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

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

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?

I don't know the answers to those but I'm happy enough if both of them are yes. As a remain voter I pointed out long ago that EU made legislation was of no particular concern to me since I never noticed it as a concept until this whole mess started.

As for contributions, the UK already operates in a similar manner where revenue from certain richer regions is distributed to other regions. I'm happy enough with it at the UK level and happy enough with it at the EU level. The purpose is the same in both cases.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

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.

Both parties? The EU is not a party. It consists of 26 separate states. Holding very different views and agendas. The Governments of which could change at any moment. Creating a very fluid situation. There's German and French elections on the horizon. Be interesting to see what the electorate thinks with regards to their own situations.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

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?

Well we saw from the campaign that any proposals from leave were dismissed almost instantly as being unobtainable and equally any predictions from remain were dismissed as being flawed.

If you want people to believe in something you have to make it credible. If the result of this consultation was that we wanted free market access, no free movement, no forced regulation and no fee - would you believe that was in any way obtainable?

That's what I'd ask for if I was consulted.

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.

So this again just comes down to trust. I trust the negotiating team to try and deliver a good deal for the country and I would expect them to consult with key stakeholders. I wouldn't expect them to have to ask every Tom, !!!! and Harry and filter through millions of different opinions just to reach a conclusion.
There's no difference between our end positions.

As I've said before, if the recommendation is a Norway style deal then I will accept that. I don't for a second think it will be.

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?

as above, there is no issue in the govt putting people in place to consult and come up with a strategy. That is after all what they are doing.
The issues in going back to the electorate to do this again are time, cost, likelihood of actually getting to a single conclusion, further division, lack of clarity in the question, uncertainty that any conclusion can be achieved, weakening of the overall negotiating position.

Whether you like it or not organisations do not make key strategic decisions by asking everybody's opinion.

Tromking

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.

mwpt wrote: »

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.

Well that was hard!

mwpt wrote: »

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

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

I don't know the answers to those but I'm happy enough if both of them are yes. As a remain voter I pointed out long ago that EU made legislation was of no particular concern to me since I never noticed it as a concept until this whole mess started.

As for contributions, the UK already operates in a similar manner where revenue from certain richer regions is distributed to other regions. I'm happy enough with it at the UK level and happy enough with it at the EU level. The purpose is the same in both cases.

Ok. If I put my EU negotiator hat on then....

You are asking for one thing only - the right to be excluded from EU collective bargaining on trade deals.

I'm afraid mr mwpt that the answer is no. Because then all other countries will want the same and we get no benefit from it. In order for us to give you this concession you have to offer us something in return. What are you offering?

CLAPTON

whilst your views are interesting they not really about the issue, that being of different sizes (the UK and the EU), we will be massively disadvantaged in trade negotiations : I was looking for examples where the EU used its power and weight to gain those advanatage from the rest of the world right now (excepting USA and maybe China).

however my comments

CKhalvashi wrote: »

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.

I see this as nothing to do with the governments : if individual companies / people find it in their best interest to trade with near neighbours then so beit, if they find it in their interest to trade with China, Aus etc then so beit.
Why does government have to have a view on the matter?

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.

clearly I disagree about FoM : we trade OK with USA, Aus, China and another 150 countries etc , that will do for me.

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.

what change : abolision of the Euro?, change in Ffree movement of people? In what timescale 10 -20-30 years ?

£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.

whatever has this to do with the UK and EU co-operating: imports /export are about private sector doing its business. What do you envisage, Germany instructing BMW to buy componenets for the UK?

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.

we have more cultural ties with USA, Aus, NZ, Canada etc than the EU
Anyway we seem to be able to trade with them with visa/work permits etc.

I can see why you like the EU, socialist centralise planning etc where all things are determined by government but I'm much more a free market person with governments doing the least necessary for law and order.

mwpt

Tromking wrote: »

Well that was hard!

It shows nothing of the sort. It shows me saying that in order to know what brexit means to the people of the country, we should have a general election (*) to elect a government based on what they advocate as the conditions of brexit.

(*) I am quite willing to consider alternatives, anything really, that actually tells us what brexit means to people. We just don't know. And for some reason, you appear unwilling to find out. Why?

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

Ok. If I put my EU negotiator hat on then....

You are asking for one thing only - the right to be excluded from EU collective bargaining on trade deals.

I'm afraid mr mwpt that the answer is no. Because then all other countries will want the same and we get no benefit from it. In order for us to give you this concession you have to offer us something in return. What are you offering?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to do, or the point you're making.

I think the EU will accept a relationship with the UK on a deal similar to Norway. There is precedent after all.

Are you ok with that?

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to get me to do, or the point you're making.

I think the EU will accept a relationship with the UK on a deal similar to Norway. There is precedent after all.

Are you ok with that?

AIUI Norway is not free to negotiate its own trade deals, has to be done collectively via EFTA.
Happy to be corrected on that.

I'm just challenging you on your belief that the EU will allow us a better deal than we have at the moment. You have after all stated that you want -

Same regulations
Same free market
Same FoM
Same costs
New freedom for trade deals.

N1AK

mrginge wrote: »

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.

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.

I'm sure if you responded to people's actual positions you wouldn't be accused of using straw-men arguments as often and if you didn't use childish labels to describe people you disagree with you'd be accused of immaturity less.

I'm not overly inclined to have another referendum, something we share in common it seems. My point, which you missed while constructing imagined positions to attack, was that the position of some brexiters that true democracy means that once you have a referendum you can't under any circumstances is ridiculous.

If I had to draw a line then it would certainly be at least 60% for at least 6 months, but frankly if public opinion moved that strongly against Brexit then I doubt we'd leave referendum or not.