EU must change its negotiating terms for Brexit, says Britain's Barclay

[ThomasThBKK]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you confirm you still want to leave (do or die) because 52% voted for that, correct?

Did maybe 3% or more of the voters change their mind in the last 3 years after realizing what a huge difference it would make to leave the EU?

May presented "her" withdrawal agreement three times and three times it was voted down (for various reasons).

Why not let the people confirm if they still want to leave and under which conditions they want to leave?

 

As far as I see most people made their decision in 2016 based on few and often wrong information. Now people had 3 years to learn in detail about the downsides of leaving the EU. If they still want to leave let them confirm that. It won't take long to organize another referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/vote-leave-broke-electoral-law-and-british-democracy-is-shaken

 

You mean wrong like this? Naaaah that never happened, all went correct, Thai style.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Yeah you can't build anywhere there because it's damn near impossible to get a planning permission from your lovely government, that's the reason.

Most land is not buildable on in the UK, the councils have to decide on releasing more - State/Queen own most land in the UK, a bit like Thailand...

There's also a lack of talent in construction, since the last financial crisis wiped out most small home builders in the UK. Throwing immigrants out will for sure solve this crisis.

 

 

Is contradicting, as EU immigrants are a net plus for the UK NHS - but how would Brits know, right?

NHS budget is coupled to the GDP of the UK, so well, we'll see how that works out in future.

 

... the rest of your text is equally easy to debunk.

 

Prolly from financial licenses all the UK banks will have to get in Europe now as they else lose access to the market.

This is called passporting rights, the bank of england explains it to you: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/authorisations/passporting

 

Also no one claims the EU will be better off without the Brits, it's a lose-lose situation, the biggest loser will be the UK tho. It must be really hard for some people to understand.

 

What on earth are you on about?  The green party is rising, it's an eco and leftwing party, it overtook the conservative CDU/CSU by now: https://www.thelocal.de/20190527/surfing-the-zeitgeist-how-the-greens-won-over-germany

You also just avoided a recession, like many countries world wide atm due to ongoing trade wars and brexit bs: https://www.ft.com/content/a6718c64-ac78-11e9-8030-530adfa879c2 

 

 

.... tell us some more fantasies, keep us entertained.

 

quote from your post.

 

"State/Queen own most land in the UK, a bit like Thailand..."

 

Response after less than 1 minute research. Rubbish.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-family-how-much-land-own-crown-estates-wedding-meghan-markle-queen-a8352401.html

 

The bulk of the property owned by the Queen is held on her behalf by the Crown Estate, which operates as a real estate business and returns all of its profits to the Treasury, although the Queen then does receive a grant of 15 per cent of the total profits of the Estate from two years previous.

The group manages a property portfolio worth £12.4bn, and the latest available figures show that it delivered £329m to the Treasury for the 2015/2016 financial year.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

 

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK)[15]or Britain,[note 11] is a sovereign country located off the north-western coast of the European mainland. The United Kingdom includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.[16] Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another sovereign state, the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border, the United Kingdom is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the North Sea to the east, the English Channel to the south and the Celtic Sea to the south-west, giving it the 12th-longest coastline in the world. The Irish Sea lies between Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom's 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi) were home to an estimated 66.0 million inhabitants in 2017.

 

So how much of the UK's 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi) do you think that the Queen owns compared to the whole of the UK?

[billd766]

50 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Looks like we have a big crisis on the horizon now anyway, Brexit or not. But after the last 3 years it's become difficult to differentiate genuine information, from just as genuine horse doo.

Horse doo is good for your roses.

 

False information would probably kill them.

[ThomasThBKK]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

 

quote from your post.

 

"State/Queen own most land in the UK, a bit like Thailand..."

 

Response after less than 1 minute research. Rubbish.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-family-how-much-land-own-crown-estates-wedding-meghan-markle-queen-a8352401.html

 

The bulk of the property owned by the Queen is held on her behalf by the Crown Estate, which operates as a real estate business and returns all of its profits to the Treasury, although the Queen then does receive a grant of 15 per cent of the total profits of the Estate from two years previous.

The group manages a property portfolio worth £12.4bn, and the latest available figures show that it delivered £329m to the Treasury for the 2015/2016 financial year.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

 

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK)[15]or Britain,[note 11] is a sovereign country located off the north-western coast of the European mainland. The United Kingdom includes the island of Great Britain, the north-eastern part of the island of Ireland, and many smaller islands.[16] Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another sovereign state, the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border, the United Kingdom is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, with the North Sea to the east, the English Channel to the south and the Celtic Sea to the south-west, giving it the 12th-longest coastline in the world. The Irish Sea lies between Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom's 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi) were home to an estimated 66.0 million inhabitants in 2017.

 

So how much of the UK's 242,500 square kilometres (93,600 sq mi) do you think that the Queen owns compared to the whole of the UK?

I am not talking about the Queens Estate that manages the Royals land.

 

Oh boy do u know nothing about how you country works.

 

I said State/Queen, the State leases from the Queen historically and gives it to Citizens (sells). The councils has to decide on this.

Many local councils own vast amounts of lands they could sell to their citizens, but don't.

They sell it to luxury home developers instead: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/housing-crisis-public-land_uk_5c811055e4b0a135b5199d5d?

 

Forestry Commission, Ministry of Defence alone are sitting on 3 mio Acreas of land...

 

Much of the rest of the land is so called green belt and not allowed to be build on, because well - housing doesn't seem as important as protecting this. London has a giant green belt, plenty of space for new housing, there's tons of land in the UK but it's not usable for the average joe. Even if you manage to snap up an affordable piece of land, getting a planning permission can take forever.

 

The only one you can blame for UKs housing crisis is the UK Government.

 

 

 

 

[evadgib]

 

Only 86 days to go????

Meanwhile...

Foreign Secretary crosses the Atlantic to expand post-Brexit opportunities for Global Britain

Edited August 6, 2019 by evadgib

[vogie]

53 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you confirm you still want to leave (do or die) because 52% voted for that, correct?

Did maybe 3% or more of the voters change their mind in the last 3 years after realizing what a huge difference it would make to leave the EU?

May presented "her" withdrawal agreement three times and three times it was voted down (for various reasons).

Why not let the people confirm if they still want to leave and under which conditions they want to leave?

 

As far as I see most people made their decision in 2016 based on few and often wrong information. Now people had 3 years to learn in detail about the downsides of leaving the EU. If they still want to leave let them confirm that. It won't take long to organize another referendum.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

 

Why not let the people confirm if they still want to leave and under which conditions they want to leave?

I assume you mean let the losers have another go at voting, and even though we havn't honoured the outcome of the first referendum, we also won't honour the second referendum when leave wins again. The MPs that are advocating for another referendum are not the least bit interested in what our electorate wants, it is what they want, but they are too cowardly to admit the truth and want to put the onus on the electorate.

 

As far as I see most people made their decision in 2016 based on few and often wrong information. Now people had 3 years to learn in detail about the downsides of leaving the EU. If they still want to leave let them confirm that. It won't take long to organize another referendum.

You see it wrongly, the electorate that voted in 2016 were totally aware of what they were voting for, those that were unaware, well they were not interested in the first place.

 

[bannork]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

 

Why not let the people confirm if they still want to leave and under which conditions they want to leave?

I assume you mean let the losers have another go at voting, and even though we havn't honoured the outcome of the first referendum, we also won't honour the second referendum when leave wins again. The MPs that are advocating for another referendum are not the least bit interested in what our electorate wants, it is what they want, but they are too cowardly to admit the truth and want to put the onus on the electorate.

 

As far as I see most people made their decision in 2016 based on few and often wrong information. Now people had 3 years to learn in detail about the downsides of leaving the EU. If they still want to leave let them confirm that. It won't take long to organize another referendum.

You see it wrongly, the electorate that voted in 2016 were totally aware of what they were voting for, those that were unaware, well they were not interested in the first place.

 

In 2016 the electorate were promised it would be easy and quick to negotiate trade deals once we left. This is now seen to be nonsense.

[Jip99]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

 

Why not let the people confirm if they still want to leave and under which conditions they want to leave?

I assume you mean let the losers have another go at voting, and even though we havn't honoured the outcome of the first referendum, we also won't honour the second referendum when leave wins again. The MPs that are advocating for another referendum are not the least bit interested in what our electorate wants, it is what they want, but they are too cowardly to admit the truth and want to put the onus on the electorate.

 

As far as I see most people made their decision in 2016 based on few and often wrong information. Now people had 3 years to learn in detail about the downsides of leaving the EU. If they still want to leave let them confirm that. It won't take long to organize another referendum.

You see it wrongly, the electorate that voted in 2016 were totally aware of what they were voting for, those that were unaware, well they were not interested in the first place.

 

 

 

"They" seem to have difficulty understanding that 17.4 million people voted for the option that said "Leave", rather than the option that said "Remain". Not difficult, a straight choice.

 

Nowhere did it say leave with a deal, leave without a deal - there were no pictures, just a straight choice.

 

It was also said that the decision would be final.

 

I knew EXACTLY on what basis I was voting.......... and I am now just waiting for the politicians to complete that task.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

In 2016 the electorate were promised it would be easy and quick to negotiate trade deals once we left. This is now seen to be nonsense.

The electorate voted to leave that is all the leavers are interested in, spin as much as you like it won't make any difference. Infact the more insults and snide remarks from our continental cousins just reinforces my belief in leaving, why should we want to stay where we are disliked so much.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

the electorate that voted in 2016 were totally aware of what they were voting for, those that were unaware, well they were not interested in the first place.

Sorry, that shows that you are not informed or you don't want to see the evidence.

Look at news from the time of the referendum. A deal will be easy, there will be no downside, etc. Nobody even mentioned problems with he Irish border and many other issues like shared services of the EU like the database with criminals, Galileo, and many other issues.

Even most informed people didn't think about all the "small" little things at that time.

 

Advocating to continue with a bad decision only because that decision was made some time ago makes no sense. If people realize it was a bad decision and they change their mind before that bad decision is executed then this is positive.

Imagine you promise a woman you will marry her in 12 months. And then, in the next 12 months you realize that she is not as you expected. Would you still marry her only because you promised it to her? Or would you decide you made a bad decision, change your decision and not marry her?

[OneMoreFarang]

 

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

The electorate voted to leave that is all the leavers are interested in, spin as much as you like it won't make any difference. Infact the more insults and snide remarks from our continental cousins just reinforces my belief in leaving, why should we want to stay where we are disliked so much.

YOU don't want to learn new facts. And it seems you think because you don't want to learn you think nobody should learn.

Wrong!

Smart people rethink what they do from time to time. Sometimes most of us make decisions which we later see were not good decisions. If we are stubborn and don't want to lose face then maybe we still insist that our original decision was good - even if we know it wasn't.

But if we are smart then we eat the humble pie and accept that we didn't make a good decision. And it's almost easy to change our mind if we can point out that we would have made another decision years ago if we would have all the information we have now.

 

But then, some people insist that they knew everything and made the perfect decision and they will never ever change their mind. Kind of do to die...

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Sorry, that shows that you are not informed or you don't want to see the evidence.

Look at news from the time of the referendum. A deal will be easy, there will be no downside, etc. Nobody even mentioned problems with he Irish border and many other issues like shared services of the EU like the database with criminals, Galileo, and many other issues.

Even most informed people didn't think about all the "small" little things at that time.

 

Advocating to continue with a bad decision only because that decision was made some time ago makes no sense. If people realize it was a bad decision and they change their mind before that bad decision is executed then this is positive.

Imagine you promise a woman you will marry her in 12 months. And then, in the next 12 months you realize that she is not as you expected. Would you still marry her only because you promised it to her? Or would you decide you made a bad decision, change your decision and not marry her?

It may be a bad decision for you, and just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is.

The EU is making the Irish border a problem to lock the UK in, and some Eumainers are using it as a stick to try and beat leavers over the head with, but let me assure you, that the stick will break before we do.

Please spare me another of the Eumainers analogies, you are not very good at them.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems you confirm you still want to leave (do or die) because 52% voted for that, correct?

Did maybe 3% or more of the voters change their mind in the last 3 years after realizing what a huge difference it would make to leave the EU?

May presented "her" withdrawal agreement three times and three times it was voted down (for various reasons).

Why not let the people confirm if they still want to leave and under which conditions they want to leave?

 

As far as I see most people made their decision in 2016 based on few and often wrong information. Now people had 3 years to learn in detail about the downsides of leaving the EU. If they still want to leave let them confirm that. It won't take long to organize another referendum.

Of course I still want the UK to leave. Maybe your 3% or more of voters changed their minds to the leave direction and do not now want to remain? I know several who have.

 

The withdrawal agreement was beaten three times because it puts the UK at several disadvantages and in a potentially worse position than it is in now. 

 

Why do we need a confirmation of a democratic vote?  Well, we don't. It is only remainers that seem to want one as a means to get the status quo outcome that they all think they want - a big problem that leavers can see is that the status quo theory is a myth - the EU continues to mutate, accumulating more power and control that is being steadily centralised. The military/defence aspect has become a much bigger issue since the referendum and since the proposed WA was published.

 

We didn't have a second vote in 1975, or for the following 41 years, so it is fair we wait a reasonable amount of time before another one, mainly for the sake of the preservation of democratic principles.

 

Any wrong information issued and taken in by voters in 2016 was delivered by both campaigns. Any actual downsides of leaving the EU can only truly be known after we have left. 

[nauseus]

21 minutes ago, bannork said:

In 2016 the electorate were promised it would be easy and quick to negotiate trade deals once we left. This is now seen to be nonsense.

It may surprise you to learn that the leave vote was not primarily concerned with trade deals, whatever anybody said.

[OneMoreFarang]

Just now, vogie said:

It may be a bad decision for you, and just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is.

The EU is making the Irish border a problem to lock the UK in, and some Eumainers are using it as a stick to try and beat leavers over the head with, but let me assure you, that the stick will break before we do.

Please spare me another of the Eumainers analogies, you are not very good at them.

So what do you think about peace at that Irish "border"?

Do you think that is important? Or do you just don't care?

Or do you think there can be a border and nothing will change. Everybody will live peacefully?

 

Personally I don't care if the UK leaves and if they want to leave without a deal they should do it.

But it's like seeing a neighbor pointing a gun at his own foot. It's fair to warn him that if he pulls the trigger he won't like it.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Any actual downsides of leaving the EU can only truly be known after we have left. 

Do you really believe that?

Some things are difficult to predict, I agree with that.

But other things are easy to predict. Just read the news and you won't be able to ignore all of them.

[vogie]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

 

YOU don't want to learn new facts. And it seems you think because you don't want to learn you think nobody should learn.

Wrong!

Smart people rethink what they do from time to time. Sometimes most of us make decisions which we later see were not good decisions. If we are stubborn and don't want to lose face then maybe we still insist that our original decision was good - even if we know it wasn't.

But if we are smart then we eat the humble pie and accept that we didn't make a good decision. And it's almost easy to change our mind if we can point out that we would have made another decision years ago if we would have all the information we have now.

 

But then, some people insist that they knew everything and made the perfect decision and they will never ever change their mind. Kind of do to die...

Don't mix up "smart" with arrogant.

The rest of your post is total gobblygook. How it is related to the EU changing its negotiating terms for Brexit is mind boggling.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It may surprise you to learn that the leave vote was not primarily concerned with trade deals, whatever anybody said.

Correct. People thought nothing will change about trade...

 

A couple of month ago I read about a survey in the UK. One question was how people understood "No Deal". 5% thought that means all will be the same, nothing will change...

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

The rest of your post is total gobblygook. How it is related to the EU changing its negotiating terms for Brexit is mind boggling.

Maybe read it again. And if you don't understand how it is related then read it again, and again. ???? 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, ThomasThBKK said:

I am not talking about the Queens Estate that manages the Royals land.

 

Oh boy do u know nothing about how you country works.

 

I said State/Queen, the State leases from the Queen historically and gives it to Citizens (sells). The councils has to decide on this.

Many local councils own vast amounts of lands they could sell to their citizens, but don't.

They sell it to luxury home developers instead: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/housing-crisis-public-land_uk_5c811055e4b0a135b5199d5d?

 

Forestry Commission, Ministry of Defence alone are sitting on 3 mio Acreas of land...

 

Much of the rest of the land is so called green belt and not allowed to be build on, because well - housing doesn't seem as important as protecting this. London has a giant green belt, plenty of space for new housing, there's tons of land in the UK but it's not usable for the average joe. Even if you manage to snap up an affordable piece of land, getting a planning permission can take forever.

 

The only one you can blame for UKs housing crisis is the UK Government.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that any government could keep up with the rate of immigration in recent years in terms of reasonable housing supply and standards. Building millions more houses will damage the environment and create even greater problems with infrastructure and social services. It is time to critically revue possible land use for the future and to step back and repair what there is already. 

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Correct. People thought nothing will change about trade...

 

A couple of month ago I read about a survey in the UK. One question was how people understood "No Deal". 5% thought that means all will be the same, nothing will change...

Not what I said at all. Surveys and polls again? Boring. 

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Do you really believe that?

Some things are difficult to predict, I agree with that.

But other things are easy to predict. Just read the news and you won't be able to ignore all of them.

News news news. Read all about it!

[Mavideol]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Now you have seen the handful of posts directly beneath yours confirming that the EU has confirmed there will be no hard border, I would like to ask you the same question.

 

Why all the fuss?

 

Could it possibly be that the EU has attempted to create a problem that doesn't really exist in order to lock the UK into the customs union indefinitely via the backstop? Surely our good friends and partners would never do such a thing. After all, they've acted in such good faith throughout the negotiations, right? 

now tell me, did he say no to back stop, than we are back at the same point. Think, if there is not border between UK/EU than no need for EU to exist, all open free trade no customs, all other members will ask to leave thus no need to pay any membership fees, goods shipped from all around the world lending in NI ( a  member of the UK which will have fantastic new trade agreements with the majority of the outside EU world) these goods will be traveling to EU from UK/NI without any customs duties, no country of origin safety checks, child labor, intellectual property violations and I leave the rest to your wild imagination..... free world, Trump will be in trouble, no need for additional negotiations with China, I do dream sometimes but never to that extreme, this (really) would be a dream come thru and the funny thing some of the UK people may believe it..... UK leaves the EU will be considered as another country, no special deals or trade agreements, if they want special deals and special trade agreements they should have stayed, does it sound logic to you while UK was a member of the EU free trade agreements they had special treatment, when they leave why should they still have same, it doesn't sound right, correct? if doesn't sound right it means it's not right. Example assuming you are married and share property with your wife, enjoying profits/benefits from said property, with your wife, now let's assume the worse scenario and you divorce/separate from each other, each going on different directions, do you expect to keep enjoying same property benefits, even if a friendly divorce, 99.9% of the case it doesn't happen

[Joinaman]

On 8/5/2019 at 1:57 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

And what is your idea of a fair deal?

 

Because up to now the Brexiter politicians have but exactly nothing forward. No plan, no vision, no details of their idea of a deal - zilch, nothing, empty vessel.

 

One might start considering what their real motives are.

and what is the vision of the future if we remain in the EU ?

Lisbon Treaty ?

[Joinaman]

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

So what do you think about peace at that Irish "border"?

Do you think that is important? Or do you just don't care?

Or do you think there can be a border and nothing will change. Everybody will live peacefully?

 

Personally I don't care if the UK leaves and if they want to leave without a deal they should do it.

But it's like seeing a neighbor pointing a gun at his own foot. It's fair to warn him that if he pulls the trigger he won't like it.

so you think they should return to murdering innocent people, just because they might have to stop at a border of another country

Why ??

they can move freely between the two countries , it would mean some simple checks that would not cause any problems and certainly no reason to start murdering people again

And like before, anything illegal will still be smuggled across the border anyway

So why the scaremongering ?

[vogie]

9 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe read it again. And if you don't understand how it is related then read it again, and again. ???? 

Reading one of your posts once is enough for me thanks. Nonsense should be drip fed and not used to shock the system. ????????

[Joinaman]

14 hours ago, juice777 said:

Yep another lie what people voted to leave just swallowed up.I wasn't born till 1975 so I just assumed it was true and it was the one thing I felt they had a point on but still maintained that was no reason to come out because we will be worst out then In. I was absolutely shocked to find that that was lies as well.



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

Wasn't it Ted Heath who said after the Common Market joining, that if he had told the truth, we would never have allowed him to join ?

So its been lies all the time since 73 !!!

[superal]

4 hours ago, Mavideol said:

finally a brexiter with the courage to call it as it is.....thanks and the update as of today is the EU will not open negotiations with BJ because of his approach to the Irish back stop and as they said, nothing new to negotiate, get ready for the bumpy road

Negotiations with the EU ? bit of a joke I believe , more like my way or no way bully boy ogrish tactics of 27/1 , do not even do that in Thailand . Rab & Davies resignations were brought by the intransigence of the EU and T.M. has proved to be totally useless and a liar with possible conflicts of interest . 

There has been no compromise from the EU , its either take it or leave it .  The whole process appears to have been a shambles , how can there possibly be fair talks when the UK was so outnumbered . To see real unbiased justice would take  independent arbitration as is normal protocol in major disputes . 

[Mavideol]

6 minutes ago, Joinaman said:

so you think they should return to murdering innocent people, just because they might have to stop at a border of another country

Why ??

they can move freely between the two countries , it would mean some simple checks that would not cause any problems and certainly no reason to start murdering people again

And like before, anything illegal will still be smuggled across the border anyway

So why the scaremongering ?

it that's so why they complain about the back stop, let it be, nothing to worry about, smuggling across borders has been done for centuries from almost all countries around the world and it will be going for more centuries to come, why the UK brexiters have such a repudiation argument about the stop

[vogie]

37 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Sorry, that shows that you are not informed or you don't want to see the evidence.

Look at news from the time of the referendum. A deal will be easy, there will be no downside, etc. Nobody even mentioned problems with he Irish border and many other issues like shared services of the EU like the database with criminals, Galileo, and many other issues.

Even most informed people didn't think about all the "small" little things at that time.

 

Advocating to continue with a bad decision only because that decision was made some time ago makes no sense. If people realize it was a bad decision and they change their mind before that bad decision is executed then this is positive.

Imagine you promise a woman you will marry her in 12 months. And then, in the next 12 months you realize that she is not as you expected. Would you still marry her only because you promised it to her? Or would you decide you made a bad decision, change your decision and not marry her?

Imagine you promise a woman you will marry her in 12 months. And then, in the next 12 months you realize that she is not as you expected. Would you still marry her only because you promised it to her? Or would you decide you made a bad decision, change your decision and not marry her?

 

But in the same breath if you were living with your wife and she doesn't love or even like you anymore, would you leave or would you stay with her because you think it is the best decision for her, afterall it doesn't matter about her feelings or what she thinks now does it, only your personal interests matter.