Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

what compromise would you accept as a REMAINER or LEAVER? Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    why are you trying to place conditions on the Brexit ? it is over. we are monumentally :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin:d

    it is like Poland on September 2nd asking Hitler to maybe be a good chap and move his tanks or there will be trouble.
    You really do talk a load of ********.

    You continuously make these crappy assertions to which you give no bases.

    I've asked you time and time again for you to back up your claim, but you've failed on each occasion.

    Baa baa.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    It all goes back to incidences during Labour's time.

    Much of the Euroscepticism came about and gained traction during 2004, the enlargement of Eastern bloc countries into the EU to be specific. Labour kept the damn floodgates wide open and let in all those people in when they should have waited instead of allowing them free access to the labour market.

    UK would never had left the EU if such types of mass migration were prevented in the first place.
    If only we'd had another government in power since Labour!

    Although you are not wrong. The incident shows how it is the British state champing at the bit for cheap, destabilising labour while the sensible, hands-off EU gives everyone the option of 7-year transitional controls.

    In short, it's another piece of incompetent, venal, anti-British government by the UK that they blame on the EU for expediency. All parties have been pulling this trick for the past 25 years and by and large the thick as **** British public has fallen for it wholesale.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    Wait and see then. Its all been too easy up to this points which raises a lot of suspicions from me. I am neither depressed or suffering from a hangover, I am a sceptic.
    Look,
    I am a skeptic too, I know what rats they are, politicians. I wasn't going to vote the wrong way or pass up my principles though. There is skepticism and defeatism. And shades between. I know we have to be suspicious, and we have to create one hell of a fuss if they dupe us. but I think you are talking too negatively, it doesn't help anything. The EU is doomed, contrary to much of what politicians and media say, masses across Europe hate it. I'll say it again, do you think they can make a farce of democracy and ignore the verdict without creating hell for themselves? Do you think no other referendums will spring up? Or alternatively that the EU won't grab more power, integrate scarily and prove swathes of the remainers wrong?
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    I would support allowing article 50 to be triggered in exchange for assurance that we will become part of the European Economic Area, with access to the single market and freedom of movement.

    Even though I think it's completely mental that we have basically given up a whole shedload of our rights and say on things in exchange for more or less the same stuff, still having to pay in just with nothing back - bar a tiny bit more autonomy on our laws... it's the best out of a lot of 'worst' outcomes IMO.

    To leave the EU and not retain access to the single market - I have yet to see a compelling economic argument for this not being just a really, really bad idea. If anybody has one that extends beyond the hazy idea we'll somehow get better deals from everybody else appearing by magic... e.g. why people would give us a better deal, who would they be with, what would they look like and various other ideas a little more substantial, I would be genuinely interested to read it. Right now I can't comprehend the benefits at all, and there must be *some*. Otherwise this genuinely was the *****est thing we could possibly have done.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I voted to Remain and I still stand by my assertion that Remaining is the best thing for the country. The result of the referendum can and should be ignored by our elected representatives on the basis that they have a duty to represent ALL their constituents, not just the ones who won a slight majority out of the ones who voted, out of the ones who were registered to vote, out of the people who we allow to vote. 17 million out of 65 million is not a majority.

    A compromise I'd take to keep freedom of movement and employment and retaining EU funding is to adopt the Euro currency.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Manitude)
    I voted to Remain and I still stand by my assertion that Remaining is the best thing for the country. The result of the referendum can and should be ignored by our elected representatives on the basis that they have a duty to represent ALL their constituents, not just the ones who won a slight majority out of the ones who voted, out of the ones who were registered to vote, out of the people who we allow to vote. 17 million out of 65 million is not a majority.

    A compromise I'd take to keep freedom of movement and employment and retaining EU funding is to adopt the Euro currency.
    You have to be an EU member to adopt the Euro, and accept ever closer union and all that jazz. I think we'd be doing ourselves even more damage to adopt it! Imagine having to be part of bailing out the Eurozone @[email protected]

    We had a really good thing by being a member but thankfully escaping the poisoned chalice that the Euro turned out to be.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by seaholme)
    You have to be an EU member to adopt the Euro, and accept ever closer union and all that jazz. I think we'd be doing ourselves even more damage to adopt it! Imagine having to be part of bailing out the Eurozone @[email protected]

    We had a really good thing by being a member but thankfully escaping the poisoned chalice that the Euro turned out to be.
    I'm very much OK with that. I realise that the Euro currency is probably not the best thing for the UK but if that's what it takes to stop a small number of intellectually deficient voters from ruining everything then so be it. I really don't think the Leave campaign or voters really understood the implications of leaving the EU. Already we've seen thousands of extra applications in one week for just Irish citizenship. Germany offered to take on young British workers and give them citizenship and thousands of people investigated this offer. What will happen is that young, educated, Brits will leave the country en masse for a better life in Europe leaving very few people to actually run the country (I don't mean politicians, I mean everything else) and pay taxes. I will probably be one of them, once I finish my PhD, because if the UK leaves the EU then the chances of getting a funded post-doctoral position in the UK becomes even harder than it already is as so much of the funding in my field comes form the EU.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    I voted to Remain and I still stand by my assertion that Remaining is the best thing for the country. The result of the referendum can and should be ignored by our elected representatives on the basis that they have a duty to represent ALL their constituents, not just the ones who won a slight majority out of the ones who voted, out of the ones who were registered to vote, out of the people who we allow to vote. 17 million out of 65 million is not a majority.

    A compromise I'd take to keep freedom of movement and employment and retaining EU funding is to adopt the Euro currency.
    As for the first bit, that doesn't mean they should overrule the result of a democratic referendum. They are supposed to represent all constituents, including the losing side, but that doesn't mean the losing side suddenly gets everything they want. Politics is all about compromise.

    If they are supposed to represent all their constituents, then surely your demand for them to ignore the leave side and do what the remain side wants goes against that in a big way?

    And while 17 million out of 65 million isn't a majority, that 65 million includes children not eligible to vote, as well as eligible voters who didn't vote for whatever reason. A majority of those who voted voted to leave the EU, and on a higher turnout than the general election.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    As for the first bit, that doesn't mean they should overrule the result of a democratic referendum. They are supposed to represent all constituents, including the losing side, but that doesn't mean the losing side suddenly gets everything they want. Politics is all about compromise.

    If they are supposed to represent all their constituents, then surely your demand for them to ignore the leave side and do what the remain side wants goes against that in a big way?

    And while 17 million out of 65 million isn't a majority, that 65 million includes children not eligible to vote, as well as eligible voters who didn't vote for whatever reason. A majority of those who voted voted to leave the EU, and on a higher turnout than the general election.
    It's not so much about the losing side getting what they want, as doing the thing that will not negatively affect so many people (or in other words, doing the best thing for as many people as possible).

    MPs are still expected to represent children, prisoners and the mentally disabled - three groups of people who we do not allow to vote, as well as people who chose not to vote or chose not to register. The first one being the largest (I think). As I see it, MPs should act in the best interest of their constituents who are under 18. One can quite objectively claim the best course of action would be to stay within the EU. That combined with nearly 50% of adults who voted wanted to Remain and that a not inconsiderable number of people who voted to Leave didn't actually want to leave leads me to suggest that it's really quite reasonable for MPs to vote against triggering Article 50 despite a referendum with a very narrow margin of victory suggesting otherwise.

    Ultimately, my argument boils down to whether or not you should always respect the result of a referendum. Given that not everybody is allowed to vote, I say no. They should be considered advisory rather than binding, especially when the majority is so small. If 90% of people had voted to Leave then there would not be such an debate about how we should proceed, I think.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Remainer:

    Invoke article 50, in return:

    -No more dumbass racism from Leavers
    -Free movement with the EU
    -Free trade with the EU
    -UK products must meet EU safety requirements

    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    What compromise would you be willing to take (if you arm was fully twisted and all your cards were on the table)

    For me I think I would be willing for the Brexit negotiations to start - even invoke clause 50

    IF we were given a cast iron guarantee by the UK government and the EU negotiators that:

    we would be given a chance via the ballot box to change our mind on brexit, either before the negotiations fully complete or after they had concluded.

    I think that would be a fair compromise. Let the negotiations start but we should be allowed to agree or disagree with the out come via the ballot box.

    What compromise would you be willing to make?
    Nobody is going to allow the UK to invoke Article 50, start negotiation but allow us to cancel at the last minute.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I voted leave. Absolutely none. And soon enough, the French will be out too, when Merkel tries to homogenize further and when there are elections.
    If the French leave, it means it's likely the Front National (FN) will come to power. The FN are an inherently racist party. It would be a disaster for France, so I hope this never happens.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No we need to leave everything innit. No free movement, no trading with the eu, I want nothing to do with the EU. Trade with the Americans and Chinese instead. And emerging markets.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    What compromise would you be willing to take (if you arm was fully twisted and all your cards were on the table)

    For me I think I would be willing for the Brexit negotiations to start - even invoke clause 50

    IF we were given a cast iron guarantee by the UK government and the EU negotiators that:

    we would be given a chance via the ballot box to change our mind on brexit, either before the negotiations fully complete or after they had concluded.

    I think that would be a fair compromise. Let the negotiations start but we should be allowed to agree or disagree with the out come via the ballot box.

    What compromise would you be willing to make?
    I was remain. I'd be happy to re-enter EU via a new Conservative PM. Stop movement of labour, a cap of 10.000 per year from EU only with trades, Australia point system implemented. A cap on non EU too of the same amount.

    The million or so Polish etc if they are unemployed, they have to return to Poland (or any EU country they like) reducing the population to 60/61 million as was back in 2000. This will be a HUGE change noticeable, our Dr can see patients within two days instead of two weeks as it is currently! NHS money increases, reduction in A&E waiting times from 4+ to 1/2 hours!

    This is my hope for the new Great Britain now we're out.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I voted remain but I mean we can't really go back on it now so I say no compromise! Let the Europeans suffer our fullest wrath. If we are to survive as an independent nation and not go back to the Eu with our tail between our legs and beg forgiveness we need a strong market and a devoted country. I say to the other remainers: you've had your time you lost so did we all now lets grow a pair and move on. If we want to get the best deal from this we need to stand together a united kingdom not one torn apart by petty struggles to no avail. My compromise, we make as much out the Eu as possible and make a pathway for other countries to follow puling out of the Eu, so it collapses in on itself and we thrive on the now open market with no Eu controls. There is no denying that we give the Eu as much and possibly more than we get back, and once a country like us is out soon other powerful countries will leave and the countries that leached from the big countries will be left in a valueless union.

    So basically it'd've been better to stay in the happy community of the Eu, but that ain't gonna happen so lets take 'er down with us!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hirondelle127)
    If the French leave, it means it's likely the Front National (FN) will come to power. The FN are an inherently racist party. It would be a disaster for France, so I hope this never happens.
    If the main political parties actually addressed anyone's wish for independence, then none of that would happen. It is their undemocratic, elitist fault. Some people just want her for one term so they can get a referendum. Why can't the main parties give one? Because they want to associate dissent and the wish for democracy and national sovereignty with racism. It's utterly devious, shameful and contemptuous for the people. People were duped on the original model and they are being duped and ignored again.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    I would support allowing article 50 to be triggered in exchange for assurance that we will become part of the European Economic Area, with access to the single market and freedom of movement.

    Even though I think it's completely mental that we have basically given up a whole shedload of our rights and say on things in exchange for more or less the same stuff, still having to pay in just with nothing back - bar a tiny bit more autonomy on our laws... it's the best out of a lot of 'worst' outcomes IMO.

    To leave the EU and not retain access to the single market - I have yet to see a compelling economic argument for this not being just a really, really bad idea. If anybody has one that extends beyond the hazy idea we'll somehow get better deals from everybody else appearing by magic... e.g. why people would give us a better deal, who would they be with, what would they look like and various other ideas a little more substantial, I would be genuinely interested to read it. Right now I can't comprehend the benefits at all, and there must be *some*. Otherwise this genuinely was the *****est thing we could possibly have done.
    Please can you tell this to FredorJohn, and others who think similarly, he doesn't even seem to know about the EEA and thinks we should trash our democracy and sovereignty, for good, in a deal even more diminishing to us than the original, just for free movement.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Please can you tell this to FredorJohn, and others who think similarly, he doesn't even seem to know about the EEA and thinks we should trash our democracy and sovereignty, for good, in a deal even more diminishing to us than the original, just for free movement.
    Well tag them, as I have no idea who they are, and see what they say re: economic arguments for why exit is beneficial. As I said before, I would honestly love to know. If nothing else than for the reassurance that maybe I'm just being a pessimist and in reality there are options where we might do better. Right now I feel like 52% of the nation has just done a big poo on my future and, rather ironically, on their own too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    If the main political parties actually addressed anyone's wish for independence, then none of that would happen. It is their undemocratic, elitist fault. Some people just want her for one term so they can get a referendum. Why can't the main parties give one? Because they want to associate dissent and the wish for democracy and national sovereignty with racism. It's utterly devious, shameful and contemptuous for the people. People were duped on the original model and they are being duped and ignored again.
    I think it's more that they've simply learnt from past history mistakes. It is good to have democracy - it is not good to go in a period of isolation when faced with economic and political threats, especially when those calling from this isolation can be likened to far right 1930s parties. The FN can be likened in many ways to the Action Française (minus the monarchism) - active in the early 1900s. The 1930s marked a period of newfound isolationism in Europe and the start of WWII. This isn't to say we'd face a 3rd world war should the EU collapse (that would be a gross exaggeration), simply that countries leaving unions or leagues (i.e. the league of nations which is far more similar to the UN than the EU) is not a good idea in periods of uncertainty.

    An isolated nationalist country is ideal breeding ground for the extreme right. We've seen the extreme right in Europe, of course countries' leaders don't want to see it again. Please remember that even the Nazi party was elected. I know this sounds like an extreme comparison - but democracy when it advocates extreme nationalism or is advocated by extreme nationalists has never been good, it's often a perversion of the will of the people. We are currently in a time of uncertainty - perhaps more so than say in the early 2000s. If leaving the EU is motivated by a desire for true democracy, leaving it makes sense.

    So far however, those advocating it the most (at least on mainland Europe) are extreme right groups, preying on the fears of normal people. This is very far from encouraging. If anything, it is those groups who are 'duping' ordinary people through scapegoating. Governments have little time or interest to dupe their country into joining political unions. If your country is in the EU, or NATO, or the UN, or anything of the sort, it's because it was a good idea to stick together at the time and probably still is. If someone is telling you to leave those organisations and they are using false facts or scare tactics and are associated with the extreme right (or even left), as an electorate we must tread very very carefully.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    I voted remain but I mean we can't really go back on it now so I say no compromise! Let the Europeans suffer our fullest wrath. If we are to survive as an independent nation and not go back to the Eu with our tail between our legs and beg forgiveness we need a strong market and a devoted country. I say to the other remainers: you've had your time you lost so did we all now lets grow a pair and move on. If we want to get the best deal from this we need to stand together a united kingdom not one torn apart by petty struggles to no avail. My compromise, we make as much out the Eu as possible and make a pathway for other countries to follow puling out of the Eu, so it collapses in on itself and we thrive on the now open market with no Eu controls. There is no denying that we give the Eu as much and possibly more than we get back, and once a country like us is out soon other powerful countries will leave and the countries that leached from the big countries will be left in a valueless union.

    So basically it'd've been better to stay in the happy community of the Eu, but that ain't gonna happen so lets take 'er down with us!
    The EU is unlikely to give us such a deal, even if everybody had the same anarchic point of view. It vastly overestimates the value of this country versus the 27 other countries that jointly made up the EU. They would be morons to favour a nation that just stuck two fingers up at them (and more, thanks Nigel Farage and your ridiculous display of idiocy at the European Parliament) over their own members. The idea we can possibly have this much influence on the rest of the EU is delusional.

    I expect they won't even let Scotland join the EU, if it left, thanks to the example that would set for areas such as Catalunya and the North of Italy, that are already champing at the bit to leave themselves. Those countries would slam on a veto faster than you could say "och aye".

    I agree it would have been better to stay in the EU, but we don't have the actual influence or power to 'take it down' with us, we're going down alone and fundamentally are going to have to beg them for some kind of decent deal. Even though it will never be as good as the deal we had and 17 million people just stuck in the bin for reasons that remain unclear.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Manitude)
    It's not so much about the losing side getting what they want, as doing the thing that will not negatively affect so many people (or in other words, doing the best thing for as many people as possible).

    MPs are still expected to represent children, prisoners and the mentally disabled - three groups of people who we do not allow to vote, as well as people who chose not to vote or chose not to register. The first one being the largest (I think). As I see it, MPs should act in the best interest of their constituents who are under 18. One can quite objectively claim the best course of action would be to stay within the EU. That combined with nearly 50% of adults who voted wanted to Remain and that a not inconsiderable number of people who voted to Leave didn't actually want to leave leads me to suggest that it's really quite reasonable for MPs to vote against triggering Article 50 despite a referendum with a very narrow margin of victory suggesting otherwise.

    Ultimately, my argument boils down to whether or not you should always respect the result of a referendum. Given that not everybody is allowed to vote, I say no. They should be considered advisory rather than binding, especially when the majority is so small. If 90% of people had voted to Leave then there would not be such an debate about how we should proceed, I think.
    How is it quite obvious to stay in the EU?

    And how do you know what's best for 10 year olds? What about those whose parents work in the steel industry? What about those farmers with less than 5 hectares of land? There are a plethora of reasons one might like to leave.

    What about environment advocates?
    What about those who want to reduce their energy bills?

    This case can often be each to their own, and people making decisions on their own self- and vested interests, and them voting on what they prioritise.

    They might disagree with the idea of pooling sovereignty, for example.

    Don't presume to know what's best for people, and what's best for everyone.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.