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

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

!!!!!! does this mean?

Letter? Email? Egg throwing? Referendums? Petitions?

to answer your question.

maybe you should engage your brain and grow up

views are expressed via voting in both local and national elections, by local constituency parties, and of course by 'public opinion' in the media, opinion polls and more recently by petitions and referendum.

Corbyn, of course also supported some views being expressed via the armalite and the ballot box but I disapprove.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

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.

most of thr countries of the world trade with the EU but don't have 'trade deals'
they do very nicely and don't see their options listed above.

kinger101

There are a number of other problems to this referendum 2 idea to decide on the precise from of brexit. Although people may think there is no rush for brexit to happen, I don't believe this is true. For one, it's going to become very prickly if the UK are selecting MEPs in 2019. Secondly, one of the most damaging aspects in terms of inward investment isn't leaving the ETFA, but not knowing what our relationship with Europe and the ROW is. The sooner this can be clarified, the better. That doesn't happen with another refrendum.

As an example. a car manufcaturer might want to know whether our tariffs will be nil, 7.65 % (WTO) or some other mutually beneficial rate of say 1 or 2% that will provide a minimal barrier to existing trade. Until this is resolved, the future of Britain's car industry is uncertain.

I think involving the public in defining brexit rather than our negotiators is also setting them up to fail. We already now the public is largely unrealistic in their expectations, and so we'll end up sending people in on a war footing. It's not how negotiations work. You identify the decision makers and influencers. You find your common ground and agree, and it's quid pro quo on the rest.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

T
As an example. a car manufcaturer might want to know whether our tariffs will be nil, 7.65 % (WTO) or some other mutually beneficial rate of say 1 or 2% that will provide a minimal barrier to existing trade. Until this is resolved, the future of Britain's car industry is uncertain.

whilst not saying that tariff uncertainty is welcome,
obviously the value of the pound is also crucial;
the pound has fluctuated between about parity with the euro to about 1.4 ; a massive 40% swing which vastly dwarf 7.65% tariff

how could any car manufacturer every invest anywhere?

well, they have done for about a 100 years across a whole range of different currencies.

kinger101

N1AK wrote: »

Yes, yes, we've heard that parroted on here incessantly. In fact I even stated as much myself in this thread, so I really have no idea what insight you think it is providing at this point.

In practical terms, it means although free trade without free movement is off the table, we're in a relatively good negotiating position. Provided we don't make a song and dance about it. Both sides want to save face.

mwpt

kinger101 wrote: »

There are a number of other problems to this referendum 2 idea to decide on the precise from of brexit. Although people may think there is no rush for brexit to happen, I don't believe this is true. For one, it's going to become very prickly if the UK are selecting MEPs in 2019. Secondly, one of the most damaging aspects in terms of inward investment isn't leaving the ETFA, but not knowing what our relationship with Europe and the ROW is. The sooner this can be clarified, the better. That doesn't happen with another refrendum.

As an example. a car manufcaturer might want to know whether our tariffs will be nil, 7.65 % (WTO) or some other mutually beneficial rate of say 1 or 2% that will provide a minimal barrier to existing trade. Until this is resolved, the future of Britain's car industry is uncertain.

I think involving the public in defining brexit rather than our negotiators is also setting them up to fail. We already now the public is largely unrealistic in their expectations, and so we'll end up sending people in on a war footing. It's not how negotiations work. You identify the decision makers and influencers. You find your common ground and agree, and it's quid pro quo on the rest.

That is a fair post, you make good points.

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

ah so there is no actual defined plan as a result of this ref#2/consultation, just a general idea about some boundaries that we may or may not be able to achieve when it comes to the detail of the negotiation.

Have I understood that correctly?

Partly. My view is that if we can establish what sort of deal we collectively prefer then that would guide what we try to achieve.

Ay present many people (mostly those who voted remain) want relatively little change. Some who voted for Brexit also want relatively little change other than control over our legislation and some limitations on freedom of movement and in particular want to retain access to the single market. I think these form a majority but that is just my opinion.

But a significant number who voted for Brexit want either an end to immigration or for it to be severely constrained. Equally some want a bi-lateral trade deal with the EU that is much the same as with some other non-EU nations like Canada, Australia, US and India which could include some tarrifs.

I am suggesting we should bottom out what the majority would like, not what they will necessarily get. It is not a re-run of the first referendum as some seem determined to suggest, it assumes we will leave and consults us on how we would like this to happen.

Of course there is an argument that there should be no futher consultation with the public. If this was based on the relatively little change approach I have no problem with it.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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.

Maybe but most are supporting Corbyn.....

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

Partly. My view is that if we can establish what sort of deal we collectively prefer then that would guide what we try to achieve.

Ay present many people (mostly those who voted remain) want relatively little change. Some who voted for Brexit also want relatively little change other than control over our legislation and some limitations on freedom of movement and in particular want to retain access to the single market. I think these form a majority but that is just my opinion.

But a significant number who voted for Brexit want either an end to immigration or for it to be severely constrained. Equally some want a bi-lateral trade deal with the EU that is much the same as with some other non-EU nations like Canada, Australia, US and India which could include some tarrifs.

I am suggesting we should bottom out what the majority would like, not what they will necessarily get. It is not a re-run of the first referendum as some seem determined to suggest, it assumes we will leave and consults us on how we would like this to happen.

Just from that I have picked out seven different options. That's just from your opinion on what people voted for.
How on earth is a referendum to be constructed with so many different views?
Can we tick multiple boxes?
What if there is no majority?
What is the point in voting for an option that may well have no chance of delivery?
Why, if this was such a possibility did we not run the first referendum this way?

Time to put this silliness to bed now. There will be no more referenda in this country for a very long time.
The govt will get on with the job that they are there for.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Partly. My view is that if we can establish what sort of deal we collectively prefer then that would guide what we try to achieve.

Ay present many people (mostly those who voted remain) want relatively little change. Some who voted for Brexit also want relatively little change other than control over our legislation and some limitations on freedom of movement and in particular want to retain access to the single market. I think these form a majority but that is just my opinion.

But a significant number who voted for Brexit want either an end to immigration or for it to be severely constrained. Equally some want a bi-lateral trade deal with the EU that is much the same as with some other non-EU nations like Canada, Australia, US and India which could include some tarrifs.

I am suggesting we should bottom out what the majority would like, not what they will necessarily get. It is not a re-run of the first referendum as some seem determined to suggest, it assumes we will leave and consults us on how we would like this to happen.

Of course there is an argument that there should be no futher consultation with the public. If this was based on the relatively little change approach I have no problem with it.

basically, if the result is no real change you will be happy: I'm sure that will satisfy most remainers.