Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Innocent Bystander posted:

jpr posted:

In fact as a multilingual person I sometimes refer to EU documents to verify ways of saying things, grammar etc. I wonder if they will still publish documents in English after the U.K. leaves? As Prime Minister I would insist on that to be a fully functional rule taker.

That was a concern to me early on, because so much has to comply with EU law and will still have to afterwards (e.g. food for export to EU), also it makes picking the useful bits easy for making or guiding our own laws when there is something we want - it was pointed out to me that English is the primary language of Eire, so documents would continue to be translated into English.

Good point - I totally forgot about the Irish. 

Cheers,

 ☘️sjb

jpr posted:

MDS posted:

To JPR - There is nothing in the Treaty about withdrawing an Art 50 application. Now if the UK government said "we've changed our mind and now want to remain in the EU. Can we withdraw our Art 50 application?" you could be sure that the other member states and EU Commission would find a legal way of allowing that to happen.  But if, as you suggest, the HMG said to the rest of the EU "Damn! Through our own incompetence we're nowhere ready to leave within the 2 year period specified so can we temporarily withdraw our Art 50 application and we'll put in another one in a few years when we have sorted ourselves out?" I don't think it takes much in the way of foresight to predict the rest of the EU's reaction i.e. to the effect that the second word would be "..off".   

As all the EU official documents are translated into all EU languages, we would know how to say ...off in a vast number of languages!

In fact as a multilingual person I sometimes refer to EU documents to verify ways of saying things, grammar etc. I wonder if they will still publish documents in English after the U.K. leaves? As Prime Minister I would insist on that to be a fully functional rule taker.

If they want to interact with the rest of the world, the EU would be well advised to publish all their document in English, (Irish or otherwise !)

Resurrection posted:

Are you listening Theresa? 

It seems unlikely.

Across the aeons of time before the now and those to follow, the infinities of planets, stars and perhaps galaxies it seems unlikely that even the righteous opinions here expressed amount to much more than - a hill of beans (or their aftermath).

Could we possibly all agree to meet in 10 years (d.v.)? If this Leap for Former Greatness has succeeded - those who opposed can be publicly ridiculed. If things have fallen apart somewhat perhaps you and your chums will graciously accept your kicking.

Until then, all is blinkered speculation and quantum fury.

"They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."

Kevin-W posted:

mpw posted:

Sitting here.. I think the English public did not understand the ramifications of Brexit fully.

Thanks for putting us right, o wise one.

We English (and Welsh, along with some Scots and Northern irish) are so thick, we need guidance from our EU-phile overlords and the all-seeing political and media class, without whose wise guidance and counsel we would surely collapse into the Stone Age.

On a more serious note, nobody, not Jacob Rees Mogg, BoJo, Juncker, Barnier, Carney, the Guardian's crew of Bremaniac bedwetters, May, Gove, Hammond, Corbyn, Verhoftstadt (and not even you), understands what the ramifications  of Brexit are or will be - for the simple reason that nothing like it has ever happened before.

I suspect than in a decade's time we might start to know (assuming that is, we've left by then - don't forget, Brexit is not an event, it's a process). As Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai apparently didn't say to Richard Nixon in 1972 (when asked about the effects of the French Revolution of 1789): "It is too early to say".

And don't think that anything that happens to the UK (good or bad) won't impact on the rest of the EU, because it almost certainly will.

Why the defensive indignation?

your own post goes on to agree with MPW’s claim that those who voted for Brexit did not fully understand the ramifications of their vote.

I reckon his post was pretty much spot on. The common response of many staunch Brexiteers from virtually day one after the vote of ‘why aren’t we out yet - just get on with it’ - pretty much underlines the fact that many Brexiteers weren’t aware of the complex issues involved in our exit.

Adam Meredith posted:

Resurrection posted:

Are you listening Theresa? 

It seems unlikely.

Across the aeons of time before the now and those to follow, the infinities of planets, stars and perhaps galaxies it seems unlikely that even the righteous opinions here expressed amount to much more than - a hill of beans (or their aftermath).

Could we possibly all agree to meet in 10 years (d.v.)? If this Leap for Former Greatness has succeeded - those who opposed can be publicly ridiculed. If things have fallen apart somewhat perhaps you and your chums will graciously accept your kicking.

Until then, all is blinkered speculation and quantum fury.

"They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."

Very good!

Adam Meredith posted:

Resurrection posted:

Are you listening Theresa? 

.

Could we possibly all agree to meet in 10 years (d.v.)? If this Leap for Former Greatness has succeeded - those who opposed can be publicly ridiculed. If things have fallen apart somewhat perhaps you and your chums will graciously accept your kicking.

Until then, all is blinkered speculation and quantum fury.

 

That does initially appear to be a quite reasonable premise.

Unfortunately however, in the case of the UK’s exit from the EU there is no clear definition of success or failure. In the event that the U.K’s economy is perceived to have been adversely affected by the exit, many of the vocal Brexiteers will claim that it will have been worth it,

After all, we will have regained our sovereignty, those nasty bureaucrats from Europe who have never really liked us will no longer able to able to legislate against us and the flood of  non British immigrants will have been staunched.

In the event that the UK’s economy is perceived to have coped well with the exit then those of us on the other side will continue to bemoan the Litttle England attitude and borderline xenophobia that we can’t help feeling that has driven the exit, and the loss of the benefits including free movement that cooperation with our close neighbors and partners in Europe have provided and could continue to provide.

In this instance, ‘success’ or ‘failure’ is far from being ‘black’ or ‘white’.

Resurrection posted:

Kevin-W posted:

mpw posted:

Sitting here.. I think the English public did not understand the ramifications of Brexit fully.

Thanks for putting us right, o wise one.

We English (and Welsh, along with some Scots and Northern irish) are so thick, we need guidance from our EU-phile overlords and the all-seeing political and media class, without whose wise guidance and counsel we would surely collapse into the Stone Age.

On a more serious note, nobody, not Jacob Rees Mogg, BoJo, Juncker, Barnier, Carney, the Guardian's crew of Bremaniac bedwetters, May, Gove, Hammond, Corbyn, Verhoftstadt (and not even you), understands what the ramifications  of Brexit are or will be - for the simple reason that nothing like it has ever happened before.

I suspect than in a decade's time we might start to know (assuming that is, we've left by then - don't forget, Brexit is not an event, it's a process). As Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai apparently didn't say to Richard Nixon in 1972 (when asked about the effects of the French Revolution of 1789): "It is too early to say".

And don't think that anything that happens to the UK (good or bad) won't impact on the rest of the EU, because it almost certainly will.

Nice post. We slithered into the EU with absolutely no mandate from the U.K., but we can certainly leave with a mandated big bang any day of tthe week. Are you listening Theresa? 

???? Resurrection,or any other,....Given this comment,I have to ask.

1.◾How many in % voted to leave = Brexit.?

2.◾How man in % voted to stay in the EU.?

/Peder ????

Peder posted:

Resurrection posted:

Kevin-W posted:

mpw posted:

Sitting here.. I think the English public did not understand the ramifications of Brexit fully.

Thanks for putting us right, o wise one.

We English (and Welsh, along with some Scots and Northern irish) are so thick, we need guidance from our EU-phile overlords and the all-seeing political and media class, without whose wise guidance and counsel we would surely collapse into the Stone Age.

On a more serious note, nobody, not Jacob Rees Mogg, BoJo, Juncker, Barnier, Carney, the Guardian's crew of Bremaniac bedwetters, May, Gove, Hammond, Corbyn, Verhoftstadt (and not even you), understands what the ramifications  of Brexit are or will be - for the simple reason that nothing like it has ever happened before.

I suspect than in a decade's time we might start to know (assuming that is, we've left by then - don't forget, Brexit is not an event, it's a process). As Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai apparently didn't say to Richard Nixon in 1972 (when asked about the effects of the French Revolution of 1789): "It is too early to say".

And don't think that anything that happens to the UK (good or bad) won't impact on the rest of the EU, because it almost certainly will.

Nice post. We slithered into the EU with absolutely no mandate from the U.K., but we can certainly leave with a mandated big bang any day of tthe week. Are you listening Theresa? 

???? Resurrection,or any other,....Given this comment,I have to ask.

1.◾How many in % voted to leave = Brexit.?

2.◾How man in % voted to stay in the EU.?

/Peder ????

I have to measure my words when I reply as it may either be spiked or ‘edited’. My belief is that 52% voted to Leave and 48% to Remain, although you may have your own magic numbers. What was supposed to happen next is that when we voted to Leave we foolishly believed that the word Leave actually meant Leave.

This is the strangest game I have ever seen. In a clear game of winner takes all, what we have here is a situation where the losing side decides whether or not the prize is to be given, how much is to be given and when, if at all, it is to be given. 

Do you not see anything completely incongruous and illogical with this situation? 

Peder posted:

Resurrection posted:

Kevin-W posted:

mpw posted:

Sitting here.. I think the English public did not understand the ramifications of Brexit fully.

Thanks for putting us right, o wise one.

We English (and Welsh, along with some Scots and Northern irish) are so thick, we need guidance from our EU-phile overlords and the all-seeing political and media class, without whose wise guidance and counsel we would surely collapse into the Stone Age.

On a more serious note, nobody, not Jacob Rees Mogg, BoJo, Juncker, Barnier, Carney, the Guardian's crew of Bremaniac bedwetters, May, Gove, Hammond, Corbyn, Verhoftstadt (and not even you), understands what the ramifications  of Brexit are or will be - for the simple reason that nothing like it has ever happened before.

I suspect than in a decade's time we might start to know (assuming that is, we've left by then - don't forget, Brexit is not an event, it's a process). As Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai apparently didn't say to Richard Nixon in 1972 (when asked about the effects of the French Revolution of 1789): "It is too early to say".

And don't think that anything that happens to the UK (good or bad) won't impact on the rest of the EU, because it almost certainly will.

Nice post. We slithered into the EU with absolutely no mandate from the U.K., but we can certainly leave with a mandated big bang any day of tthe week. Are you listening Theresa? 

???? Resurrection,or any other,....Given this comment,I have to ask.

1.◾How many in % voted to leave = Brexit.?

2.◾How man in % voted to stay in the EU.?

/Peder ????

And how many didn’t vote who were eligible to.

You could ask how many of those who voted did so as a protest but not meaning to leave (unknown, of course, but 100% of the people I know who voted leave),

and how many have changed their minds since 2 years ago in the light of better awareness of what it is likely to mean in practice (also unkown unless there were to be a confirmatory vote).

Innocent Bystander posted:

Peder posted:

Resurrection posted:

Kevin-W posted:

mpw posted:

Sitting here.. I think the English public did not understand the ramifications of Brexit fully.

Thanks for putting us right, o wise one.

We English (and Welsh, along with some Scots and Northern irish) are so thick, we need guidance from our EU-phile overlords and the all-seeing political and media class, without whose wise guidance and counsel we would surely collapse into the Stone Age.

On a more serious note, nobody, not Jacob Rees Mogg, BoJo, Juncker, Barnier, Carney, the Guardian's crew of Bremaniac bedwetters, May, Gove, Hammond, Corbyn, Verhoftstadt (and not even you), understands what the ramifications  of Brexit are or will be - for the simple reason that nothing like it has ever happened before.

I suspect than in a decade's time we might start to know (assuming that is, we've left by then - don't forget, Brexit is not an event, it's a process). As Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai apparently didn't say to Richard Nixon in 1972 (when asked about the effects of the French Revolution of 1789): "It is too early to say".

And don't think that anything that happens to the UK (good or bad) won't impact on the rest of the EU, because it almost certainly will.

Nice post. We slithered into the EU with absolutely no mandate from the U.K., but we can certainly leave with a mandated big bang any day of tthe week. Are you listening Theresa? 

???? Resurrection,or any other,....Given this comment,I have to ask.

1.◾How many in % voted to leave = Brexit.?

2.◾How man in % voted to stay in the EU.?

/Peder ????

And how many didn’t vote who were eligible to.

You could ask how many of those who voted did so as a protest but not meaning to leave (unknown, of course, but 100% of the people I know who voted leave),

and how many have changed their minds since 2 years ago in the light of better awareness of what it is likely to mean in practice (also unkown unless there were to be a confirmatory vote).

Once again I have to moderate my language or the moderator will do it for me! There was one Referendum with one clear answer and you don’t like it. You have absolutely no idea about anyone’s opinion other than your own so don’t make up figures or pluck a justification for another referendum out of the air.

You continually rationalise your own wishes against those of the majority , none of which is democratic and easily explains the rise of Populism throughout Europe but not yet here because we do not have a political party worth of its name that actually represents the people, but don’t get too comfortable as things can change very quickly. 

National intelligence is a different matter.

All i meant was the English public did not fully understand what they are going to go thru.

In sports - you may change teams or have your own team or not play at all but national and international level ramifications exist in BIG decisions like this one - exiting a group of nations.

My country has problems too but i would HATE to see a referendum being used as a tool to measure the intelligence of the question and its implications.

I subscribe to true democracy too...... but a referendum on a monumental issue is something else simply because EU & UK are so intertwined.

Its not possible to un-twine without pain

Question is - what happens here on ??

Does Mr Boris Johnson or anybody else think they can get a better win-win deal for UK and EU than Ms May ??

regards

Adam Meredith posted:

Resurrection posted:

Are you listening Theresa? 

It seems unlikely.

Across the aeons of time before the now and those to follow, the infinities of planets, stars and perhaps galaxies it seems unlikely that even the righteous opinions here expressed amount to much more than - a hill of beans (or their aftermath).

Could we possibly all agree to meet in 10 years (d.v.)? If this Leap for Former Greatness has succeeded - those who opposed can be publicly ridiculed. If things have fallen apart somewhat perhaps you and your chums will graciously accept your kicking.

Until then, all is blinkered speculation and quantum fury.

"They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more."

Leaving aside the transcendental stuff in the first paragraph, Adam, are you suggesting that we knock the thread on the head as none of us will know who was on the right side of history until 10 years from now? Or simply suggesting that a retrospective at that time would be fun and interesting? 

I'm not comfortable with the rather tendentious language - suggestions of public ridicule and giving of kickings might have been meant in jest, but given the rather febrile atmosphere at the moment, not sure the language is helpful?

I'd also take issue with the suggestion that "all is blinkered speculation" - this rather buys into the whole "the public have had enough of experts" schtick that Gove and Co used to flog a leap into the darkness that is Brexit - this neutering in the minds of the gullible perfectly reasonable and logical warnings of the dangers of Brexit by experts in many fields.

Whilst Rumsfeld many have been right to flag up the concept of "unknown unknowns", there were also many "knowns" at the time of the referendum, which were valid then and just as valid now, which most definitely don't fall into the camp of speculation.

Peder posted:

Resurrection posted:

Kevin-W posted:

mpw posted:

Sitting here.. I think the English public did not understand the ramifications of Brexit fully.

Thanks for putting us right, o wise one.

We English (and Welsh, along with some Scots and Northern irish) are so thick, we need guidance from our EU-phile overlords and the all-seeing political and media class, without whose wise guidance and counsel we would surely collapse into the Stone Age.

On a more serious note, nobody, not Jacob Rees Mogg, BoJo, Juncker, Barnier, Carney, the Guardian's crew of Bremaniac bedwetters, May, Gove, Hammond, Corbyn, Verhoftstadt (and not even you), understands what the ramifications  of Brexit are or will be - for the simple reason that nothing like it has ever happened before.

I suspect than in a decade's time we might start to know (assuming that is, we've left by then - don't forget, Brexit is not an event, it's a process). As Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai apparently didn't say to Richard Nixon in 1972 (when asked about the effects of the French Revolution of 1789): "It is too early to say".

And don't think that anything that happens to the UK (good or bad) won't impact on the rest of the EU, because it almost certainly will.

Nice post. We slithered into the EU with absolutely no mandate from the U.K., but we can certainly leave with a mandated big bang any day of tthe week. Are you listening Theresa? 

???? Resurrection,or any other,....Given this comment,I have to ask.

1.◾How many in % voted to leave = Brexit.?

2.◾How man in % voted to stay in the EU.?

/Peder ????

For all the stats, see:

https://www.statista.com/topics/2971/eu-referendum/

Duncan Mann posted:

......there were also many "knowns" at the time of the referendum, which were valid then and just as valid now, which most definitely don't fall into the camp of speculation.

True. Although most of the "knowns" were largely unknown to the electorate.

Christopher_M posted:

Duncan Mann posted:

......there were also many "knowns" at the time of the referendum, which were valid then and just as valid now, which most definitely don't fall into the camp of speculation.

True. Although most of the "knowns" were largely unknown to the electorate.

The bigger problem (to quote Rumsfeld again) wasn't the knows and the unknowns ... the BIG problem was the many known unknowns.  Like the question was never asked about subsidiary organisations to the EU ... would we be leaving Euratom (and the potential to deny UK hospitals isotopes for scanners, etc); would we be leaving EASA (and the potential for all UK based flights in and out of Europe to be grounded); would we be denied a EHIC (and the potential to make it virtually impossible for some long term sick people to travel on holiday); would we be leaving the EMA (and so medicines UK companies develop and test would no longer be recognised automatically in Europe) and the list goes on.

Yes none of these things are / were insurmountable in leaving the EU; but all should have been considered a long time ago before the "trigger" was pulled.

I was reading an opinion piece about The Brexit Referendum and referendums in general: it went along the lines that referendums in general only work when the government want to do a particular thing, and want approval for it.  So (for example) in 1997, the Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums were very clear.  There was a proposal for a future situation and the people were asked "should we devolve power giving new national parliaments the following powers; or should we stick with the status quo".  The people knew what would happen if they voted Yes or No.

With the Brexit referendum; the question (or at least the result of answering the question a particular way) wasn't clear.  The referendum was entered into with the government wanting a negative (status quo) result and no clear thinking to what a positive (leave) would mean.  Essentially the referendum should have been the END of the process of negotiating a leave, not the START of the process; but that could never happen because the government wanted to remain.

???? Resurrection wrote,...◾But we can certainly leave with a mandated big bang any day of the week.◾

According to me,but I'm no politician.... ????51.9%,...It doesn't feel like "a mandated big bang"...see below...????????????

Results of United Kingdom (UK) EU referendum on June 23, 2016 Exclusive Premium Statistic This Statistic Displays the result of the EU referendum that occurred within the United kingdom on June 23rd, 2016.???? 51.9 percent of voter wished for the UK to exit the European Union.

/Peder???? 

Peder posted:

???? Resurrection wrote,...◾But we can certainly leave with a mandated big bang any day of the week.◾

According to me,but I'm no politician.... ????51.9%,...It doesn't feel like "a mandated big bang"...see below...????????????

Results of United Kingdom (UK) EU referendum on June 23, 2016 Exclusive Premium Statistic This Statistic Displays the result of the EU referendum that occurred within the United kingdom on June 23rd, 2016.???? 51.9 percent of voter wished for the UK to exit the European Union.

/Peder???? 

May is in power, yes power on less of a mandate and it’s her that is reneging on a decision by a mandated MAJORITY made and given in 2016. A mandate that was approved by Parliament several times but never being implemented. Peder, are you from or living in the U.K.? 

Eloise posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Duncan Mann posted:

......there were also many "knowns" at the time of the referendum, which were valid then and just as valid now, which most definitely don't fall into the camp of speculation.

True. Although most of the "knowns" were largely unknown to the electorate.

The bigger problem (to quote Rumsfeld again) wasn't the knows and the unknowns ... the BIG problem was the many known unknowns.  Like the question was never asked about subsidiary organisations to the EU ... would we be leaving Euratom (and the potential to deny UK hospitals isotopes for scanners, etc); would we be leaving EASA (and the potential for all UK based flights in and out of Europe to be grounded); would we be denied a EHIC (and the potential to make it virtually impossible for some long term sick people to travel on holiday); would we be leaving the EMA (and so medicines UK companies develop and test would no longer be recognised automatically in Europe) and the list goes on.

Yes none of these things are / were insurmountable in leaving the EU; but all should have been considered a long time ago before the "trigger" was pulled.

I was reading an opinion piece about The Brexit Referendum and referendums in general: it went along the lines that referendums in general only work when the government want to do a particular thing, and want approval for it.  So (for example) in 1997, the Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums were very clear.  There was a proposal for a future situation and the people were asked "should we devolve power giving new national parliaments the following powers; or should we stick with the status quo".  The people knew what would happen if they voted Yes or No.

With the Brexit referendum; the question (or at least the result of answering the question a particular way) wasn't clear.  The referendum was entered into with the government wanting a negative (status quo) result and no clear thinking to what a positive (leave) would mean.  Essentially the referendum should have been the END of the process of negotiating a leave, not the START of the process; but that could never happen because the government wanted to remain.

I'm as unhappy with the question here as you are and have been critical of Cameron, Dacre, Murdoch and the Barclays, and don't recall receiving any support.

To go all Rumsfeld, we are where we are, and as MPW put it a few posts above (here on p108), "what happens here on ??" 

Omni-shambles doesn't come close and I think a general election would be a start.

Christopher_M posted:

Eloise posted:

Christopher_M posted:

Duncan Mann posted:

......there were also many "knowns" at the time of the referendum, which were valid then and just as valid now, which most definitely don't fall into the camp of speculation.

True. Although most of the "knowns" were largely unknown to the electorate.

The bigger problem (to quote Rumsfeld again) wasn't the knows and the unknowns ... the BIG problem was the many known unknowns.  Like the question was never asked about subsidiary organisations to the EU ... would we be leaving Euratom (and the potential to deny UK hospitals isotopes for scanners, etc); would we be leaving EASA (and the potential for all UK based flights in and out of Europe to be grounded); would we be denied a EHIC (and the potential to make it virtually impossible for some long term sick people to travel on holiday); would we be leaving the EMA (and so medicines UK companies develop and test would no longer be recognised automatically in Europe) and the list goes on.

Yes none of these things are / were insurmountable in leaving the EU; but all should have been considered a long time ago before the "trigger" was pulled.

I was reading an opinion piece about The Brexit Referendum and referendums in general: it went along the lines that referendums in general only work when the government want to do a particular thing, and want approval for it.  So (for example) in 1997, the Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums were very clear.  There was a proposal for a future situation and the people were asked "should we devolve power giving new national parliaments the following powers; or should we stick with the status quo".  The people knew what would happen if they voted Yes or No.

With the Brexit referendum; the question (or at least the result of answering the question a particular way) wasn't clear.  The referendum was entered into with the government wanting a negative (status quo) result and no clear thinking to what a positive (leave) would mean.  Essentially the referendum should have been the END of the process of negotiating a leave, not the START of the process; but that could never happen because the government wanted to remain.

I'm as unhappy with the question here as you are and have been critical of Cameron, Dacre, Murdoch and the Barclays, and don't recall receiving any support.

To go all Rumsfeld, we are where we are, and as MPW put it a few posts above (here on p108), "what happens here on ??" 

Omni-shambles doesn't come close and I think a general election would be a start.

A sack full of ferrets with no way out until the last one is left and even then it might just be abandined to starve to death after it has consumed all its fellow ferrets. ????

Resurrection posted 

I have to measure my words when I reply as it may either be spiked or ‘edited’. My belief is that 52% voted to Leave and 48% to Remain, although you may have your own magic numbers. What was supposed to happen next is that when we voted to Leave we foolishly believed that the word Leave actually meant Leave.

This is the strangest game I have ever seen. In a clear game of winner takes all, what we have here is a situation where the losing side decides whether or not the prize is to be given, how much is to be given and when, if at all, it is to be given. 

Do you not see anything completely incongruous and illogical with this situation? 

Not really.

The key to this position is to understand that the Brexit vote was not a ‘game’. It was much more serious than that. It could never have been a case of winner takes (or more appropriately decides) all.

Details matter, and I continue to refuse to accept that the ‘winners of a game’ have sole discretion as to the way that prizes are distributed, to the detriment of everyone else. Yes, the vote means that we will leave the EU, but we are all entitled to our view of how best to minimise the potential adverse impact of how we leave.

Do you not accept this?

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted 

I have to measure my words when I reply as it may either be spiked or ‘edited’. My belief is that 52% voted to Leave and 48% to Remain, although you may have your own magic numbers. What was supposed to happen next is that when we voted to Leave we foolishly believed that the word Leave actually meant Leave.

This is the strangest game I have ever seen. In a clear game of winner takes all, what we have here is a situation where the losing side decides whether or not the prize is to be given, how much is to be given and when, if at all, it is to be given. 

Do you not see anything completely incongruous and illogical with this situation? 

Not really.

The key to this position is to understand that the Brexit vote was not a ‘game’. It was much more serious than that. It could never have been a case of winner takes (or more appropriately decides) all.

Details matter, and I continue to refuse to accept that the ‘winners of a game’ have sole discretion as to the way that prizes are distributed, to the detriment of everyone else. Yes, the vote means that we will leave the EU, but we are all entitled to our view of how best to minimise the potential adverse impact of how we leave.

Do you not accept this?

Mate, I am just gob smacked at you accepting that we will leave the EU! I am trying to soothe my wrath at the state of politics and politicians in this country by actually playing music, I just remembered that this B.B. also has an alter ego. ????

I am from Sweden,and see this therefore a little from the "outside".
But my feeling is,as always with politicians,they run their own agenda,not talking about the whole truth,what a decision implies.

This only to have a positive decision on the issue they are pursuing.
On the verge of dishonest,then if I remember correctly,...so when the decision to leave was taken.
Well then,many of those who has responsible, who had run Brexit,they left "the house".

This I reacted to in Sweden,they should instead have stayed on their posts and assumed responsibility for the decision they pushed through.?

But I think that the cause of all this is,that people did not realize what a Brexit really means for them,themselves and the country.
The politicians darkened this during their Brexit campaign.

On such an important issue,it should almost be on the verge of punishable.
It should be necessary to take responsibility for politicians who act so.

????Eloise takes as examples up some things, which people should have been informed of before they voted.....se below ????????????

◾would we be leaving Euratom (and the potential to deny UK hospitals isotopes for scanners, etc); would we be leaving EASA (and the potential for all UK based flights in and out of Europe to be grounded); would we be denied a EHIC (and the potential to make it virtually impossible for some long term sick people to travel on holiday); would we be leaving the EMA (and so medicines UK companies develop and test would no longer be recognised automatically in Europe) and the list goes on.◾

But as I said,I just look at this from the "outside" and don't have all the facts on the table.
But to be honest,I don't understand this decision,...that you should leave.

/Peder ????

Peder posted:

But as I said,I just look at this from the "outside" and don't have all the facts on the table.
But to be honest,I don't understand this decision,...that you should leave.

/Peder ????

 

I am from India.

I dont understand as well ( maybe for different reasons as Peder ) 

It is now a global spectacle so it doesnt matter too much if someone is from the inside or outside.

My reading  is the UK will need allies more in Europe than across the pond.

I wonder if factor is in the equation.

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Peder posted:

 

 

???? Resurrection,or any other,....Given this comment,I have to ask.

1.◾How many in % voted to leave = Brexit.?

2.◾How man in % voted to stay in the EU.?

/Peder ????

And how many didn’t vote who were eligible to.

You could ask how many of those who voted did so as a protest but not meaning to leave (unknown, of course, but 100% of the people I know who voted leave),

and how many have changed their minds since 2 years ago in the light of better awareness of what it is likely to mean in practice (also unkown unless there were to be a confirmatory vote).

Once again I have to moderate my language or the moderator will do it for me! There was one Referendum with one clear answer and you don’t like it. You have absolutely no idea about anyone’s opinion other than your own so don’t make up figures or pluck a justification for another referendum out of the air.

You continually rationalise your own wishes against those of the majority , none of which is democratic and easily explains the rise of Populism throughout Europe but not yet here because we do not have a political party worth of its name that actually represents the people, but don’t get too comfortable as things can change very quickly. 

1.  I did not make up any figures
2. I have not plucked a justification for another referendum out of the air, but have several times over given clear reasoning - which you haven’t bothered reading, saying too long, while yourself have no iota of justification for not having a confirmation to confirm such a huge and sweeping step that in one way or another will affect everyone in Britain for many years to come, and quite significantly.
3. What majority is that against which I “rationalise my own wishes? Oh, the very small majority in a vote two years ago against the backdrop of incomplete, incorrect, misleading and downright false information. You are assuming, with no basis, that  the majority desire has not shifted the other way. As I have pointed out before, if the majority do indeed want Brexit, a confirmation vote would not only prove it, but give strength to the difficult decisions that must be made to go ahead and complete it, so anyone truly believing it is what the majority want would welcome a confirmatory vote - and it would shut up the ‘remainers’ once and for all. What is not for upu and other Brexiteers to like?

Of course, as usual, you probably will pretend not to have read the above because it so clearly defeats your argument against confirmation, being a prospect that terrifies you because in your heart of hearts you know the outcome would not be what you want.

 I