Why are leavers so angry

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

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.

Read what it says: Whenever it starts, it takes two years UNLESS BOTH sides agree otherwise. If we do not agree it cannot continue beyond two years.

But tell me, if our Government and the EU 27 both decide after 22 months that it will take another 4 months to conclude, are you really saying this is a big issue?

If your answer is that it is a big issue, I would say you are being absurdly dogmatic or very naïve since that is the way agreements are reached. Have you ever haggled about something simple, like the price of a car? What was most important to you: getting the best deal or agreeing the sale in less than 5 minutes?

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

So what? With no agreement after 2 years w are no longer bound by the Treaties.

" 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 (Article 50)"

Personally I would not choose to leave without an agreement but that is what people have voted to do, so w will have to live with it.

Ballard

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The "charity" has actively campaigned against UKIP for some years. While it's stated aims are laudable. Seems to be on the very left of the political spectrum. Which no doubt attracts an element of not so nice individuals to it's events, meetings and rallies .

Is this the thing now? If Hope not Hate have a few iffy supporters they're extremists? Does that make UKIP a racist organisation now because several of their supporters are racist?

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

That is a separate issue in my view, I may be wrong but I sense that the hard Brexit advocates are stoking animosity towards anyone who wants a softer Brexit, including those Remainers who accept the outcome but not that it means hard Brexit.

Well you have pretty much made that up.

But in the same way that you don't believe that those who think we should remain should lie down and take their medicine, surely you also believe that those who want a hard brexit should have the right to promote and try to achieve their favoured option?

I am pleased. But I still believe that the EU may take a different view of the issue and force us into a hard Brexit.

Well two issues here.
Firstly you should direct your frustrations towards the EU themselves if you believe this to be true.
And secondly, if this is a realistic possibility then it makes perfect sense for the government to plan for it.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Subsidies and handouts that are part of operating the single market

a single market has nothing to do with subsidies and handouts;
its about economics of tariff free trade in goods and services

it has nothing to do with political decisions to hammer Greece nor to give free money to Romania.

Cakeguts

Herzlos wrote: »

I didn't say that those with a shorter life expectancy should be denied a vote, but you must be able to understand why the younger generations feel robbed that an older generation voted against them, for what will have minimal impact on the older generation* but massive impacts on the future generations.


*The older generations tend to have more wealth, and don't need to directly deal with things like getting on the property market, getting a job, getting an education. Then there's the statistical fact that by the time we've actually finished negotiating this, more "leavers" will have died of old age than "remainers". Push things back far enough using just the demographics and no cultural change at it'd take less than 10 years for the vote to shift from leave to remain.

Given that; that by the time we actually leave and the shockwaves are being felt, the majority will actually want to remain. Can you understand why a lot of younger remainers are upset?

If you feel that strongly about something you make sure that you vote. The reason why some old people have more wealth is because they have worked for longer.

Have a think about this. You leave school at 16 get a job and then work until you are 65 and finish up with less money than someone who is 20? Some older people are in this situation some are not. Which one would you like to be?

mayonnaise

BobQ wrote: »

That is a separate issue in my view, I may be wrong but I sense that the hard Brexit advocates are stoking animosity towards anyone who wants a softer Brexit, including those Remainers who accept the outcome but not that it means hard Brexit.

I care because Britain used to be a more tolerant nation.

Well said Bob, exactly my feelings.

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

Read what it says: Whenever it starts, it takes two years UNLESS BOTH sides agree otherwise. If we do not agree it cannot continue beyond two years.

But tell me, if our Government and the EU 27 both decide after 22 months that it will take another 4 months to conclude, are you really saying this is a big issue?

If your answer is that it is a big issue, I would say you are being absurdly dogmatic or very naïve since that is the way agreements are reached. Have you ever haggled about something simple, like the price of a car? What was most important to you: getting the best deal or agreeing the sale in less than 5 minutes?

I already read what it says, then pointed out to you why it in no way guarantees a 2-year timeframe. What part of what I wrote wasn't clear?

The simple fact is that you, like every other Remainer, are perfectly happy for Article 50 to remain untriggered for as long as possible because you know full well it delays (& most Remainers hope, prevents) Brexit. There is no reasonable justification not to trigger Article 50 now, two years is plenty of time & as previously stated it wouldn't matter if it was 2 weeks, 2 years or 20 years, the EU will still take however long they're given & want more.

martinthebandit

Fella wrote: »

The simple fact is that you, like every other Remainer, are perfectly happy for Article 50 to remain untriggered for as long as possible because you know full well it delays (& most Remainers hope, prevents) Brexit. There is no reasonable justification not to trigger Article 50 now, two years is plenty of time & as previously stated it wouldn't matter if it was 2 weeks, 2 years or 20 years, the EU will still take however long they're given & want more.

Nail, head.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Ballard

Fella wrote: »

The simple fact is that you, like every other Remainer, are perfectly happy for Article 50 to remain untriggered for as long as possible because you know full well it delays (& most Remainers hope, prevents) Brexit. There is no reasonable justification not to trigger Article 50 now, two years is plenty of time & as previously stated it wouldn't matter if it was 2 weeks, 2 years or 20 years, the EU will still take however long they're given & want more.

Not at all. We voted to leave so leave we must. I think that the vast majority of us will regret leaving but that's not the point. I don't even want a second referendum. There are just so many questions that need to be answered before we go.

Might I politely suggest that you don't generalise in future.