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

Thrugelmir

mwpt wrote: »

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.

Sounds a complete nightmare. Simply adds another layer of complexity to what is a difficult issue. Creating yet more uncertainty.

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

I believe there is absolutely zero chance of a Norway style deal. I believe we would be better off accepting tariffs, and I also think that the government would take the same view. Jmo of course.

I don't get how your 'finding a consensus' is going to work. are we doing this before negotiating?

I respect your opinion but, and I'm getting bored of saying it, you weren't asked about the type of deal. If either the government or the leave campaign had outlined a vision of how a post Brexit Britain might operate then there might, or might not, be some sort of mandate for following a certain path.

However, neither side had the foresight to get into the detail so, and I think this is where the problem lies, EVERYONE gets a say in how the future is shaped not just those who voted leave.

What's the big deal about the government consulting before negotiating? It doesn't look as if they'll be short of time the way it's going. The government consult on all sorts of stuff - why is Brexit different?

Here's a current list of government consultations

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?publication_filter_option=consultations

It includes such vital things as the investigation of urine and the improvement of J19 on the M6 but, when it comes to Brexit, it's not worth the effort. Why's that? I'm afraid to say I think it's because you don't care one jot about the will of the people but think the government might be aligned with your favoured approach.

CKhalvashi

Conrad wrote: »

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?

Don't do the politician thing on me and completely misconstrue what I've said and what you know I mean to suit your own agenda.

Just to remind you of what I actually said after that, which puts a lot more into perspective

CKhalvashi wrote:

We need to be looking at making business with the world (including the 450m people on our doorstep) as easy as possible, whilst attempting to commit to a fully free trade approach with the rest of the world.

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

I'm still of the opinion that largely tarriff-free is the way to go, largely because it will keep goods cheaper as competition is higher, but also because it will put the British government in a good position for negotiating trade deals of a similar nature, which will put British companies in a good position for negotiating export contracts.

I also have to stress what I said before, which was

We need those that voted Remain (for whom assumptions should be automatically made) plus around 5% of those that voted Leave to form a majority. This should (IMO) make most of the work relatively easy, and ensure that things in the long term aren't much different to now.

Like it or not, that is how it is, and it's a point that hasn't been stressed enough.

N1AK

mrginge wrote: »

And if by Christmas there is a 4% majority in favour of leave, will you want another vote in March to check again?

Honestly it's just embarrassing now.

Yes your need to resort to ridiculous straw-men to attempt to 'win' a conversation is embarrassing.

It's painfully apparent that you'd argue against the sun coming up tomorrow if you somehow believed doing otherwise would undermine your position on Brexit.

I thought the reasons people wanted Brexit were often ignorant or xenophobic, but given that people feel that way I think us leaving may well be the best result, which is why you haven't seen me making the case for a 2nd referendum; however I'm sure none of that will stop you jumping to your usual uninformed conclusion that anyone who disagrees with you must be a 'remoaner' (really? what are you 8?) with a grudge.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The CEO of Majestic wines has said they will simply import wine in bulk and bottle in the UK. The impact of any tariffs would at worst amount to 2% of the price of a bottle.

That's BS.

For a start he doesn't have the first clue about the impact of any tariffs. Secondly, if he's only just twigged on to buying wine in bulk and bottling in the UK he's way way behind the curve. The crappy identikit wine that fills the UK supermarket shelves is already delivered in bulk. Even in 2012 8 in every 10 bottles of Australian wine was packed in the UK.

More bland wine, holidays in the UK, less imported fruit - post Brexit Britain sounds dull. Hopefully we can revert to black and white telly, Vesta curry and half day closing - that would about round it off.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

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.

Democracy is flawed.
I have never voted in an election that was not flawed.
A single referendum was the only practical way of the people to express their view of stay or go.
You prefer the referendum was not held and wish to overturn the inmpact either directly or indirectly.
General elecions cover a large span of issue most of which are unconnected to the EU.
Any election that proposes a model could only lead to endless new elections when the model has to be modified in the light of events.
Better to have referendums every 6 months than GEs so general policies can be differentiated from EU.

p1212

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.

Cameron said he will trigger article 50 the very next day. Then May said before the end of the year. Then definitely not in 2016, but early next year. Then we had rumors it is definitely going to happen before 2017 spring, a few hours later they already backed out from this. We are progressing backwards. Once we reach 2018 with elections within 2 years time, the game is over.

May did the right thing, delegating all responsibility to the brexit minister, she can always say, I want brexit but brexit staff cannot come up with anything.

Even if they come up with something then May will say OK, lets go on with this and then we will have a vote in the parliament about triggering article 50.

Now this will fail as most of the MP's are remainers and they can find thousand excuses why they voted no "I wan't brexit, but the current plan is not good enough, so I vote no this time, let's work on it a bit more".

Cameron was bold enough to make the referendum happen, but after a bit of a shock remainer MPs took back control and made sure there is no real danger of brexit by making May PM without democratic election. They are in control and it won't happen, maybe May and a few other people loses face, but it won't happen.

westernpromise

wotsthat wrote: »

If either the government or the leave campaign had outlined a vision of how a post Brexit Britain might operate then there might, or might not, be some sort of mandate for following a certain path.

Of course this is to overlook that the same is true in spades of Remain also. The history of our relationship with the EU has been its doing things we were never told it would do, such as morphing from a customs union into a superstate, for example.

Just as Remainers are unhappy that they don't know what Leave entails, neither do Leavers or anyone else have any idea what Remaining entails. To the extent we are told, we have usually been lied to. It was thus not possible to vote on 23 June for the status quo, because the in-the-EU status quo is not static. All votes were votes for change, it's just that we neither know nor control within the EU what the change is. and Remain was trying to deny this obvious truth and to represent Remain as a continuity vote.

The advantage of Leave is that at least your change is what you want rather than what 26 others want.

N1AK

prowla wrote: »

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 biggest issue with this rather egotistical Brexiter view that we can dictate terms to the EU are we're so important is that invariably any measure they use of our importance is one that when reversed shows us to be even more reliant on the EU.

For example, you're right that we'd be the EU's biggest external market at at ~17% of exports (with the USA on 16.5% just behind). But if this should influence them, then surely the fact that the EU accounts for 45% of our exports should terrify us.

Would the EU be affected by a 25% decrease in trade with the UK? Of course they would, it would decrease their exports by 4.25% with the majority falling on Germany. However we'd see a ~11.25% decrease in our exports. Even assuming that our trade with the rest of the world doesn't decrease at all when we lose all the trade deals we have access to through the EU (optimistic doesn't come close to covering that assumption) that's a huge deal.

We have more to lose if we lose free-trade than Europe does, and Europe has more to lose by giving us a generous deal.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

That's BS.

For a start he doesn't have the first clue about the impact of any tariffs. Secondly, if he's only just twigged on to buying wine in bulk and bottling in the UK he's way way behind the curve. The crappy identikit wine that fills the UK supermarket shelves is already delivered in bulk. Even in 2012 8 in every 10 bottles of Australian wine was packed in the UK.

I can relay what he said. What drinks Company do you run?