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

Thrugelmir

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.

You've written a lot but said nothing of substance. I have no particular view. Other than the EU as a project in it's current form isn't working for vast swathes of Europe. The UK isn't just negotiating with the EU in Brussels. It's negotiating with 26 countries. All with their own agendas. The UK is not going to be in a position to dictate terms. Are you expecting to be consulted with every point of detail. As there'll be a General Election every month.

Given we've an opposition party in complete disarray. That hasn't even had sound economic policy since 2005. I'm unsure what a GE will achieve anyway. As effectively means many people will simply not bother to vote again. Their vote will mean nothing in a constituency dominated by anyone particular party. So the outcome won't be representative of peoples views and feelings.

prowla

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.

The current government has that mandate.

The Conservative Party's 2015 election manifesto https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto states the following:

We will let you decide whether to stay in or leave the EU

We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.

That is what they put to the people of the country and that is what the people of the country voted for when they returned the Tories to Government with an overall majority.

There is no need for an election; it's already been voted for.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Valid point, however it makes a lot of sense to trade most with those on our doorstep, in an economy that makes up 20%+ of the world total, preferably on a free trade basis.

It also makes sense to have some form (even if limited) of mobility within the general area to make a full FTA successful, as the common market is now.

If we want access to the common market, we are going to have to live with FoM and pay into the EU, and probably get some money back. I've already covered (numerous times) why I think that it's in the interests of the UK, however if we want to go back to the 1957 agreement of being purely economically involved (as the UK joined before I was born), then we will have to attempt to negotiate that. That includes the FoM being limited to workers and self-employed and their immediate family, if that's what we want to negotiate.

I would like to see the EU being less centralised in non-key areas, however the situation we now face is that the EU is going to have to change, and it's probably going to be better if we're inside it than out of it. Your views may differ.

£40 per week per worker in exports will close the trade deficit with the EU and a further £50 per week per worker with the rest of the world.

Possible? Sure
Should we? Definitely

But, do we need to work closely still with the EU to reach those targets? Yes, for around half of it.

Being able to jump on a plane, arrive somewhere without a visa/work permit required and start selling is a fundamental principal that I will stand by rigidly, especially when the market in question is right on our doorstep, and has a long cultural tie with the UK.

I have never been to/traded in Africa, and it's not a target market in my business plan (the EU is the top one, and Russia the second), so that isn't something I can comment on. As a nation, however, we have the power to negotiate a deal that doesn't discriminate against anyone.

A (what sounded) very heavy cargo plane came in from Nairobi over my house about an hour ago, and this is very frequent (at least twice daily), so there must be a reasonable export of goods from Kenya to UK at least.

mwpt

prowla wrote: »

That is what they put to the people of the country and that is what the people of the country voted for when they returned the Tories to Government with an overall majority.

There is no need for an election; it's already been voted for.

Ok, I accept that view, thanks. In this case, I will be most happy if the current democratically elected government pursues a [STRIKE]Norway[/STRIKE]UK type deal which retains freedom of movement, single market access but allows us to continue to forge our own trade agreements with other countries.

I'm not sure many leave voters would be happy with that though.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

If we want access to the common market, we are going to have to live with FoM

With that comes employment legislation, access to healthcare and education , welfare benefits etc. How long would it take to come to any agreement if it's possible at all.

CKhalvashi

mwpt wrote: »

Ok, I accept that view, thanks. In this case, I will be most happy if the current democratically elected government pursues a [STRIKE]Norway[/STRIKE]UK type deal which retains freedom of movement, single market access but allows us to continue to forge our own trade agreements with other countries.

I'm not sure many leave voters would be happy with that though.

I think that's the least worst situation for all concerned.

mwpt

Tromking wrote: »

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.

No. Find me a single post of mine where I said that. Please, I'm challenging you to do so because so frequently here people just throw out stuff like this without backing them up.

Should I just state my position again for you?

I think the referendum was flawed. It was too simple and grouped many disparate views together under a binary option.

We do not know what brexit means. We were never told. We still haven't been told.

I would like to know what a government would pursue in terms of our future with the EU so that I can use my democratic right to vote for a government whose views align more toward my own. Once we have already agreed something with the EU, it will be very difficult to change it.

It strikes me as very odd that for some reason all the brexiters on here don't seem to be interested at all in hearing what brexit means or trying to find out what it means. And yet remain voters do want to know. Why is this? Are you afraid that it'll be revealed precisely why the referendum was flawed? Because you all want different things and there are going to be a lot of unhappy people if what brexit means aligns closely with what I want, which is free movement of people and single market access.

Straight forward, easy question for you to answer: If that is what our current government pursues and agrees in the next two years and it is ratified before you get another chance to vote on a government, would you be happy with that? I know I would, but it hardly seems democratic.

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

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.

Getting a knowledge of what people actually want requires no EU input whatsoever. I really don't want a handful of people from a nation of 60 million second-guessing (or not even caring) what people want.

We're all grown up enough to realise that just because we want some thing doesn't mean we'll get it but why be in the dark?

mrginge wrote: »

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?

It can't be that difficult to consult and, like the rest of them, they're advisory anyway. The government consult and do what they want.

I couldn't give a rats !!! about what the EU do or want. I want the UK negotiating team to have a full understanding about what they wish to achieve based on having taken time to find out what people want.

If they don't achieve it - that's life.

mrginge wrote: »

You are absolutely 100% incorrect on that.

OK. What's the reason you're finding so many barriers that simply don't allow the government to find out what people want then?

What's the issue?

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

Ok, I accept that view, thanks. In this case, I will be most happy if the current democratically elected government pursues a [STRIKE]Norway[/STRIKE]UK type deal which retains freedom of movement, single market access but allows us to continue to forge our own trade agreements with other countries.

I'm not sure many leave voters would be happy with that though.

Interesting. Would you expect us to be bound by EU regulations under this deal?
Do you think we'd also have to pay an entry fee? More, less or same as our current contributions?

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With that comes employment legislation, access to healthcare and education , welfare benefits etc. How long would it take to come to any agreement if it's possible at all.

We lay the cards on the table, and work from there.

I fail to believe that no aggreement can be reached that is satisfactory to both parties, if negotiated properly and fairly.