Crosswords1 min ago
A Question To The Brexiters
If the UK government doesn't deliver the Brexit deal that you want, are you going to join the EDL, BNP or Britain First?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Of those only one voted out and explained the reasons why. He then expressed his utter bewilderment that the UK government has said the UK will leave, just like that - he said he expected some debate, discussion and thought to be spent among qualified people before deciding. Yes, I found this remarkable - but is he the only one with these thoughts among the 51% ?”
He’s the only one I know of.
The question was “Shall we remain or shall we leave?” Mr Cameron (remember him?) told the electorate that he would respect their decision and would implement it. It could not have been clearer. The question was not “Shall we suggest we leave and then have a long drawn out debate about whether we actually should, involve all the “experts” (who had plenty of input prior to the vote), then perhaps have another vote to see whether we really understood the implications of the first, then another debate to discuss the second vote” (I think you get the idea).
The question was simple, there were only two possible answers. The majority of those who bothered to vote chose to leave. Those voting to leave did so for a multitude of reasons. There is no halfway house (forget the “Norwegian” model). We’re either in or we’re out. That was all the question asked. As far as that goes, the debate is done. The debate and the discussion was done (to death) before the vote. If your friend did not undertsand that he cannot say he was misled.
He’s the only one I know of.
The question was “Shall we remain or shall we leave?” Mr Cameron (remember him?) told the electorate that he would respect their decision and would implement it. It could not have been clearer. The question was not “Shall we suggest we leave and then have a long drawn out debate about whether we actually should, involve all the “experts” (who had plenty of input prior to the vote), then perhaps have another vote to see whether we really understood the implications of the first, then another debate to discuss the second vote” (I think you get the idea).
The question was simple, there were only two possible answers. The majority of those who bothered to vote chose to leave. Those voting to leave did so for a multitude of reasons. There is no halfway house (forget the “Norwegian” model). We’re either in or we’re out. That was all the question asked. As far as that goes, the debate is done. The debate and the discussion was done (to death) before the vote. If your friend did not undertsand that he cannot say he was misled.
Thank you NJ, clear as usual. Because the point of civil unrest has been raised, I have been thinking of what I have learned from my sojourn in France.
First is how useful tractors are.
It was obvious which areas voted 'Remain' (cities, mainly) so in the event of feet being dragged one could blockade all major route into said cities with tractors. The French do it regularly! All sorts of other tricks I have learnt and would be happy to share should the need arise :o)
First is how useful tractors are.
It was obvious which areas voted 'Remain' (cities, mainly) so in the event of feet being dragged one could blockade all major route into said cities with tractors. The French do it regularly! All sorts of other tricks I have learnt and would be happy to share should the need arise :o)
Thanks NJ for the respectful reply. It occurred to me before coming to write this one that I risked just rehashing old arguments that have been said before, so I'll stick to saying that in most situations when you either leave some institution, or request to, it's generally sensible to have an idea of where you'll be going instead. There's an amusing analogy of the UK's Brexit vote as being like telling your parents you want to leave their house, but after discovering you have nowhere else to go ending up in the garage.
Perhaps it does depend on perspective. I can't pretend I'm not still saddened by the result on June 23rd, and that obviously is going to colour my opinions on this for a long time to come. All the same, it stands to reason that leaving in a manner that is, even slightly, self-destructive is just a bad outcome, and not worth the trouble of leaving.
Having now decided to leave, we should work out where we are going next before heading out the door.
Perhaps it does depend on perspective. I can't pretend I'm not still saddened by the result on June 23rd, and that obviously is going to colour my opinions on this for a long time to come. All the same, it stands to reason that leaving in a manner that is, even slightly, self-destructive is just a bad outcome, and not worth the trouble of leaving.
Having now decided to leave, we should work out where we are going next before heading out the door.
Yes I quite agree, Jim.
As I have said throughout there is no need for petulance on either side and I don’t believe there will be. It is clear that leaving the EU is somewhat more complicated than resigning from a gentlemen’s luncheon club. However, where I do differ from many is that there seems to be a swell of opinion (once again, not necessarily yours) that suggests that only if we secure an acceptable deal should we leave. That is when I begin to get cross because that was not what the referendum was about. The risks of leaving (with or without an acceptable deal) were made quite clear to the electorate before the vote. In fact, some - including me - would say that particular pudding was over-egged. But even with those risks the majority (of those who voted, just to negate Eddie coming back and adding his non-voters to the Remainers) voted to Leave.
There should be no ultimate conditions on our departure and no undue delay. If the conditions under which we leave are seen as unfavourable we leave nonetheless. Personally I don’t think those conditions will be unfavourable but instead will be mutually beneficial (as I have believed all along).
As I have said throughout there is no need for petulance on either side and I don’t believe there will be. It is clear that leaving the EU is somewhat more complicated than resigning from a gentlemen’s luncheon club. However, where I do differ from many is that there seems to be a swell of opinion (once again, not necessarily yours) that suggests that only if we secure an acceptable deal should we leave. That is when I begin to get cross because that was not what the referendum was about. The risks of leaving (with or without an acceptable deal) were made quite clear to the electorate before the vote. In fact, some - including me - would say that particular pudding was over-egged. But even with those risks the majority (of those who voted, just to negate Eddie coming back and adding his non-voters to the Remainers) voted to Leave.
There should be no ultimate conditions on our departure and no undue delay. If the conditions under which we leave are seen as unfavourable we leave nonetheless. Personally I don’t think those conditions will be unfavourable but instead will be mutually beneficial (as I have believed all along).
"If the conditions under which we leave are seen as unfavourable we leave nonetheless."
Perhaps the better way of putting this is surely: "if the conditions under which we leave are seen as unfavourable then we should keep working until they aren't so unfavourable." It doesn't destroy the spirit of honouring the result to explore the options as far as possible until the best available outcome is found.
And besides, the electorate is allowed to change its mind. Whether it will do so or not I don't know -- and that certainly doesn't mean another referendum to find out either -- but we shouldn't be bloody-minded about leaving. The referendum this year effectively reversed the referendum of 1975 (yes, I know one was on the EC and the other the EU), so referenda aren't binding for all time (or at all, if we wanted to be pedantic).
My stance is still that we should work as hard as possible to respect the result; ideally, that should also mean leaving in a way that shows that everything I was worried about was after all completely wrong. But it's simply irresponsible to leave if doing so is damaging -- to the country, or to the rest of the EU, or whoever.
Perhaps the better way of putting this is surely: "if the conditions under which we leave are seen as unfavourable then we should keep working until they aren't so unfavourable." It doesn't destroy the spirit of honouring the result to explore the options as far as possible until the best available outcome is found.
And besides, the electorate is allowed to change its mind. Whether it will do so or not I don't know -- and that certainly doesn't mean another referendum to find out either -- but we shouldn't be bloody-minded about leaving. The referendum this year effectively reversed the referendum of 1975 (yes, I know one was on the EC and the other the EU), so referenda aren't binding for all time (or at all, if we wanted to be pedantic).
My stance is still that we should work as hard as possible to respect the result; ideally, that should also mean leaving in a way that shows that everything I was worried about was after all completely wrong. But it's simply irresponsible to leave if doing so is damaging -- to the country, or to the rest of the EU, or whoever.
jim It is likely that there will be some short-term damage; but long-term we will prosper more, I'm certain. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Most (if not all) businessmen I know of voted 'Leave' (one imports and sells German agricultural machinery!) no-one around here has any doubts.
We need the hysteria and dithering to stop and just to get on with it, please. People are talking us into failure. Get real and get going. (Not you, jim, you have accepted the result and are, I hope, looking forwards.)
Most (if not all) businessmen I know of voted 'Leave' (one imports and sells German agricultural machinery!) no-one around here has any doubts.
We need the hysteria and dithering to stop and just to get on with it, please. People are talking us into failure. Get real and get going. (Not you, jim, you have accepted the result and are, I hope, looking forwards.)
I wish I could share your certainty about the future that awaits us, jourdain. All the same, now that Brexit is a part of that future it stands to reason that we'd better do all we can to make it work.
For the last, I do accept the result, but I do want to point out that there are two ways to "accept" the result: I accept its legitimacy -- within the current UK democracy there's never been a more democratic result -- but I don't accept its correctness. Not yet, at least. It will take actually seeing what Brexit means before I'm able to do that.
For the last, I do accept the result, but I do want to point out that there are two ways to "accept" the result: I accept its legitimacy -- within the current UK democracy there's never been a more democratic result -- but I don't accept its correctness. Not yet, at least. It will take actually seeing what Brexit means before I'm able to do that.
Of course the other thing to mention when consisdering uncertainty, Jim, is that nobody can be by any means certain what a future inside the EU would hold. One thing is for sure, there will be no "status quo" (which many Remainers would have us believe they were voting for - "if it ain't broke don't fix it" etc.). The EU has changed beyond recognition in the last 40 years, and very considerably even in the last 15. There is no reason to believe that such change will suddenly cease.
