?"

The answer is of course leave voters are not expected to compromise just to agree on what they all mean by leave.

The question asked was

For argument's sake, let's for one minute look at the situation as if the shoe were on the other foot. That is, Remain would have won the referendum with 52% and Leave would have peaked at 48%. I know, an unpopular stance, but bear with me.


First of all: would Remain have 'compromised' with Leave in order to 'get the country back together again'?
Secondly: which elements would they have sacrificed, if any?

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.

My first post was referring to this. As a remainer
I am willing to compromise on all seven points but do not wish to have any compromise which can adversly affect the UK.
All I have asked is what compromise would leavers ask for "if the shoe was on the other foot" ?

Of course I had a reply.

Aah, compromising on the compromise, but just for argument's sake I'll rebut.
1. What you propose effectively means staying in the EU's Customs Union; that's not a compromise.

2. What you propose effectively means staying in the Single Market; that's not a compromise.

3. The EU would will strongly object to that. In fact, freedom of movement for EU-citizens, EU-goods and EU-services is one of the four EU-pillars. While the UK is not a Shengen area country, this only means that at in order the country one has to show proof of EU-origin and the UK is obliged to give passage. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that how things work if a country is an EU member state - Shengen area or not. So not a compromise.

4. Mutatis mutandis, same as rebuttal 3 (ever heard that approx. 60% of the laws are made in Brussels and EU member states have to implement them?). Again, not a compromise.

5. A noble stance and I couldn't agree more, if only it weren't the case that the decisions of the European Court of Justice overrule those of any EU member state Courts.

6. If UK voters chose to go that road, then that's the way it would be. Agaimn, UK voters would have a say in it, but as things stand being an EU member state, they do NOT. Therefore, not a compromise.

7. Mutatis mutandis, same as rebuttal 6. Again, not a compromise.

First I am proposing nothing so no rebuttle required!

So for 1 and 2 what compromise do you propose remainers should agree to?

3. The EU does not object strongly or otherwise to any member controlling immigration and access to social services. This can be seen in other member states such as Portugal where of course you can enter and reside there, but you have no right to any social services and as such you need to show you are not a burden on the state.
this does sound a little like what is being presented now as the hostile environment. Why has it taken so long for the UK to catch up.

4. I have heard that the EU discuss and vote on guidelines but also that no member state has to implement them. In fact there is a mechanism in place for when member states object to any where it all has to go back for more discussion.
of course the UK is part of that process.

5. Are you suggesting that the UK courts make descisions that other courts may find a little disturbing? If the UK courts allways have the best interests of people formost in their mind nothing would be overruled.

6 and 7. If you are proposing that fishermen and farmer subsidies should be put to a referendum I could agree. Of course if the people agree to this then the UK will not have to pay the subsidies to the EU just to be paid back.
seems like a win all round except for fishermen and farmers.

As a leaver please just suggest the compromises your original post asks for:

And finally:-

Again, not reading (or grasping?) the opening post.
Again, letting economics prevail above liberty.

I have read and grasped the opening post and I am waiting for details on what compromises you would expect remainers to make if the boot was on the other foot.

I am not putting economics before liberty at all.

You appear to have not read or grasped my post at all.

 

[danny la rouge]

david stirling's six feet under

True.

 

[Pickman's model]

View attachment 166370

The point that the basis of your thread is redundant nonsense stands, whatever the electorate were told. Any singular, exceptional expression of 'direct democracy' within a Parliamentary system of representative democracy affords voters (or non voters) no capacity to compromise, whatever their choice on the day of the plebiscite.

For your own reasons you appear unable to accept that fact.

seems thick as pigshit, to use lenin's immortal phrase