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

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

That's BS.

For a start he doesn't have the first clue about the impact of any tariffs.

It does seem like an odd thing for him to try and put a number on. I'm assuming he's based it on the WTO standard tariffs or some such.

So much of the pro-Brexit analysis of the risks of tariffs seems either disingenuous or incredibly naive. They take our current exports and add a tariff on and then say the extra £70 billion or whatever isn't that much really; to ignore that the current sales certainly wouldn't have all happened if the goods or services had cost 10%, 20%, 30% more.

They also seem to frame the discussion around purely tariffs with Europe, but it seems inconceivable that we will immediately have in place equivalent agreements with all other markets when we lose access to EU trade deals.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

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.

fantasy stuff

do you really believe for even one second there is a possibility that trade between the UK and the EU will fall to zero?
do you really believe that EU companies will be forbidden by law from trading with the UK.

presumably you also believe that the EU uses its naked power in its trade with Aus, NZ, S Korea, Canada and indeed the rest of the world : could you give some examples of totally one sided deals that the EU has won?

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

fantasy stuff

do you really believe for even one second there is a possibility that trade between the UK and the EU will fall to zero?
do you really believe that EU companies will be forbidden by law from trading with the UK.

Noone said zero, and your scenario is fantasy stuff.

A very valid point was made, that IMO wasn't fantasy at all.

mwpt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

What are you on about? What is a complete nightmare about a general election? What is your alternative? We have a government who can make up whatever they like about what brexit means?

Frankly, that suits my view more than yours, because Theresa May may very well decide that brexit means single market access, free movement and monetary contributions. If we are not part of the EU, that is the next best thing in my view.

In which case we're going to have many more years of b 1 tching brexiters because brexit didn't look like they wanted it to look.

Better to have a general election and elect a government who receive a mandate from the country to shape our future.

Tromking

mwpt wrote: »

What are you on about? What is a complete nightmare about a general election? What is your alternative? We have a government who can make up whatever they like about what brexit means?

Frankly, that suits my view more than yours, because Theresa May may very well decide that brexit means single market access, free movement and monetary contributions. If we are not part of the EU, that is the next best thing in my view.

In which case we're going to have many more years of b 1 tching brexiters because brexit didn't look like they wanted it to look.

Better to have a general election and elect a government who receive a mandate from the country to shape our future.

Deeply disingenuous post.
You are obviously in favour of anything short of a complete withdrawal from the EU as you voted for remain and your view lost.
The mandate was sought from the British people and the answer was given to the political class in a clear and unequivocal fashion. Our future has been shaped and its out of the EU.
Get with the program.

mwpt

Tromking wrote: »

Deeply disingenuous post.
You are obviously in favour of anything short of a complete withdrawal from the EU as you voted for remain and your view lost.
The mandate was sought from the British people and the answer was given to the political class in a clear and unequivocal fashion. Our future has been shaped and its out of the EU.
Get with the program.

Massive strawman argument. Get with the program and talk some sense. Re-read my posts and come back when you can do that.

mrginge

N1AK wrote: »

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.

Thank you for your contribution.

Since you have responded with the forum standard approach of calling anything you don't fancy responding to a straw man, I'll rephrase my questions specifically against your original comment.

N1AK wrote: »

Let's take an extreme example shall we. On the 23rd June a 2% majority voted in favour of leave. If by Christmas there was a 15% majority in favour of remain, and that majority stayed constant for 6 months, how exactly is it more democratic for our representatives to:

• Refuse to act in our best interests as our chosen representatives
• Refuse to act because their constituents used to believe something but no longer do

You use the above example to demonstrate a significant change of public opinion and question whether in the face of that, a previous decision should be re-assessed to ensure a more democratic outcome.

Here are my questions in relation to that.
1. How would you re-assess public opinion? Would you seek a second referendum? If not, then how.
2. Your example seems to suggest that we should continually re-assess. Is that the case? How often would you undertake this?
3. Should we take a similar approach to general elections? Where clearly over a five year period people's opinions of the government they previously voted for had changed.
4. If the result of the June referendum had been to remain, would you still require this re-assessment to take place?

You have made some assumptions on my personal views, so let me clarify. I do not like referenda. I think they are inherently divisive and produce poor outcomes. Politics is about a range of views and compromise, not binary decisions. My primary concern with the EU is that it has over expanded in a way and to the point that it cannot effectively make micro decisions that are appropriate to it's disparate members.
I do not like free movement of labour. It disadvantages us because we have higher pull factors than other countries. It is a different beast to free movement of goods because goods don't make a decision about where they will end up, we do. Labour makes its own decision and we cannot influence it. That does not mean I do not agree with immigration. I have previous posted that I would be happy with 1m net immigration if that is the level that the country believes is necessary and can support.
I do not believe that the EU free market is the be all and end all of our economy. The natural movement of trade across the world is to remove barriers. As this happens, the pull to the EU decreases. I have no issue with taking short term hits, tariffs or a recession in order to redefine longer term trade relationships. Projects have costs and risks. I am not risk averse on this decision.

The EU's current structure is imo inefficient and long-term unsustainable. It should either fully politically integrate with fiscal Union or it should devolve into less of a centrally managed beaurocracy and to an umbrella organisation that manages common areas of agreement but does not overly impose rules en masse to the members that do not want or need them.

Devolution of political power is going on all over the world, except within the EU. If you want to talk about more democratic processes, then you don't look at an organisation that is so bloated and inefficient that democracy gets lost in the myriad of different languages, economies, self-interests and corruption.

A couple of rather sad IT analogies - I'm afraid the EU is still a 1970's IBM mainframe and the rest of the world is using the cloud. When the mainframe goes pop we're all in trouble.
Or, the EU is stuck between two models - Apple or Android. The problem is it wants to be Apple but a lot of customers are all shifting to android

So that's an 8 year old with a grudge's opinion. If you don't like it or agree then that's fine, but don't expect me to just brush off any criticism as a straw man though, As unlike some people on here I can dish it out and take it as well.

Tromking

mwpt wrote: »

Massive strawman argument. Get with the program and talk some sense. Re-read my posts and come back when you can do that.

Just admit you're in favour of anything that stops or delays the UK`s exit form the EU even if it means defying the democratic will of the British people. Some democrat you are.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Noone said zero, and your scenario is fantasy stuff.

A very valid point was made, that IMO wasn't fantasy at all.

you edited my post disgracefully

the argument depends upon the EU being able to impose an unequal deal on the UK.
If they have this power in the case of he UK, they also have it for every country in the world except USA and China : can you give a hundred or so examples of how we are currently benefiting from this power. I accept that the EU uses its naked power to discriminate against Black Africa of course and that 'remainers' hear and see no evil in that.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

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.

Yes. An exit plan of some substance would have been a better approach to give the electorate greater information, but it would also have been pretty worthless really unless you had it pre-approved by the EU.

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?

You have to set rules for consultation periods. How long will it last, will it be advisory, how much will it cost, who will manage it ...etc. If that's the next step then ok, but I don't think that will go down very well with the EU, any member countries or businesses.

And, I ask again, what if the result of the consultation is rejected out of hand by the EU? Where do we go then?

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.

You are absolutely 100% incorrect on that.