Brexit, in or out.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Are you an octogenarian, someone in their 30's is hardly a sixth former :stupid:

Most people grow up mate.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Your're well versed in the Daily Mail propaganda machine. There are clear differences that can be chosen in the path forward post referendum, hence a separation adjective is perfectly legitimate.

There are indeed clear differences: leave the eu or stay in it. Sadly for you, we voted to leave it - all of it. Not bits of it. ALL of it.

[VillaGuy]

There are indeed clear differences: leave the eu or stay in it. Sadly for you, we voted to leave it - all of it. Not bits of it. ALL of it.

You must live in a very closed world.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

You must live in a very closed world.

Lol. Of course, Brexit means trading with the whole of it, rather than just what's on the doorstep. Irony kinda passes you by, doesn't it?

[VillaGuy]

Lol. Of course, Brexit means trading with the whole of it, rather than just what's on the doorstep. Irony kinda passes you by, doesn't it?

So that doesn't occur now, those made in Taiwan stickers you see on most of your household goods Mr Big Shot must be a country in the EU

[Big Splash!]

There are indeed clear differences: leave the eu or stay in it. Sadly for you, we voted to leave it - all of it. Not bits of it. ALL of it.

Referendums are advisory, simply because it is the govt. who then put referendums into practice. They had to come up with terms and legislation after the Scottish Parliament Ref and this involved competing ideas and debate. So must the EU ref. As Villaguy says, there are different paths, these must be debated and because the consequences are bigger than any decisions we've taken since WW2, they must be put to the people once constructed. And that's before we take those positions to the EU after we've triggered leaving. The EU can wait for us, we need to get this right for us. We don't have to trigger anything by March, that's just May trying to kill debate and have it her stupid way.

1. Debate the terms we'd like (given the position we know the EU will take)
2. Vote on those terms in parliament
3. Send them to the people for approval via Ref
4. Trigger article 50 and negotiate based on the terms the people approved.

DEMOCRACY!

BTW: the out campaigners all had opposing plans post-Brexit during the debate so there's no point them now saying the people voted for no EU, no free trade, no movement of people. If the out campaign had run a coherent set of altenatives, yes, I'd agree with their demands today but they didn't. That's why debate is now essential. We live in representative democracy; we send MPs to Parliament to debate policy details and legislation because the people don't have the time, expertise or intelligence necessary for a direct democracy.

[VillaGuy]

We had a discussion in our office about the forthcoming review and bonus session.

The two options put forward over a coffee for discussion were as follows:

Option 1: everyone gets a £500 bonus, except you, you get £750

Option 2: Dave gets £2,000, Alan gets £1,800, Phil gets £2,300 but you get £1,750

Question, would you prefer option 1 or option 2 to happen.

Two people in a group of four chose option 1 as to them it was obvious it would prove they were top dog. It's a real mindset that really is out there. These people are allowed to vote.

Just adds to the evidence that people are often motivated more by status than by material or financial reward.

The exploitation of that reality, as in things like the Stakhanovite movement, disgusts and enrages me.

The EU has materially made the UK richer, yet arguments playing on basic psyche that they're (fellow EU citizens) on an equal status as Brits has created a vote and social movement where British people would rather lose out themselves than allow other populations to benefit. But the thing is whilst they lose out in 1/28 nations, we lose out in 27/28 nations. Brexiteer mouth frothers for ya....

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Referendums are advisory, simply because it is the govt. who then put referendums into practice. They had to come up with terms and legislation after the Scottish Parliament Ref and this involved competing ideas and debate. So must the EU ref. As Villaguy says, there are different paths, these must be debated and because the consequences are bigger than any decisions we've taken since WW2, they must be put to the people once constructed. And that's before we take those positions to the EU after we've triggered leaving. The EU can wait for us, we need to get this right for us. We don't have to trigger anything by March, that's just May trying to kill debate and have it her stupid way.

1. Debate the terms we'd like (given the position we know the EU will take)
2. Vote on those terms in parliament
3. Send them to the people for approval via Ref
4. Trigger article 50 and negotiate based on the terms the people approved.

DEMOCRACY!

BTW: the out campaigners all had opposing plans post-Brexit during the debate so there's no point them now saying the people voted for no EU, no free trade, no movement of people. If the out campaign had run a coherent set of altenatives, yes, I'd agree with their demands today but they didn't. That's why debate is now essential. We live in representative democracy; we send MPs to Parliament to debate policy details and legislation because the people don't have the time, expertise or intelligence necessary for a direct democracy.

The remain campaign told us ad nauseam out meant out prior to the vote. No turning back. Now they've lost, out means a little bit out, apparently. This notion we have to take account of the 48% is bizarre, and a little bit desperate.

[VillaGuy]

The remain campaign told us ad nauseam out meant out prior to the vote. No turning back. Now they've lost, out means a little bit out, apparently. This notion we have to take account of the 48% is bizarre, and a little bit desperate.

No, they didn't. Simple as that. They had an idea that we can have our cake and eat it--controlled and discriminative use of imigrant labour whilst access to the single market. Obviously this was an impossible scenario given the repeated assurances given by the rest of the EU, yet that was what was voted for. So there is a dilemna

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

We had a discussion in our office about the forthcoming review and bonus session.

The two options put forward over a coffee for discussion were as follows:

Option 1: everyone gets a £500 bonus, except you, you get £750

Option 2: Dave gets £2,000, Alan gets £1,800, Phil gets £2,300 but you get £1,750

Question, would you prefer option 1 or option 2 to happen.

Two people in a group of four chose option 1 as to them it was obvious it would prove they were top dog. It's a real mindset that really is out there. These people are allowed to vote.

Just adds to the evidence that people are often motivated more by status than by material or financial reward.

The exploitation of that reality, as in things like the Stakhanovite movement, disgusts and enrages me.

The EU has materially made the UK richer, yet arguments playing on basic psyche that they're (fellow EU citizens) on an equal status as Brits has created a vote and social movement where British people would rather lose out themselves than allow other populations to benefit. But the thing is whilst they lose out in 1/28 nations, we lose out in 27/28 nations. Brexiteer mouth frothers for ya....

I can only see one person frothing at the mouth in this thread, pal.

[VillaGuy]

I can only see one person frothing at the mouth in this thread, pal.

Yeah and you're adding nothing, bet you have wry smile every time your personality tries to skip your own irrelevance.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

No, they didn't. Simple as that. They had an idea that we can have our cake and eat it--controlled and discriminative use of imigrant labour whilst access to the single market. Obviously this was an impossible scenario given the repeated assurances given by the rest of the EU, yet that was what was voted for. So there is a dilemna

No, they told us repeatedly. Stop wriggling.

And the 4 pillars of free movement are purely ideological. There is no coherent reason for free movement of people to be in there whatsoever. Had the eu given Cameron anything - anything - we'd not be in this mess in the first place.

Good to see reports surfacing the eu are demanding a 50 billion quid exit fee. The EU: dontchajustloveum? Charming people. The sooner we realise this is war, the better.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Yeah and you're adding nothing, bet you have wry smile every time your personality tries to skip your own irrelevance.

Lol. What?

[VillaGuy]

No, they told us repeatedly. Stop wriggling.

And the 4 pillars of free movement are purely ideological. There is no coherent reason for free movement of people to be in there whatsoever. Had the eu given Cameron anything - anything - we'd not be in this mess in the first place.

Good to see reports surfacing the eu are demanding a 50 billion quid exit fee. The EU: dontchajustloveum? Charming people. The sooner we realise this is war, the better.

That's the brexiteer warmongering mentality, the UK may owe the EU for all the skilled graduates it has drained off them, if the UK leaves the market obviously a price should be met. After all these countries have paid for the development of these people, school fees, medical care, university education in some cases etc... It's like you think the world revolves around the UK and not the Sun The four pillars are a part of a single market, can you really not see the reasons behind this? I've written this before but here's a paste ' without freedom of movement then free trade will have to end, well it won't have to end but it will seriously deteriorate the comparative positions of the poorer countries to the richest. So what would be in it for them? They'd be stupid to allow exploitation and trade of their mineral and industrial resources if they are getting nothing in return, money and taxes would be going to the global conglomerates already set up in the more advanced nations, and having to trade on a level scale with them.

Without free movement the richer countries can marginalise the poorest and less educated members of the countries in a single market environment. Surely this is easy to understand? Yes the purpose was to be able to source work more cheaply, but then it had to be able to to be capable of competing with the likes of India and China. The UK on its own is a weak player in terms of resources available, it's a small country as are most European countries on a global scale, that is one of the main reasons for the development of the EU, but what else is the alternative? We have pooled sovereignty to keep sovereign strength. Yet economic experts have been ignored and even trivialised, the UK is stuck in a 'have your cake and eat it' mindset, a lingering shadow of its historical legacy.'

You really reckon the EU will bend over backwards to help a spoilt brat?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

That's the brexiteer warmongering mentality, the UK may owe the EU for all the skilled graduates it has drained off them, if the UK leaves the market obviously a price should be met. After all these countries have paid for the development of these people, school fees, medical care, university education in some cases etc... It's like you think the world revolves around the UK and not the Sun The four pillars are a part of a single market, can you really not see the reasons behind this? I've written this before but here's a paste ' without freedom of movement then free trade will have to end, well it won't have to end but it will seriously deteriorate the comparative positions of the poorer countries to the richest. So what would be in it for them? They'd be stupid to allow exploitation and trade of their mineral and industrial resources if they are getting nothing in return, money and taxes would be going to the global conglomerates already set up in the more advanced nations, and having to trade on a level scale with them.

Without free movement the richer countries can marginalise the poorest and less educated members of the countries in a single market environment. Surely this is easy to understand? Yes the purpose was to be able to source work more cheaply, but then it had to be able to to be capable of competing with the likes of India and China. The UK on its own is a weak player in terms of resources available, it's a small country as are most European countries on a global scale, that is one of the main reasons for the development of the EU, but what else is the alternative? We have pooled sovereignty to keep sovereign strength. Yet economic experts have been ignored and even trivialised, the UK is stuck in a 'have your cake and eat it' mindset, a lingering shadow of its historical legacy.'

You really reckon the EU will bend over backwards to help a spoilt brat?

Spoilt brat? Lol. You like the eu, we get it. You want them to win, we get it. You don't like your own country, we get it. You want the uk to lose, we get it.

The great thing about the British is our tolerance - even of complete berks.