The whole process will be immensely complicated: the deal should be bad enough for the UK to instil fear for an exit, but good enough to avoid an economic collapse.
Is that how Europe is governed? I think any country should be allowed to leave without condescending comments by anyone. I prefer staying in Europe, but if the majority of my fellows prefer the opposite, then it's democracy. Who are we to judge they are "stupid", "country-side, or "senile", like I've read all across newspapers, or even fascists, like I've heard too?
If Europe relies on hating the people who have a different opinion, twisting their vote to say it meant something else, and govern them with "fear" and "bad deal" (your words), then...
...then this is not the Europe I want to be part of.
The best deal possible is a Norway-like arrangement, which would be unacceptable to nationalists.
You have no factual basis for claiming these people are asserting false facts or voting based on false facts. Brexit is a vote on what the future should look like, and no one has a factual basis to predict the future.
tl;dr people you disagree with aren't fraudulent by default
And in Trump's case (describing immigrants as "rapists" and "murderers") it is also demonstrably false http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-...
I think people can handle condescending comments. The problem is that you cannot reap the benefits without paying dues, which is what the Brexit camp promised. It's in the interest of the remaining EU members to make this clear, or the whole union will crumble. It's likely that this will throw back Europe to nationalism and protectionism, which is counter-productive.
(Europe's history is littered with wars, if we don't want to consider the previous centuries, look no further than former Yugoslavia or Ukraine.)
This assumes the voters are gullible. But what if they are grown-ups who didn't literally believe Johnson, and made a decision based on rational arguments, would you accept it? Examples:
- What if, for example, voters wanted fewer immigration at all costs, and what if their elites refused to give them a referendum on this topic? Then they may decently choose to vote against their elites' interests on the next question they're asked. And boom! there goes Europe. Tough luck, but extremely bad politics too.
- What if rural workers and retired people, who demonstrated 10 years ago against the low benefits and who see violence, alcoholism and drugs raising, what if those people were genuinely getting the short end of the London intelligencia?
In both situations, it ends with "If you break my toys, I'll break yours". If you keep accepting more immigration / not reducing unemployment in countryside England, then we'll break the Europe that makes you so rich.
You know, you evoke crumbling and wars. I know nothing more pushing a country to wreckage than a divide between the rich and the poor. Which may be what happened in England.
If we want peace, it's important to listen to what other people want. I hear people blame the rise of xenophobia all across Europe. Maybe if we stop tagging anyone who suggest fewer immigration as xenophobic, and listen to a quarter of their proposals, then they won't need to vote for the extreme right?
[1] https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharch...
In your document I read "48% people think that immigration is one of the most important issues facing Britain, just ahead of the EU referendum". The Remain camp proposed to increase immigration.
48% voters for the Leave camp as a start, that's pretty pretty high! Plus whatever % they convince about leaving Europe for other reasons. Total 52%, I'm surprised the result isn't higher actually.
Personally I have not seen any examples. I've just seen sore losers on the Remain side latching onto this one vague campaign poster and declaring that the people (other people, obviously) were fooled and the result is therefore, in some way, illegitimate.
It's quite possible that the entire referendum campaign period was basically irrelevant. People have been discussing and forming opinions about EU membership for years. It's not like evaluating a new electoral candidate.
brexit misled
The unemployed father of two who is married to an
Irish wife watched the crash of the country's
currency, the pound, with increasing worries on
Friday. But one development in particular made
him change his mind [about his 'leave' vote]:
“My son has mental health issues and I feared
a privatization of our health care system,
which is currently for free,” Kerin said.
...On Friday morning, UKIP leader Nigel Farage
went on national television to say it had been
a “mistake” that some campaigners promised the
money currently being transferred to Brussels
would be spent on health care. "Nigel Farage
betrayed us," said Kerin.Apart from desire to punish the UK, what prevents the EU and the UK from coming to a CETA like agreement (exactly as Boris and May have expressed support for)?
> Is that how Europe is governed? [...] I prefer staying in
> Europe, but if the majority of my fellows prefer the opposite,
> then it's democracy.
How does democracy have anything to do with the UK then getting some sort of preferential treatment for trade once they're out?
That would not be in the democratic interests of the remaining EU citizens who don't want to see the EU crumble any further.
> in the democratic interests of the remaining EU citizens who don't want to see the EU crumble any further
It's in the democratic interest of the remaining EU citizen to know that they won't get hatred if they ever decide to leave EU. The democratic interest is in freedom.
I'm looking at the increase of power of international law, and its democracy, the fact that they override country-level laws, and the track record we need to set for future agreements. We're negotiating with powerful countries who have a track record of spying, blackmailing and subverting other democracies to make them sign agreements against the will of the people. Once signed by our leaders, TTIP is unrevokable. This is not in our democratic interest. In democracy, all laws are voted and can be changed. It may incur costs (e.g. the loss of not having free trade anymore) but it shouldn't incur any fine, hatred, or condamnation based on moral standard.
A positive outcome of the Brexit on the TTIP/EU/WTO/OTAN/Climate/... would be if international agreements faced a referendum by the People every 10 years. That way, we'd ensure the people are in on the laws that apply to them.
The same kinds of argument are made everywhere, with the pro-stay parties predicting bad deals for the leaving country, economic trouble, et cetera. They probably honestly believe that will be the result for a country leaving the EU.
Now the UK is leaving, and the deal they get must be approved by all remaining countries (they all have vetos).
Of course those countries will only agree with a harsh deal for the UK -- one, they really already honestly believe that that would be the result for any leaving country, and two, it is great ammo in their fight for power against pro-leave parties in their own countries. They get to show that their predicted doom comes true.
I'm not sure politics is always hating "the people who have a different opinion", but it's certainly doing everything to get power in your own hands instead of theirs.
Assuming your comment is meant as an argument for remain, it's an equally good argument for this woman not to get divorced.