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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mwpt wrote: »

I think that less than half of the people in the UK want to see a brexit with no free movement of people and no single market access.

The data indicates you're right.

It is more important for Britain to keep full access to the European single market than to control immigration coming from Europe, voters believe.

48 per cent of voters favoured keeping single market access, compared to 37 per cent who said capping immigration from Europe was more important.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dont-control-eu-immigration-at-the-expense-of-losing-single-market-access-poll-brexit-europe-7127626.html

mrginge

kinger101 wrote: »

What I want brexit to look like isn't a realistic option. Do you think 27 other countries should also offer refereda before they let their governments agree on the multilateral agreement which the UK will negotiate?

Reality and practicality are not the key factors in play here. If the govt said that a second referendum would take ten years to plan, cost £500m and delay all other govt business then that would be a more than acceptable price for some.
Dressing it up as some fundamental democratic right is smoke and mirrors.

As each day passes the number of these people are whittled away.

N1AK

Malthusian wrote: »

Nuclear option please. EU countries have stuff that we want and we have stuff that EU countries want. Far more competent autocrats than the Eurocrats have tried to stand in the way of free trade and failed. Leaving with no accepted agreement would be just like Brexit itself - initial panic and hysteria followed by a swift return to normality. Hell, the worst that could happen would be that the readjustment of Britain's exports and imports caused a recession, and we were told that was inevitable anyway, so what is there left to fear.

I appreciate that's your opinion. However let us consider the prospect that politicians, especially in the government, actually do believe that there would be very considerable economic consequences to Brexit without a trade deal? Let's perhaps put that expected impact roughly in line with the financial crash in 2008 for the sake of it being easy to envisage.
The government is then left with the option of accepting a deal that is worse than staying (taxation without representation), not leaving, or making a decision that they believe will cause considerable and protracted financial harm.

Now you may not believe we would see that economic consequence, but let us assume that they do. This isn't an easy situation for them. It's hard to calculate the impact of another economic contraction of that size. Our national debt increased by nearly 50% of GDP and isn't shrinking yet after the last one, another increase like that is likely impossible to cope with. We haven't seen debt levels like that since the 2nd world war which was back when the biggest drains on government spending health and welfare were much more modest. If we can't just borrow our way out then we'd need to see more cost cutting, and faster, than we've already seen piled on top of the cost cutting we've already gone through and still have planned.

So if they're sat there faced with what they see as the choice between:

• Being blamed for a decision that leads to slashing benefits, slashing services, causing considerable unemployment, and raising taxes.
• Not leaving the EU
• Accepting a deal like Norways

I really don't know which option they'd choose.

BobQ

prowla wrote: »

Those two options are vague and woolly; we should want a close relationship with the EU and its single market, but not with free movement. We should also be flexible on the amount the EU has to pay us for access to our market.

But that is what negotiation is for!

You say that "we should want a close relationship with the EU and its single market" as if it is axiomatic. But many who voted for Brexit do not want any closer relationship with the EU than with the US or India or Australia. Some talk of focusing our future trade deals on the nations in the Commonwealth. So they do not want this close relationship.

If May negotiates a deal that involves some freedom of movement you do not (it appears) want it whatever the other benefits of the deal. But that is very different from others who voted Leave (or indeed Remain).

I am NOT suggesting the two options I posted are to be a definitive statement of what the deal must be. But if I were negotiating with the EU27 I would want to know what the red lines were.

Without these redlines I suggest any negotiation will have to be on the basis that most of the country wants to retain as much of the single market as possible and while there is a wish to have more control of our borders , freedom of movement is still acceptable.

I doubt that would please you but it is consistent with the outcome of the referendum because we would no longer be in the EU.

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Watch last nights Labour leadership debate on I-player, Smith said several times he does not want us to leave and will argue strongly to this end.

In any event, another vote on terms is unhelpful on several fronts and the loosing side would point to the prescient set and argue the vote needs yet another re-run. You think the EU want to go to the effort of comming up with a plan only for the British to reject it? I think not.

John Rentoul voted remain, but now says like 79% of us, do not want any kind of further referendum on this ( latest poll found only 21% want another ref)

Following the vote lots of Remainers called into LBC wanting a re-vote but with every passing day less and less make this case and more and more say we've made our decision and need to get on with it.

Nobody is asking for a re-run of the IN /OUT referendim. Smith merely said there should be a referendum on the terms of the exit deal.

Personally I think this is impractical as by then it would be too late to change the terms of the deal.

But you keep pretending that this is a call for a second referendum on the same issue as the first. This is qiute disingenuous when that is not what he said.

Thrugelmir

N1AK wrote: »

I appreciate that's your opinion. However let us consider the prospect that politicians, especially in the government, actually do believe that there would be very considerable economic consequences to Brexit without a trade deal? Let's perhaps put that expected impact roughly in line with the financial crash in 2008 for the sake of it being easy to envisage.
The government is then left with the option of accepting a deal that is worse than staying (taxation without representation), not leaving, or making a decision that they believe will cause considerable and protracted financial harm.

Now you may not believe we would see that economic consequence, but let us assume that they do. This isn't an easy situation for them. It's hard to calculate the impact of another economic contraction of that size. Our national debt increased by nearly 50% of GDP and isn't shrinking yet after the last one, another increase like that is likely impossible to cope with. We haven't seen debt levels like that since the 2nd world war which was back when the biggest drains on government spending health and welfare were much more modest. If we can't just borrow our way out then we'd need to see more cost cutting, and faster, than we've already seen piled on top of the cost cutting we've already gone through and still have planned.

So if they're sat there faced with what they see as the choice between:

• Being blamed for a decision that leads to slashing benefits, slashing services, causing considerable unemployment, and raising taxes.
• Not leaving the EU
• Accepting a deal like Norways

I really don't know which option they'd choose.

You need to jump in a helicopter and look down on the whole situation. Not correlate and merge totally unrelated events. Such as Brown's unfunded welfare state plans, the global GFC and the potential impact of a trade deal.


Every single country in Europe apart from Ireland, Malta and Luxembourg has a trade surplus with the UK over the past 10 years.

The UK is the EU’s largest export market

Other countries wish to negotiate trade deals directly with the UK. Such as India who feel penalised by the EU.

In 2008 50% of UK exports went to the EU. By 2014 this has dropped to 44%. Trade patterns have been shifting. With BRICS steadily increasing to around 9% and the USA accounting for some 17%.

In 1999 55% of UK exports went to the EU

The statistics overstate the proportion of UK exports that go to the EU, as a lot of goods pass through ports like Rotterdam before being shipped to a final destination outside the EU.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

But that is what negotiation is for!

You say that "we should want a close relationship with the EU and its single market" as if it is axiomatic. But many who voted for Brexit do not want any closer relationship with the EU than with the US or India or Australia. Some talk of focusing our future trade deals on the nations in the Commonwealth. So they do not want this close relationship.

If May negotiates a deal that involves some freedom of movement you do not (it appears) want it whatever the other benefits of the deal. But that is very different from others who voted Leave (or indeed Remain).

I am NOT suggesting the two options I posted are to be a definitive statement of what the deal must be. But if I were negotiating with the EU27 I would want to know what the red lines were.

Without these redlines I suggest any negotiation will have to be on the basis that most of the country wants to retain as much of the single market as possible and while there is a wish to have more control of our borders , freedom of movement is still acceptable.

I doubt that would please you but it is consistent with the outcome of the referendum because we would no longer be in the EU.

nobody else seems to want to answer, perhaps you will...

We come up with our plan thanks to ref #2.
The EU say we can't have it.
What do we do then?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

how are views normally transmitted to government?

!!!!!! does this mean?

Letter? Email? Egg throwing? Referendums? Petitions?

to answer your question.

BobQ

kinger101 wrote: »

I voted remain. I have just accept that people voted leave because they no longer want to be part of the EU. And that means no close relationship which is the worst of both worlds.

Prowla seems to have a different view, which one is the valid Brexit view?

prowla wrote: »

Those two options are vague and woolly; we should want a close relationship with the EU and its single market, but not with free movement. We should also be flexible on the amount the EU has to pay us for access to our market.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

Smith merely said there should be a referendum on the terms of the exit deal.

Or a General Election.

Sounds as if the Unions are pulling his strings. Back to the puppetry days again. Blair failed hopelessly on his key objective.