Why are Leave voters expected to compromise?

[Nik]

who is expecting leave voters to compromise?

Just watch some of the TV shows or have a look at some of the social media and you'll see for yourself.

 

[Pickman's model]

Just watch some of the TV shows or have a look at some of the social media and you'll see for yourself.

you'll do anything to avoid giving an honest answer

 

[littlebabyjesus]

 

[Nik]

Your 'fact' is not a fact. Norway is not an associate member of the EU. You have invented that as a category in order to claim that a Norway-style deal involves compromise by the 52 per cent. It does no such thing. A sizeable chunk of the 52 per cent will have had this kind of thing in mind when they voted - reasoning along the lines of 'we want the common market but not the other stuff'. Now I may not agree with that. I don't. But it's a very long way from the kinds of things May and others have been seeking.

I don't pretend to represent the wishes of others, but you appear to think that you do. You appear to think that just because you voted leave with a particular outcome in mind, so did all the others who voted leave, despite the vote being a simple binary question, as you yourself pointed out. Well you don't.

Only two comments:
First of all, the keyword is 'appear'.
Second of all, what makes you think that you know how I voted?
Again, all interpreting....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Only two comments:
First of all, the keyword is 'appear'.
Second of all, what makes you think that you know how I voted?
Again, all interpreting....

Oh, believe me, I couldn't give a flying fuck how you voted.

Doesn't change the fact that you don't speak for the wishes of those that voted leave beyond that they voted to leave the EU.

 

[existentialist]

Call it whatever you want to and go on wildly beating at anything around you, but the fact of the matter is that the question I raised has yet to be answered.
For reference, the question is: Why are Leave voters expected to compromise?
Someone tried to answer it, but they failed (miserably, I might add).

OK, I'll have a stab at answering. Let's start with the question you feel they are so unfairly being expected to compromise on.

Here it is:

(which is, incidentally, from a quite interesting article by the London School of Economics, here)

So, it's a question about whether people think we should leave the EU. I expect you're probably thinking (or muttering to yourself) something along the lines of "yes, that's right - we tell the Government what to do, and they worry about the details". Which is all very well, except - as it transpires - there are quite a lot of details.

Let's look at this whole leaving-stuff thing.

I am currently sitting in my office. I've been here about half an hour, but let's suppose I want to leave it. Fortunately, I do not have any ongoing trade deals, treaties, policing agreements or any other such things in force in relation to my office, so it is comparatively easy for me to simply get up out of my chair, and walk through the door. One complexity that might ensue would be if I should find the door closed, in which case I might need to involve myself in a slightly more complex process in order to open it before I leave. Or, of course, I could always go for the "No Door" exit, whereby I simply refused to acknowledge the existence of the door, and simply smashed my way through it.

Another scenario. I don't know if you've had a girlfriend or wife yet, but if not, imagine that you have, and that you also have a friend (bear with me here) who has invited you to a party. You have been there for two or three hours, and have spoken to, oh, maybe one or two people. Your girlfriend has been engaged in animated conversation with the members of the local amateur rugby team, and is currently engrossed in the stories being told by their extremely handsome 6'2" forward. You are feeling that the last glass of Lambrini has gone to your head a little, and you want to go home. Now, the problem is a little more complicated: you are going to have to get your girlfriend to agree that it's time to go, to do which you are going to have to interrupt her conversation with the impossibly good-looking rugby player. And that's before you even get started on ordering a taxi to take you home. A slightly more complicated situation.

In both cases, the question of whether or not to leave are easy to answer; the practicalities of actually doing so potentially not so simple. And, when you're talking about very slightly more than half of those who voted wishing to leave not a room, nor a party, but a long-standing economic, political, legal, and trade union, it's fair to say that more than a few complexities - and therefore compromises - are likely to arise.

Oh, and while you're applying back of hand to forehead over the awfulness of the compromises that the 52% of the electorate who voted Leave might have to put up with, spare a thought for the not-quite-as-numerous 48% who are having to make far greater compromises with their stated wishes. You're not being nearly as hard-done-by as your posturing might make you believe you are.

Assuming, of course, that Leave prevails. One of the reasons I am really hoping rather hard that Brexit fails, is that I want to see how those gloating Brexiteers who've been so happy to rub "Remoaners" faces in it for not getting what they wanted deal with it when they don't get what they want.

I have a feeling it is going to be instructive, if not edifying...

 

[existentialist]

Only two comments:
First of all, the keyword is 'appear'.
Second of all, what makes you think that you know how I voted?
Again, all interpreting....

Jesus, could you be any more patronising?

 

[existentialist]

Wanting to put the so-called deal before the House of Commons again, reminds me of a definition Einstein once supposedly gave.

He didn't. It's a misattribution. HTH.

 

[Pickman's model]

Only two comments:
First of all, the keyword is 'appear'.
Second of all, what makes you think that you know how I voted?
Again, all interpreting....

it's only an appearance of thought, a semblance if you will, then

littlebabyjesus is very kind to say you appear to think, i don't believe you really do.

 

[Nik]

nik is someone with much to be modest about

Don't know where you got that post from, but it seems a bit redundant.
As I already posted in #172 I'm not a politician.
Theresa May is a politician and not a very good one to put it mildly....

 

[Pickman's model]

Don't know where you got that post from, but it seems a bit redundant.
As I already posted in #172 I'm not a politician.
Theresa May is a politician and not a very good one to put it mildly....

you are a poster and not a very good one to put it mildly

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Jesus, could you be any more patronising?

He can certainly try.

The old pomposity troll - bit of retro nostalgia there.

 

[existentialist]

Don't know where you got that post from, but it seems a bit redundant.
As I already posted in #172 I'm not a politician.
Theresa May is a politician and not a very good one to put it mildly....

I don't think he's suggesting you're a politician; far from it.

All he's saying is that you have little to be modest about. Which, for anyone who has read your posting history, would, admittedly, be more than a bit redundant.

 

[Nik]

He didn't. It's a misattribution. HTH.

Please enlighten me, because I've heard this said before but I wasn't able to find out (no extensive search here).
I like to learn.
Who, if anyone said this?

 

[existentialist]

Please enlighten me, because I've heard this said before but I wasn't able to find out (no extensive search here).
I like to learn.
Who, if anyone said this?

I assume that you're referring to the remark that says "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"?

TBH, it's such a self-evident truth that it's the sort of thing anyone could have come up with - I suspect the Einstein attribution is just something people use to lend it a respectability they feel it lacks in its own right.

 

[Nik]

I don't think he's suggesting you're a politician; far from it.

All he's saying is that you have little to be modest about. Which, for anyone who has read your posting history, would, admittedly, be more than a bit redundant.

While I do have certain things to be modest about (working on bettering myself everyday), I for one do not believe in false modesty - probably the way I was brought up.
Again, still working on that and while I've come a long way, I'm not there yet.

 

[Pickman's model]

I assume that you're referring to the remark that says "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"?

TBH, it's such a self-evident truth that it's the sort of thing anyone could have come up with - I suspect the Einstein attribution is just something people use to lend it a respectability they feel it lacks in its own right.

like the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits

to paraphrase brendan behan, i cannot conceive of a situation so dismal the arrival of Nik could not make it worse

 

[Nik]

I assume that you're referring to the remark that says "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"?

TBH, it's such a self-evident truth that it's the sort of thing anyone could have come up with - I suspect the Einstein attribution is just something people use to lend it a respectability they feel it lacks in its own right.

OK, thx. for getting back to me.
Read and noted.
thank you, again!

 

[danny la rouge]

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.

I’m starting from first principles. And I’m hoping to establish first who is acting and who isn’t, before moving onto what interests they are acting in service of.

 

[Nik]

Jesus, could you be any more patronising?

All I see/read are (attempts to) insult(s), a whole lot of innuendo without following through etc.; no substantiating whatsoever - let alone an actual answer to the original question on why Leavers should compromise.

Simply (probably because it suits their agenda) forgoing the fact that the Public was told by the government that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented, that approx. 80% of the people in a GE voted for parties that stood on a Manifesto that said they would honor the result of the referendum, and on top of that the triggering Article 50 by some 498 MP's. An article that clearly stated that if no 'deal' was passed, the country would leave the EU on March 29, 2019 at 23:00 hours (UTC) and that the UK would do so on WTO terms.

I think, that the simple truth of the matter is that Remainers cannot answer the question. BTW, no one can, the question seems to be right on the money.
In stead (much like the MP's) they just repeat the same old stuff they've learned by heart that supposedly gives them some comfort; I can't explain it any other way (if someone can, please do).
Fact is that if the shoe had been on the other foot, Remainers wouldn't give Leavers the time of day (and quite rightly so!).

Thx. for contributing though - it's been a real eye-opener.

Ciao.

 

[Pickman's model]

All I see/read are (attempts to) insult(s), a whole lot of innuendo without following through etc.; no substantiating whatsoever - let alone an actual answer to the original question on why Leavers should compromise.

Simply (probably because it suits their agenda) forgoing the fact that the Public was told by the government that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented, that approx. 80% of the people in a GE voted for parties that stood on a Manifesto that said they would honor the result of the referendum, and on top of that the triggering Article 50 by some 498 MP's. An article that clearly stated that if no 'deal' was passed, the country would leave the EU on March 29, 2019 at 23:00 hours (UTC) and that the UK would do so on WTO terms.

I think, that the simple truth of the matter is that Remainers cannot answer the question. BTW, no one can, the question seems to be right on the money.
In stead (much like the MP's) they just repeat the same old stuff they've learned by heart that supposedly gives them some comfort; I can't explain it any other way (if someone can, please do).
Fact is that if the shoe had been on the other foot, Remainers wouldn't give Leavers the time of day (and quite rightly so!).

Thx. for contributing though - it's been a real eye-opener.

Ciao.

you're forgetting the FACT that the government fell at the first hurdle, if restoring sovereignty with parliament once more reigning supreme was an aim of leaving the eu - surely, SURELY you remember theresa may's desperate fight to prevent parliament having a vote on a.50.

oh - and it has been a real eye-opener, i don't think i've ever encountered another poster with the brass neck to flagrantly misrepresent, misunderstand and misconstrue what's being posted to the extent you do. i'd like to say it's been a pleasure but we both know that'd be a lie.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

a) Do you understand what 'on WTO terms' means?

I'll give you a little head start: It is for countries in situations where they don't have any other trade deal in place. It is very poorly enforced as the central authority that would enforce it is weak. It's the thing that countries make trade deals to get away from.

b) Was that on the ballot paper, or indeed in any manifesto?

 

[Pickman's model]

Simply (probably because it suits their agenda) forgoing the fact that the Public was told by the government that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented, that approx. 80% of the people in a GE voted for parties that stood on a Manifesto that said they would honor the result of the referendum, and on top of that the triggering Article 50 by some 498 MP's. An article that clearly stated that if no 'deal' was passed, the country would leave the EU on March 29, 2019 at 23:00 hours (UTC) and that the UK would do so on WTO terms.

you haven't read article 50 if you think it says anything like that

EUR-Lex - 12012M050 - EN - EUR-Lex

your stupidity i can ignore: but your wilful ignorance i can't.

 

[existentialist]

a) Do you understand what 'on WTO terms' means?

I'll give you a little head start: It is for countries in situations where they don't have any other trade deal in place. It is very poorly enforced as the central authority that would enforce it is weak. It's the thing that countries make trade deals to get away from.

b) Was that on the ballot paper, or indeed in any manifesto?

I have helpfully posted an image of the ballot paper upthread. To save everyone the trouble, I have just gone back and checked, and can confirm that nowhere on the paper appears anything in relation to the WTO arrangements. I hope this helps

 

[existentialist]

All I see/read are (attempts to) insult(s), a whole lot of innuendo without following through etc.; no substantiating whatsoever - let alone an actual answer to the original question on why Leavers should compromise.

Simply (probably because it suits their agenda) forgoing the fact that the Public was told by the government that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented, that approx. 80% of the people in a GE voted for parties that stood on a Manifesto that said they would honor the result of the referendum, and on top of that the triggering Article 50 by some 498 MP's. An article that clearly stated that if no 'deal' was passed, the country would leave the EU on March 29, 2019 at 23:00 hours (UTC) and that the UK would do so on WTO terms.

I think, that the simple truth of the matter is that Remainers cannot answer the question. BTW, no one can, the question seems to be right on the money.
In stead (much like the MP's) they just repeat the same old stuff they've learned by heart that supposedly gives them some comfort; I can't explain it any other way (if someone can, please do).
Fact is that if the shoe had been on the other foot, Remainers wouldn't give Leavers the time of day (and quite rightly so!).

Thx. for contributing though - it's been a real eye-opener.

Ciao.

Haha, I would say that a question which no-one can answer is anything but right "on the money".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nik wins. He's outfoxed us all.

 

[collectordave]

Ok I will help you out:

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.

if you put the word I in front of haven't it appears to make more sense

As I already concluded: I haven't read or understood my original post at all. Note the inserted word "I".

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.

Any hostility is, I am sorry to say, in your own imagination. If you are referring to the reason I believe you voted leave please check the threads on the forum where you will find one asking for help on the benefits of brexit. Of course if you can come up with an actual benefit of brexit to the greater population of the UK I can amend that to two.

The first question you raised was :-
Why are Leave voters expected to compromise?

The clue is in the title of your thread. The answer was and still is that no one expects leave voters to compromise. This can be seen from the results of the last election where both major parties were for leaving the EU.

So all compromises are between leavers it is not one party of remainers asking another party of leavers to compromise.So are you asserting that one set of leavers are asking another set of leavers to compromise? Seems a little weird you appear to be sugesting that remainers are asking for compromise from leavers. Check the last general election for a little proof.

I do not remember you writing about self-worth vs. economics just about choosing between economics and liberty?
You gave no arguments or clarification on what liberty you are talking about.


The secong question you raised was if the shoe was on the other foot would remainers be prepared to compromise? I as a remainer gave you the answer YES they would. You expanded on your question with seven points all of which I replied to.

Basically as a remainer I am prepared to compromise on any of your points as long as it does not damage the UK. Quite interested in what compromises you would expect from a remainer, so far you have not answered with any compromise for remainers to consider.

I do not understand your last comment, my reply was not my feelings just answers to your questions and no argument.

Just a little request please refrain from descending into childish schoolyard behaviour and post the compromises you see remainers should make if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[Supine]

Don't know where you got that post from, but it seems a bit redundant.
As I already posted in #172 I'm not a politician.
Theresa May is a politician and not a very good one to put it mildly....

How much are you getting paid to hold this discussion?

 

[existentialist]

How much are you getting paid to hold this discussion?

However much it is, he's clearly being paid by the word...

 

[xenon]

Call it whatever you want to and go on wildly beating at anything around you, but the fact of the matter is that the question I raised has yet to be answered.
For reference, the question is: Why are Leave voters expected to compromise?
Someone tried to answer it, but they failed (miserably, I might add).

What the hell are you talking about. You are getting your Brexit. It might not be the one you want but as you keep reminding us there was only one question on the Ballot. It’s taking longer thanwassaid. But things often do. I mean adults can generally understand that complex arrangements don’t always accord to a predefined timetable.