Labour want to ignore the will of the people...

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However deciding fully out is possibly going to be complete economic suicide, which won't keep the majority happy.

Same could be said of the Eurozone countries that are suffering year on year declines in GDP. German economic policy doing them no favours. With a fixed exchange rate only more misery can follow. A breaking point will arrive.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

We are talking of one referendum on the type of Brexit. I see no reason why it would be challenged.

Whatever deal or no-deal is reached, it too will be disputed. The Brexit solution we agree will not satisfy all who voted for Brexit and it is a fantasy to imply otherwise.

It's funny isn't it, this line that Brexit voters aren't going to be happy whatever happens. It seems to be getting trawled out quite a bit now by remoaners.
What it actually means is that you are not happy and you'd like to use any vague justification for giving remain a second shot.
So it's all about this rubbish of 'gaining consensus' because you are convinced that there are so many different views of Brexit that consensus is impossible, whereas all the remainers simply voted on one reason. Lo and behold this magical second referendum will then deliver a result that the remoaners think will give them some kind of victory.

We've gone from remoaners complaining about the referendum result and questioning the sanity of the electorate, to demands for a second referendum for the same electorate.
We've gone from remoaners telling us to trust the experts, to remoaners not trusting the experts who are now formulating plans.
We've gone from remoaners complaining about delays and uncertainty to remoaners wanting to create delays and uncertainty.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Yes.



No. There was nothing about that on the ballot paper.

exactly true, which why we should leave immediately

Conrad

kinger101 wrote: »

We have no hand. The EU's red lines were drawn when Cameron tried to negotiate before the referendum. The EU will put forward two options. One won't be acceptable to the majority of those who wanted Brexit as it will involve the free movement of people and the acceptance of EU law. The other is FO. Britain should focus on it's trading relationship with the rest of the world. I suspect this is what the government will now do, as protracted bickering with the heads of 27 EU countries will just be pouring salt into old wounds.

Good points, although I would say we certainly do have a considerable hand of aces to play, from access to our rich fishing grounds, to the EU benefiting from our projection of military power and world class intelligence gathering, the fact we're an important market for some core EU nations, some of which have high unemployment and would suffer if trade was hampered, and we have hugely deep capital markets that fuel and underpin EU trade and no those markets cannot just up sticks to Frankfurt as they rely on decades old social networks and business networking within the huge city synergy pot, plus most FS firms would not want to risk moving into the high regulation EU which imposes ever more rules of engagement and in any event some EU nations could have thier own referendums and so if anything offer greater uncertainty than the UK

I am trying to think through the point around just telling the EU we've left and to just trade from there without the EU having any say over us just as they have none over other exporters into the EU that trade perfectly happily.

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

We are talking of one referendum on the type of Brexit. I see no reason why it would be challenged.

Whatever deal or no-deal is reached, it too will be disputed. The Brexit solution we agree will not satisfy all who voted for Brexit and it is a fantasy to imply otherwise.

Precisely, and because we'd end up again with a load of disgruntled voters, there is the potential they would demand and bring about further referendums, and on we go whilst the EU and business wonder when the heck it will be concluded.

I do not think another vote is going to come about, it just extends uncertainty and weakens our negotiating hand

prowla

There is no need for a second referendum on the in/out question:
1. The one we had was in the Tory election manifesto and so the people voted for it when the Government was elected.
2. The people voted in the Referendum and the result was clear.

There is no value in a referendum discussing the method of exit, as there are too many permutations and nuances which can't be distilled down to a specific question.

The government has to do due diligence and prepare the position they are going to take into the Article 50 negotiations; it seems to me that is a sensible approach.

Looking at the model of interaction with the EU, we have 3 different "fringe" countries at the moment: Norway, Iceland and Switzerland; each of them has a different agreement. I don't see any reason why the UK, as the EU's biggest trading partner, would need to take any of their models.

A lot of people seem to think that the UK will have to do what the EU tells us, but perhaps it would be an idea to swap things around and look at things from the perspective of EU states - I don't think they are in a position of strength at all and it is not in the EU's interests to play hardball.

My opinion is that free movement (ie. unfettered immigration into this country in reality) is not sustainable and as such cannot be predefined imposition of any agreement.

Conrad

mayonnaise wrote: »

Immigration was not on the ballot paper.
We could leave the EU while maintaining free movement and the mandate of the referendum (if there ever was one, as it was merely advisory) would have been met.

Was the Sottish independence referendum merely advisory, and if so you would presumably support ignoring the vote and Scotland declaring herself independent?

Conrad

CKhalvashi wrote: »

However deciding fully out is possibly going to be complete economic suicide,

.

Wow, people still think this way!
Any hampering of trade will affect key EU nations very hard indeed, and some of these are teetering economically and with high u employment.

It really is the height of ignorance to suggest us leaving the EU would be economic suicide. How on earth do nations trade perfectly happy with no trade deal whatsoever?

If we left today, people would find a way of ensuring trade continued, as no one would benefit from hampering of trade and indeed we would collect a lot more tariffs than the EU as we buy twice as much from them

Conrad

prowla wrote: »

There is no need for a second referendum on the in/out question:
1. The one we had was in the Tory election manifesto and so the people voted for it when the Government was elected.
2. The people voted in the Referendum and the result was clear.

There is no value in a referendum discussing the method of exit, as there are too many permutations and nuances which can't be distilled down to a specific question.

The government has to do due diligence and prepare the position they are going to take into the Article 50 negotiations; it seems to me that is a sensible approach.

Looking at the model of interaction with the EU, we have 3 different "fringe" countries at the moment: Norway, Iceland and Switzerland; each of them has a different agreement. I don't see any reason why the UK, as the EU's biggest trading partner, would need to take any of their models.

A lot of people seem to think that the UK will have to do what the EU tells us, but perhaps it would be an idea to swap things around and look at things from the perspective of EU states - I don't think they are in a position of strength at all and it is not in the EU's interests to play hardball.

My opinion is that free movement (ie. unfettered immigration into this country in reality) is not sustainable and as such cannot be predefined imposition of any agreement.

. Bremoaners make the basic error of considering only exports to the UK in an EU wide context, about 8% of thier exports I think, but ignore the fact core EU nations themselves are major exporters into the UK and in no way can they risk hampering this valuable income and jobs generator

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

exactly true, which why we should leave immediately

We are going to leave the EU. I don't believe that any government will try to get around that. I also agree, that the sooner the better.

However, the referendum vote was flawed and too simple to decide what that actually means. Given no other alternative, my desire is that we invoke Article 50 asap, we hold a general election where parties indicate clearly and campaign on the model they will be pursuing in the subsequent EU negotiations. That way we get a government in charge with a mandate to pursue a particular model.