Why are leavers so angry

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

The problem is, everything we've ever seen from the EU demonstrates that they argue. and argue. and argue. and argue. endlessly. We are reminded of this on a regular basis when Greece nearly goes bankrupt every so often. How many times does it get left to the 11th hour before yet another bailout a decision is made? And even then it's rarely a decision, just more euro-fudge so they can delay even longer.

You need to start the clock when you're dealing with an institution like the EU. 2 years is plenty but they'll make it take 200 if you let them.

Even if you are correct about the EU's behaviour. The Article 50 clause is quite explicit on this point. The process will be concluded within 2 years.
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

The point that those who want to force the pace fail to realise is that there are a lot of things to discuss and unless we have a clear position on very one of those issues the time will not be used efficiently. If that happens we will exit the EU but without agreement on key issues. They can carry on arguing but we will be out of the EU.

The problem that will arise is that if we have not agreed something it will probably inconvenience us more than them.

sashacat

Both of my young, professional children and their spouses voted to leave. One couple are in the City and have 2 kids but think that some things are more important than the economy.
The other couple are in another affluent part of the UK and are in the legal profession. Also 2 kids. Sovereignty and immigration swayed them.
They are all in their 30's.
My ex husband, aged 70 and one set of in laws ( both 69) voted remain because they thought David Cameron was right. He was the Conservative PM so he gets the vote.

sashacat

I voted leave. I want a50 triggered asap. And FOM stopped.

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

So you've missed all the recent discussions about transitional deals, paying of memberships fees and possibility of staying in the customs union?

Not at all.

What is wrong with a transitional deal? Two years is a challenging timetable to deal with all problems. I can understand that it would need to be clearly defined. Say it were agreed that in two years time we left the EU but became part of the EEA and that four years after that we would leave the EEA. The direction of travel would be clear. Would this be so bad?

The Customs Union does not mean that we are members of the EU, but it does make trading with the EU's market easier. Why would that be such a problem?

Membership fees are just a means of sharing the costs of operating the single market. EFTA members pay such contributions. If it meant that these contributions declined over several years in return for a more progressive withdrawal from the single market, why would that be an issue?

Surely what matters is the commitment to leave, the direction of travel and avoiding an abrupt exit that damages our economy?

I know an abrupt exit with a party in Trafalgar Square singing Rule Britannia might make a bigger impact, but surely what matters is leaving in the least disruptive way?

Graham_Devon

BobQ wrote: »

The vitriol did not come from my original post, but it did come in some of the Brexit supporters posts.

OK.

The one eyed approach, where you very clearly only read what you wish to read really doesn't do anyone any favours.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Membership fees are just a means of sharing the costs of operating the single market. EFTA members pay such contributions. If it meant that these contributions declined over several years in return for a more progressive withdrawal from the single market, why would that be an issue?
?

the money we pay the EU has just about zero to do with the costs of running the single market: its to pay for subsidies and handouts

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

Even if you are correct about the EU's behaviour. The Article 50 clause is quite explicit on this point. The process will be concluded within 2 years.

From your link:

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

That sounds like all the wiggle room in the world to me. All it needs to go on for longer than 2 years is for whoever the UK Govt is at that point (& it's not impossible it could be a party/coalition firmly opposed to Brexit) + the other EU states to want to extend it, and it gets extended. Exactly the kind of thing the EU specializes in, prolonging & delaying agreements in favour of fudge & can-kicking.

Hence my desire to see the process at least started as soon as possible.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Even if you are correct about the EU's behaviour. The Article 50 clause is quite explicit on this point. The process will be concluded within 2 years.

If the agreement isn't ratified. Then 2 years will pass without an agreement.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

Not at all.

What is wrong with a transitional deal? Two years is a challenging timetable to deal with all problems. I can understand that it would need to be clearly defined. Say it were agreed that in two years time we left the EU but became part of the EEA and that four years after that we would leave the EEA. The direction of travel would be clear. Would this be so bad?

The Customs Union does not mean that we are members of the EU, but it does make trading with the EU's market easier. Why would that be such a problem?

Membership fees are just a means of sharing the costs of operating the single market. EFTA members pay such contributions. If it meant that these contributions declined over several years in return for a more progressive withdrawal from the single market, why would that be an issue?

Surely what matters is the commitment to leave, the direction of travel and avoiding an abrupt exit that damages our economy?

I know an abrupt exit with a party in Trafalgar Square singing Rule Britannia might make a bigger impact, but surely what matters is leaving in the least disruptive way?

So if you're happy with those as options being discussed, why do you care if leave voters are angry (which they aren't anyway) ?

Shouldn't you actually be quite pleased that the rhetoric is moving away from an apparent hard brexit and towards something that you would find acceptable?

Moby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Most people are doing what they've always done. Getting on with their lives. Not a constant topic of conversation that it's made out to be.

This post is so funny. The fact that you bothered to come here and post it, add to that the 22 thanks you received (highest number I've ever seen) and that proves your post coudnt be more wrong. Brexit is a huge issue. People who are interested in the world around them do care and do think about it. They just like to pretend otherwise.......you know its like........ 'I've just lost my job......but it's cool nothing will change'......when you know it will but it displays weakness to say so.