Why are Leave voters expected to compromise?

[Nylock]

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.

...as well as being a patronising arse "It's called freedom of speech"; the opening verbal salvo of a confirmed wanker high as a kite on the dunning-kruger effect.

Now here's something I thought was broadly known out there: NEVER BUY OR SELL (RELATIVELY) IMMEDIATELY AFTER AN EVENT TOOK PLACE. If people are that nervous (or is it stupid), they don't have any business doing what they do - don't take my word for it, simply ask the renowned traders.
Furthermore, your argument doesn't take into account that some 20 years ago (May 2000), Sterling was much weaker to the tone of over 43% (mind you, weaker without any signs of the UK leaving the EU).
But hey it's a free world, I suggest that you just go on believing in what you choose to.

Please. For the love of god. Sort your numeric comprehension out! Your continued mis-reading of basic maths is fucking painful to observe...

 

[Nik]

no it doesn't. if it did then everyone would know what terms leave voters expected in july 2016. just looking at the leaders of the leave campaign, they want so many different things that it's clear there's never been just one notion of 'leave'

Are you so wise that you're stating that those that decided to put 'Leave' on the ballot, didn't have a clue as to what they were doing?
Please explain, because I'm not following what you mean.

I can tell you one thing, the 'leave' voters expect the UK to leave the EU.
If you want to know on which terms they want to leave, you'll have to hold a follow-up referendum to tackle that subject.

 

[Pickman's model]

Are you so wise that you're stating that those that decided to put 'Leave' on the ballot, didn't have a clue as to what they were doing?
Please explain, because I'm not following what you mean .

no, i didn't think you'd follow the simple point i'm making.

i am NOT stating that people who decided to put 'leave' on the ballot didn't know what they were doing.

i AM stating that people who have decided they know what people who decided to put 'leave' on the ballot paper meant in terms of how the uk would in future relate to the eu don't know what they're doing.

 

[Nik]

no, i didn't think you'd follow the simple point i'm making.

i am NOT stating that people who decided to put 'leave' on the ballot didn't know what they were doing.

i AM stating that people who have decided they know what people who decided to put 'leave' on the ballot paper meant in terms of how the uk would in future relate to the eu don't know what they're doing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had always thought that the UK traded with European countries way before it joined the EEC in 1973(?).
How on earth did they survive before joining, let alone prosper?

I've already mentioned the trickery of 'interpreting', 'thinking that one knows how others think, let alone how they will act' (remember a certain Prime Minister thinking that snap elections would yield a bigger majority for their party?).
It all goes to show that when the chips are down, it's very hard to predict peoples behavior - this especially rings true with people you don't know.

 

[danny la rouge]

Feeling or fact?

If I'm informed correctly a few days after the referendum in 2016 (to be precise: June 27, 2016) the exchange rate of the British Pound against the Euro was: 0,83875.
On March 30th last it stood at: 0,85658 which amounts to an increase of a little over 2%.
A low for Sterling was f.i. May 8, 2000 when said rate was 0.58510 which is about 43% lower than last weekend; so what's your point?

Stirling is a city. I am a local. Its altitude is unlikely to change much in the human longer term, although in geological time things may be different.

The currency is Sterling.

My point wasn’t to you.

 

[Pickman's model]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I had always thought that the UK traded with European countries way before it joined the EEC in 1973(?).
How on earth did they survive before joining, let alone prosper?

go back and read my post. then read your post again and think about why your 154 is not really an answer to my 153. if at first the reason isn't obvious reread the two posts. you may need to do this several times.

 

[danny la rouge]

Well, if my facts were to be wrong, I invite you to correct me. I can only learn from that and improve my view-point(s).

Well, let’s start with who you’re calling “we”. There’s no political sense in which any “we” I’m involved in will include politicians. That’s pretty fundamental. So it’s importsnt to establish that first.

Any time you discuss anything any politicians are doing, I’m not part of any “we”.

 

[Pickman's model]

Nik i have to go for a few minutes to justify my employment. i'll be back shortly.

 

[Nik]

Well, let’s start with who you’re calling “we”. There’s no political sense in which any “we” I’m involved in will include politicians. That’s pretty fundamental. So it’s importsnt to establish that first.

Any time you discuss anything any politicians are doing, I’m not part of any “we”.

Not sure what you mean, but I've only used 'we'' twice.
Once as a quote and once - your quite right, I didn't stipulate - with 'we' referring to the public/the voters (mainly of the 'Remain' side).

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

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).




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.

I refer you to my comments in post #2 of this thread.

 

[Nik]

Nik i have to go for a few minutes to justify my employment. i'll be back shortly.

Thx. for the heads up.
I'll do you one better; I'm leaving for a lengty break.
I'll read you posts when I return.
Until now, it's been a pleasure to communicate with you.

Cheers!

Nik.

 

[Pickman's model]

Thx. for the heads up.
I'll do you one better; I'm leaving for a lengty break.
I'll read you posts when I return.
Until now, it's been a pleasure to communicate with you.

Cheers!

Nik.

ta ra then

 

[danny la rouge]

Not sure what you mean, but I've only used 'we'' twice.
Once as a quote and once - your quite right, I didn't stipulate - with 'we' referring to the public/the voters (mainly of the 'Remain' side).

It’s more important than the number of times you’ve used a pronoun. I want first to establish that I share no interests with any politicians. Politicians are they and them. Not we or us.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can tell you one thing, the 'leave' voters expect the UK to leave the EU.
If you want to know on which terms they want to leave, you'll have to hold a follow-up referendum to tackle that subject.

i'm sorry, i didn't see what you'd added after my reply until just now.

if what you say is in fact the case (and bearing in mind the utter bollocks you've come out with i wouldn't want to say just on your assertion that it is) then perhaps you ought to recognise that all remainers taking part in such a plebiscite would be compromising themselves.

 

[rubbershoes]

Is this fucking clown still here?

Not you danny, of course

 

[danny la rouge]

Is this fucking clown still here?

Not you danny, of course

It’s my big feet, isn’t it?

 

[rubbershoes]

It’s my big feet, isn’t it?

have you thought about toning down your bow tie?

or at least reduce the spin speed

 

[danny la rouge]

have you thought about toning down your bow tie?

or at least reduce the spin speed

 

[collectordave]

Didn't know the people that react are Remainers - and understand much better mow why there's a deadlock. People don't listen to arguments; in stead apparently they prefer to display ostrich like behaviour by burying their heads in the sand in order not to see things they don't want to see, so they can remain (pun intended) in their own bubble.



Sadly enough, the beauty of elections is that one isn't required (to be able) to explain why one voted as one did.

The result of the voting speaks for itself.



As I already concluded: haven't read or understood my original post at all.

I'm of the opinion that 'Leavers' should *NOT* have to compromise anything; I that that that was clear, but it turns out that it wasn't.

“Mowing” the deadlock is one way of getting over it I suppose.

I am listening to arguments and the remainer arguments I listened to before the referendum seemed quite reasonable of course the rebuttal from the leave campaign of “That's just scare tactics” did wear thin after a little while. You appear to be suggesting that remainers are not listening to arguments when the only argument was Scare Tactics.

The beauty of elections. Of course you do not need to explain why you voted in the way that you did. A reasonable assumption would be that anyone who casts a vote did so after careful consideration of the consequences of that vote. Voting just because I wanted to leave with no consideration would seem just a little silly.

In your conclusions I think you missed the word “I” from just in front of haven't.

May I suggest you read the first post again?

Your opinion was quite obvious, I did read your first post. You also asked a question which has been answered but you have since refused to reply.

Maybe I can help. You obviously voted to gain some benefit from brexit and now the identified benefits of brexit have climbed to the dizzying heights of one benefit so is that why you voted leave? Just to get cheaper tampons?

 

[Pickman's model]

“Mowing” the deadlock is one way of getting over it I suppose.

I am listening to arguments and the remainer arguments I listened to before the referendum seemed quite reasonable of course the rebuttal from the leave campaign of “That's just scare tactics” did wear thin after a little while. You appear to be suggesting that remainers are not listening to arguments when the only argument was Scare Tactics.

The beauty of elections. Of course you do not need to explain why you voted in the way that you did. A reasonable assumption would be that anyone who casts a vote did so after careful consideration of the consequences of that vote. Voting just because I wanted to leave with no consideration would seem just a little silly.

In your conclusions I think you missed the word “I” from just in front of haven't.

May I suggest you read the first post again?

Your opinion was quite obvious, I did read your first post. You also asked a question which has been answered but you have since refused to reply.

Maybe I can help. You obviously voted to gain some benefit from brexit and now the identified benefits of brexit have climbed to the dizzying heights of one benefit so is that why you voted leave? Just to get cheaper tampons?

Tampons should be much cheaper if not free

 

[Poi E]

you fucking bet. heard my mother's stories of growing up in poverty and not being able to afford sanitary products.

 

[Nik]

It’s more important than the number of times you’ve used a pronoun. I want first to establish that I share no interests with any politicians. Politicians are they and them. Not we or us.

Just to be clear, I'm not a politician - much too sanctimonious for my pallet (I act based on in facts), let alone that when you're a politician believing in one thing, you apparently have to do another (often times the direct opposite!). No thank you, I'll remain an Engineer.

 

[Nik]

i'm sorry, i didn't see what you'd added after my reply until just now.

if what you say is in fact the case (and bearing in mind the utter bollocks you've come out with i wouldn't want to say just on your assertion that it is) then perhaps you ought to recognise that all remainers taking part in such a plebiscite would be compromising themselves.

Again, if people want to ignore democracy, then that's up to them.

 

[Pickman's model]

Again, if people want to ignore democracy, then that's up to them.

i don't think you have the slightest idea of what democracy is.

it isn't '52% trumps 48%' because that's a recipe for catastrophe. although having someone like you witter away without any real notion of what you're on about (see for examples exchangegate and posts 153, 154 above), if you were representative of leave voters the country would be even more utterly fucked than it is now.

 

[Nik]

“Mowing” the deadlock is one way of getting over it I suppose.

I am listening to arguments and the remainer arguments I listened to before the referendum seemed quite reasonable of course the rebuttal from the leave campaign of “That's just scare tactics” did wear thin after a little while. You appear to be suggesting that remainers are not listening to arguments when the only argument was Scare Tactics.

The beauty of elections. Of course you do not need to explain why you voted in the way that you did. A reasonable assumption would be that anyone who casts a vote did so after careful consideration of the consequences of that vote. Voting just because I wanted to leave with no consideration would seem just a little silly.

In your conclusions I think you missed the word “I” from just in front of haven't.

May I suggest you read the first post again?

Your opinion was quite obvious, I did read your first post. You also asked a question which has been answered but you have since refused to reply.

Maybe I can help. You obviously voted to gain some benefit from brexit and now the identified benefits of brexit have climbed to the dizzying heights of one benefit so is that why you voted leave? Just to get cheaper tampons?

Ooh the hostility is 'dripping' off the screen, sadly not backed up by any argument.
Still, I'll give it a try.

I wasn't able to find what you mean by"...placing the word I just in front of haven't...". I've looked up every possibility, but couldn't find any that makes sense - you're going to help me out.

Contrary to what you seem to believe the question I raised wasn't answered, probably because no one can provide an answer that's at all logical.

I fully stand by what I wrote about self-worth vs. economics etc. There's no way to 'compromise' between two goals that are fundamentally irreconcilable.

P.S: Not being able to come up with arguments to substantiate ones feelings, is pure childish schoolyard behavior.

 

[Pickman's model]

P.S: Not being able to come up with arguments to substantiate ones feelings, is pure childish schoolyard behavior.

when unable to understand what people are saying to you rather than asking for clarification responding instead to some question you've invented isn't particularly adult either.

 

[Nik]

i don't think you have the slightest idea of what democracy is.

it isn't '52% trumps 48%' because that's a recipe for catastrophe. although having someone like you witter away without any real notion of what you're on about (see for examples exchangegate and posts 153, 154 above), if you were representative of leave voters the country would be even more utterly fucked than it is now.

You still just don't seem to grasp the concept of a binary choice, the winner-takes-all etc. That's what a two choices system is all about; should it be abandoned because in this case the outcome doesn't coincide with what a minority feels?

 

[krtek a houby]

You still just don't seem to grasp the concept of a binary choice, the winner-takes-all etc. That's what a two choices system is all about; should it be abandoned because in this case the outcome doesn't coincide with what a minority feels?

The people of the 6 counties voted to remain. Should their wishes be ignored?

 

[existentialist]

Ooh the hostility is 'dripping' off the screen, sadly not backed up by any argument.
Still, I'll give it a try.

I wasn't able to find what you mean by"...placing the word I just in front of haven't...". I've looked up every possibility, but couldn't find any that makes sense - you're going to help me out.

Contrary to what you seem to believe the question I raised wasn't answered, probably because no one can provide an answer that's at all logical.

I fully stand by what I wrote about self-worth vs. economics etc. There's no way to 'compromise' between two goals that are fundamentally irreconcilable.

P.S: Not being able to come up with arguments to substantiate ones feelings, is pure childish schoolyard behavior.

The signal:noise ratio in what you write is lamentably low, particularly in view of how much effort you put into criticising the way others express themselves over what they are actually saying.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You still just don't seem to grasp the concept of a binary choice, the winner-takes-all etc. That's what a two choices system is all about; should it be abandoned because in this case the outcome doesn't coincide with what a minority feels?

Quick yes/no question: Is Norway in the EU? Yes or no.