May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

So you admit its an opinion rather than a known fact?

 

If not, please explain how this is a 'fact' - rather than an opinion with which, you agree.

 

Just realiised, your're trying to get me a holiday for going off-topic .

 

It was a statistic quoted by several MSM after the vote. As I say, my own experience seems to confirm the correlation. I don't understand why this worries you so much. I would be more concerned WHY the more highly educated tended to vote remain. I have suggested that the better educated may be better paid and more successful generally. As a result they were more content with the status quo and certainly didn't want a revolution.

 

I guess I will be beaten up again for arrogance and insulting behaviour!!

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

Exactly *what* experience do you have of the Brexit vote?  Were you a pollster, or did you have access to the pollsters results? Or did you even stand and watch any of the pollsters at work? 

 

Oh -- wait a minute - I missed the first line of the quote -- you have answered everything now -- you have "No idea" :)

 

The statistic seems to be confirmed by multiple articles, vox pop, TV programs such as Question Time, radio programs such as Any Questions. I have also been chatting to people in pubs. I have now met a few Brexiteers. As I say, the statistic seems to hold generally although there are outliers.

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

The statistic seems to be confirmed by multiple articles, vox pop, TV programs such as Question Time, radio programs such as Any Questions. I have also been chatting to people in pubs. I have now met a few Brexiteers. As I say, the statistic seems to hold generally although there are outliers.

There's plenty of extraneous media pumping out all kinds of theories, most of which are biased opinions masquerading as facts but paid for by EU-supporting editors hiding behind some supposedly "academic study"..  In short there's so much bulls**t floating around it is not possible to tell what is truth and what is chaff.  You might claim some "personal experience" but other people's personal experience is very different. That does not make either more or less correct, it simply makes the truth harder to fathom.  We may never know the real demographics of the vote, certainly not in time to adjust the next round in the democratic ring - probably the next General Election - but meantime the two sides continue to bludgeon each other with mallets made of straw, having little effect other than to preserve the divide in society. 

 

At a time when UK could do with some solidarity behind the government in facing down the EU, these kinds of divisive arguments are not what is needed.  Get behind democracy, or get out.

[Grouse]

12 minutes ago, jpinx said:

There's plenty of extraneous media pumping out all kinds of theories, most of which are biased opinions masquerading as facts but paid for by EU-supporting editors hiding behind some supposedly "academic study"..  In short there's so much bulls**t floating around it is not possible to tell what is truth and what is chaff.  You might claim some "personal experience" but other people's personal experience is very different. That does not make either more or less correct, it simply makes the truth harder to fathom.  We may never know the real demographics of the vote, certainly not in time to adjust the next round in the democratic ring - probably the next General Election - but meantime the two sides continue to bludgeon each other with mallets made of straw, having little effect other than to preserve the divide in society. 

 

At a time when UK could do with some solidarity behind the government in facing down the EU, these kinds of divisive arguments are not what is needed.  Get behind democracy, or get out.

 

And now you claim "extraneous" media were pro remain? Most mainstream newspapers were of course pro leave.

 

You weaken your stance by not conceding a single point. You criticise me but at least I try to take a balanced view.

[AlexRich]

5 hours ago, jpinx said:

You neatly avoid the declarations of support for trade deals by so many countries already -- including (somewhat ironically) Bavaria :) 

 

That doesn't look like the direction of travel ... the benefits to the EU are outweighed by the significant costs of other countries leaving for a similar deal.

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

 

And now you claim "extraneous" media were pro remain? Most mainstream newspapers were of course pro leave.

 

You weaken your stance by not conceding a single point. You criticise me but at least I try to take a balanced view.

Your balance point is not in the middle - if it were so, we would be working out the best way forward and not chewing the fat over who voted what way and why.  When you and other remainers unreservedly accept the result of the vote, without conditions on the reasoning behind the vote or it's ability to "save the uk", then we can move forward.  I look forward to democracy winning the day. 

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

That doesn't look like the direction of travel ... the benefits to the EU are outweighed by the significant costs of other countries leaving for a similar deal.

what deal?

[AlexRich]

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

what deal?

 

... the bad deal that we'll get ... as opposed to the great deal that Boris et al promised us!

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

Your balance point is not in the middle - if it were so, we would be working out the best way forward and not chewing the fat over who voted what way and why.  When you and other remainers unreservedly accept the result of the vote, without conditions on the reasoning behind the vote or it's ability to "save the uk", then we can move forward.  I look forward to democracy winning the day. 

 

You really aren't very bright are you? Once again you misunderstand.

 

I weighed up the pros and cons of leaving the EU after significant investigation. I decided, ON BALANCE, that remain was the better choice.

 

Nothing that you and your chums have raised has caused me to move my position on this in the slightest

 

Nevertheless I reluctantly but unequivocally accept the result of the referendum.

 

Now, if someone comes up with any piece of wisdom that changes things, I will of course reconsider.

 

Until then, the majority are taking us down the wrong path. I am VERY far from being alone in this view.

[SheungWan]

15 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

... the bad deal that we'll get ... as opposed to the great deal that Boris et al promised us!

 

You are unfortunately, arguing with two different sets of Brexiteers. The first set are the nasty nationalist hard Brexiteers who want no deal at all and for the moment think that Theresa May is one of them. One of their distinguishing traits is to completely deny the existence of a soft Brexit option and always, but always pose the argument in terms of Brexit Vs Remain. The second set pose the argument in terms of an achievable deal but would rather not attend to too much detail other than a little rah-rah. Just to confuse things a little, each group is quite happy to steal each other's clothes when it suits them on economic matters as this is not what really rocks their boat.

[jpinx]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

You really aren't very bright are you? Once again you misunderstand.

 

I weighed up the pros and cons of leaving the EU after significant investigation. I decided, ON BALANCE, that remain was the better choice.

 

Nothing that you and your chums have raised has caused me to move my position on this in the slightest

 

Nevertheless I reluctantly but unequivocally accept the result of the referendum.

 

Now, if someone comes up with any piece of wisdom that changes things, I will of course reconsider.

 

Until then, the majority are taking us down the wrong path. I am VERY far from being alone in this view.

Here we go again - same old  "I'm cleverer than you"  arguments.  Time you became an adult and took responsibility for your place in a democratic society, providing constructive support to enable the will of the people to be enacted.  At the moment the hardline remainers are just a deadweight that has to be carried.  You say "... Nevertheless I reluctantly but unequivocally accept the result of the referendum...."  but your actions speak otherwise.    You also say  " Now, if someone comes up with any piece of wisdom that changes things, I will of course reconsider. "  but you carefully reserve the judgement of wisdom to yourself, thereby proving your intransigence.  If you accepted the democratic wisdom of the result of the vote - we would not be embroiled in this discussion.

 

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything other than their public duty to back the government in power during a tricky transition with an awkward set of treaties to unravel.  The rights and wrongs are really not interesting -- what *is* interesting is the persistence in the hardline remainers attempts to subvert the course of a democratically selected course of action.  You can feel its a wrong course, but it is *the* course, so your choices are simple -- either get on the bike and start pedalling along with everyone else, or get off and walk your own way in some other country whose choices better fit your personal agenda.

 

 

 

[jpinx]

5 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

You are unfortunately, arguing with two different sets of Brexiteers. The first set are the nasty nationalist hard Brexiteers who want no deal at all and for the moment think that Theresa May is one of them. One of their distinguishing traits is to completely deny the existence of a soft Brexit option and always, but always pose the argument in terms of Brexit Vs Remain. The second set pose the argument in terms of an achievable deal but would rather not attend to too much detail other than a little rah-rah. Just to confuse things a little, each group is quite happy to steal each other's clothes when it suits them on economic matters as this is not what really rocks their boat.

Hardliners exist on both sides of the divide, and the hardline remainers are the ones who are continuously disrupting the process which was democratically selected. 

[Orac]

Here we go again - same old  "I'm cleverer than you"  arguments.  Time you became an adult and took responsibility for your place in a democratic society, providing constructive support to enable the will of the people to be enacted.  At the moment the hardline remainers are just a deadweight that has to be carried.  You say "... Nevertheless I reluctantly but unequivocally accept the result of the referendum...."  but your actions speak otherwise.    You also say  " Now, if someone comes up with any piece of wisdom that changes things, I will of course reconsider. "  but you carefully reserve the judgement of wisdom to yourself, thereby proving your intransigence.  If you accepted the democratic wisdom of the result of the vote - we would not be embroiled in this discussion.
 
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything other than their public duty to back the government in power during a tricky transition with an awkward set of treaties to unravel.  The rights and wrongs are really not interesting -- what *is* interesting is the persistence in the hardline remainers attempts to subvert the course of a democratically selected course of action.  You can feel its a wrong course, but it is *the* course, so your choices are simple -- either get on the bike and start pedalling along with everyone else, or get off and walk your own way in some other country whose choices better fit your personal agenda.
 
 
 

I would take issue with your claim that there is a public duty to back the government in power since this is not something that has been a requirement before, indeed the previous cabinet under Cameron did not support brexit however the majority of voters did not back them.

Also the actions of the current government in using RP to trigger article 50 have already been ruled against the law by the high courts and are now going to the supreme courts - is there also a requirement to back a government acting illegally?

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, Orac said:

 

I would take issue with your claim that there is a public duty to back the government in power since this is not something that has been a requirement before, indeed the previous cabinet under Cameron did not support brexit however the majority of voters did not back them.

Also the actions of the current government in using RP to trigger article 50 have already been ruled against the law by the high courts and are now going to the supreme courts - is there also a requirement to back a government acting illegally?

 

 

I wouldn't worry too much about the loyalty to government invocation. Its hardly worth the paper its printed on for two reasons. Firstly, the bar is so low that the alternative, namely the Labour Party is hardly worth considering at all. Secondly, the hard brexiteer supposed loyalty to Theresa May is completely conditional on their perception of her holding to a hard brexit line and if she deviates they will turn on her like a pack of hyenas. They think that with Boris they have an alternative PM in waiting to hold the line anyway, but wait! Oh no! What's this?! BREAKING! SkyNews reporting that Boris has apparently told 4 ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement in Brexit. Oh well...back to the drawing board chaps.

[Orac]

 
I wouldn't worry too much about the loyalty to government invocation. Its hardly worth the paper its printed on for two reasons. Firstly, the bar is so low that the alternative, namely the Labour Party is hardly worth considering at all. Secondly, the hard brexiteer supposed loyalty to Theresa May is completely conditional on their perception of her holding to a hard brexit line and if she deviates they will turn on her like a pack of hyenas. They think that with Boris they have an alternative PM in waiting to hold the line anyway, but wait! Oh no! What's this?! BREAKING! SkyNews reporting that Boris has apparently told 4 ambassadors that he supports freedom of movement in Brexit. Oh well...back to the drawing board chaps.

Yes, if Boris as Foreign Minister is briefing EU ambassadors that freedom of movement is on the negotiating table and not a red line then it implies a Norway style deal is in the offing - no point negotiating on freedom of movement without remaining in the single market and, if in the single market, why exclude financials as per the Swiss model and not go down the full EEA route which just leaves discussing how much our contribution can be reduced for giving up out seat at the top table.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, jpinx said:

Absolutely no reason to be sorry.  I was pulling your leg.  Actually it would be an easier world if more voters reacted to facts rather than emotions.

Bit of an understatement. Many leave voters reacted to the threat from Nigel Farage that the UK would be invaded by Turks. Emotional blackmail at its worst.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Everybody agrees with that.

 

Does not make the majority correct though.

If self harm was allowed, suicide would be legal.

 

Brexit means Brexit - at any cost, even UK suicide by division.

[sandyf]

After hearing about Mr Carney’s comments, a Downing Street spokesperson said: "What matters most for British business is that we get the best possible outcome in negotiations as we leave the European Union."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-mark-carney-brexit-uncertainty-article-50-latest-a7448121.html

 

The conundrum here is that TM's interpretation of "best possible outcome" is inconsistent with that of British business, unless you are a Japanese motor manufacturer. As in many other areas it is fairly obvious that listening is not one of her strongest points.

[jpinx]

26 minutes ago, sandyf said:

If self harm was allowed, suicide would be legal.

 

Brexit means Brexit - at any cost, even UK suicide by division.

That's the kind of statement that shows a closed mind.  Soft Brexit is possible with some willingness on all side --  including a bit less hindrance from extremists like yourself

[jpinx]

32 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Bit of an understatement. Many leave voters reacted to the threat from Nigel Farage that the UK would be invaded by Turks. Emotional blackmail at its worst.

*You* might have reacted --  but there's not been much about that in the media apart from the gutter press

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, Orac said:

 

 

Yes, if Boris as Foreign Minister is briefing EU ambassadors that freedom of movement is on the negotiating table and not a red line then it implies a Norway style deal is in the offing - no point negotiating on freedom of movement without remaining in the single market and, if in the single market, why exclude financials as per the Swiss model and not go down the full EEA route which just leaves discussing how much our contribution can be reduced for giving up out seat at the top table.

The "seat at the top table" has done us no favours over the years, so it's a bit of a no-brainer to give it up.  Now -- about the price,,,,,,,, 

[Loeilad]

tough job?

 

If 52% of the electorate voted that the world was flat, would that make it flat?

 

let's face it Brexit as perceived by the 52% is not possible....they will either compromise massively or scrap it

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

tough job?

 

If 52% of the electorate voted that the world was flat, would that make it flat?

 

let's face it Brexit as perceived by the 52% is not possible....they will either compromise massively or scrap it

 

Without wishing to sound churlish, it was not 52% of the electorate who voted for Brexit. In fact, only 37% of the UK electorate supported Brexit - representing only 25% of the UK population.

However the outcome was clear, no matter how unrepresentative it is of the UK public.

Edited December 1, 2016 by RuamRudy

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Without wishing to sound churlish, it was not 52% of the electorate who voted for Brexit. In fact, only 37% of the UK electorate supported Brexit - representing only 25% of the UK population.

However the outcome was clear, no matter how unrepresentative it is of the UK public.

What makes it unrepresentative?

[Orac]

The "seat at the top table" has done us no favours over the years, so it's a bit of a no-brainer to give it up.  Now -- about the price,,,,,,,,  [emoji6]

Obviously a matter of opinion to some degree though we do clearly have representation in the EU parliament, commission and Council of Ministers along with voting rights and a requirement for UK parliament to ratify any treaty agreements.

One of the key brexit arguments was over UK sovereignty so to lose this representation and still remain beholden to any EU rules, be it freedom of movement as per Boris or operation/regulations governing the single market may be a bitter pill for some to swallow especially if this sovereignty appeared to have been traded away to save a few quid.

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

What makes it unrepresentative?

 

Only 1 in 4 people wanted the UK to leave the EU - one of the most significant changes in the UK's place in the world has been pushed forward by a pisspoor minority. But maybe unrepresentative is not the best way to describe it - unrepresentative of the majority is probably a better description. What was also pisspoor, however, was the remain vote - too many apathetic people who allowed this to happen, but that is the state of the UK in general.

[Basil B]

43 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Without wishing to sound churlish, it was not 52% of the electorate who voted for Brexit. In fact, only 37% of the UK electorate supported Brexit - representing only 25% of the UK population.

However the outcome was clear, no matter how unrepresentative it is of the UK public.

 

I think this must be the first time I can agree with you...

 

And of those who did vote for brexit I doubt any had a clear idea of what they were voting for? out of the single market? end EU migration? end EU bureaucracy? renegotiation?

 

 IMHO those who voted Brexit were voting for "Have our cake and eat it"

[jpinx]

43 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Only 1 in 4 people wanted the UK to leave the EU - one of the most significant changes in the UK's place in the world has been pushed forward by a pisspoor minority. But maybe unrepresentative is not the best way to describe it - unrepresentative of the majority is probably a better description. What was also pisspoor, however, was the remain vote - too many apathetic people who allowed this to happen, but that is the state of the UK in general.

There are some simple questions that you need to ask yourself.

Was the majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit?

Was there anything preventing non-voters from actually going to vote?

Was the turnout more than the previous General election?

Was the question simple and clear?

Was the vote conducted in an open and fair way?

Was the count challenged?

 

No cherry-picking -- you have to answer *all* those questions

[jpinx]

50 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Obviously a matter of opinion to some degree though we do clearly have representation in the EU parliament, commission and Council of Ministers along with voting rights and a requirement for UK parliament to ratify any treaty agreements.

One of the key brexit arguments was over UK sovereignty so to lose this representation and still remain beholden to any EU rules, be it freedom of movement as per Boris or operation/regulations governing the single market may be a bitter pill for some to swallow especially if this sovereignty appeared to have been traded away to save a few quid.

Representation in the various EU bodies is worthless when there is a right to veto new laws.  It ranks up there with Moscow as "lip-service to democracy"

[billd766]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

After hearing about Mr Carney’s comments, a Downing Street spokesperson said: "What matters most for British business is that we get the best possible outcome in negotiations as we leave the European Union."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-mark-carney-brexit-uncertainty-article-50-latest-a7448121.html

 

The conundrum here is that TM's interpretation of "best possible outcome" is inconsistent with that of British business, unless you are a Japanese motor manufacturer. As in many other areas it is fairly obvious that listening is not one of her strongest points.

 

Sandy AFAIR big business was NOT elected to run the country. Big business is in business to make the maximum profits for their shareholders and not for what is the best for the people of the UK. It is fairly obvious to me at least that big business people are not listening that much either.

 

If they want to run the country their way, fair enough. Quit your business and stand as an MP under (for example) The New Business Party. If your party wins then then you get to run the country. BTW for really big businessmen that would mean a large cut in salary having to live on an MPs salary and expenses. Of course if your wife and family were rich as one previous PMs family was, then no problem.