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

BobQ

p1212 wrote: »

The vote was very well defined, they said we vote out, they trigger article 50 the very next day. At this point that's all we need to know until triggering article 50 is done.

"making plans", "lets define it" etc... are remainer terms which actually mean gaining time and cancelling brexit, we all know this.

We don't need plans, ofc we wan't free trade and immigration restrictions. The "plan" is to achieve as much as we can from these AFTER we've triggered article 50 and started negotiations. What other plans and definitions you need?

Ah now I understand your problem, you thought we could vote for Brexit without any idea what happened next. That explains a lot.

Have you written to Teresa May and offerred your services as a negotiator?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

no, it was clear that many 'remainers' were appalled by the thought that Turkish people might have no immigration restrictions : they even 'accused' brexiters' of scare mongering by the very suggestion.

It is clear that many 'remainers' would like immigration restriction applied even to the white, crhristian european countries but felt that overall taking everything into consideration, that they would vote remain.

Really? You have evidence of this?

It would have been more logical for these remainers to have voted for Brexit. I would have done if I believed that there were 100m Turks planning to head for Britain.

Jason74

p1212 wrote: »

Lol, so your suggestion saying not all brexiters want immigration restrictions is valid, while someone else saying not all bremainers want open borders is snake oil?

Let me tell you all of my genuine white british remainer friends and colleauges think that while they want to stay in the EU they would want some kind of immigration restrictions.

So exactly what has the colour of someone's skin got to do with this debate ?. I'm concerned to say the least about why you think this is relevant.

BobQ

p1212 wrote: »

Even if our "fantastic, clever" MP's waste 20 years making zillion plans, the rest will still be unknown...

Also the unknown should've been addressed BEFORE the vote. For some reasons at that time it was not important for the remainers what we were voting about as they were so sure about winning.

Why should Remain have worked out what Brexit meant? It was Brexit that should have been doing that. Now you have bought a pig in a poke you say there is no need to say what Brexit means.

Now they've lost, suddenly this vote seems to be invalid as we did not even know the details. Well, it is your problem, brexit side was happy with everything they knew -> if the result is out we trigger article 50.

I have never called the Referendum result invalid and know of no serious claim that it is. But now we have this result it is evident that Brexit could mean many different conflcting things all of which involve leaving. The question being asked is what happens after this?. Article 50 is invoked whatever the outcome, but what then?

If remainers were not happy with this, they should've talked BEFORE. Owen Smith was quiet together with everyone else. Now it's too late to explain yourselves......

You should've talked before and be quiet now, not the other way around.

Remain talked endlessly about the issues before the vote. Smith was just an MP and did speak for remain.

This is now about what Brexit means? Having voted remain and seen the vote narrowly lost, I accept the result. But this does not remove the right of 48% to have a say in what happens next to achieve Brexit. We have the right to an opinion too you know!

Now it's the time to trigger article 50.

That is a decision for the Government. All that does is starts negotiations. You seem content to negotiate without any idea of what you want to achieve, in effect to trust to luck. Hopefully you will like what is agreed, since you have no idea what success would look like.

Conrad

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't buy it. I don't think EU leaders are coming at this from the 'punishing' Britain aspect, more the 'we need to discourage any further members from thinking leaving the EU would be a good idea'.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/29/voted-out-eu-brexit-hurt-german-vice-chancellor-britain


And lets not forget that Davies and Fox are all out to secure a hard Brexit, not a soft one. For them it's stopping FOM or bust. Or more likely stopping FOM AND bust.

And likewise, if the German's, French and others want to carry on selling 2 million cars and far more besides, we won't let them have the nice bits, we too would have to retaliate if they decide to play hard ball. I'm sure the Aussies, Californians and others would queue to sell us wine if French wine goes up in price due to protectionism.

It's just simply naive to suppose anything substantial is going to get in the way of trade which would lead to higher unemployment. You Bremains really are fantasists if you truly think free movement will trump trading.

BobQ

p1212 wrote: »

Then we can talk about why we have "white british" "white other" "asian" "black" etc... questions on all official forms...

This is nothing to do with the EU. The Equality Act is inteded to prevent discrimination which includes discrimination of a racial kind. Previously we had the Race Relations Act 1965 which banned discrimination based on race, ethnicity and nationality and was largely a reaction to non-white immigration from the Commonwealth.

The questions on official forms are just a way of categorising individuals. If, for example, a local council is believed to discriminate against Asians in allocating accommodation. how can anyone know if they do not collect ethnicity data on the applications?

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

I wonder what the result of a referendum question that asked -

Should the British government be able to control immigration?
Yes
No

Would be.

I'll wager that it would be a conclusive yes vote.
Which wouldn't quite stack up with your '48% are happy wth immigration' bobbins.

Of course you can disagree with my assessment, you usually do. But I bet most people would agree with me.

#

Which is why the Electoral Reform Society would not allow a Government to ask such a biased, loaded question.

Conrad

[QUOTE=BobQ;

This is now about what Brexit means? Having voted remain and seen the vote narrowly lost, I accept the result. But this does not remove the right of 48% to have a say [/QUOTE]


Problem is Remainers could not and cannot see the benefits, cannot envisage the huge opportunity before us and as such the remain views of Brexit would be at best timid, informed by anxiety and fear and lacking vision so I can't see the point of inviting such opinion.

For example Remainers still talk in terms of the EU holding the whip hand, many having next to no sense of the aces and power we hold, and thus they would start out with quite limited ambition as to what we can get from the negotiation. I see them all the time warning everyone we will get shafted, that we are just a jellyfish that will get prodded and not react, an insane outlook.

To bring this into focus, think back to Obamas back of the queue threat, all you Bremainers kept bringing it up where as we leavers recognised it was total nonsense, we were not so easily cowed and manipulated. Most of KNOW this is a fantastic opportunity and will be the making of us

Brexiteers are almost by definition far more confident about our place in the world and our abilities, we do not share a fear of embracing our own autonomy

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

#

Which is why the Electoral Reform Society would not allow a Government to ask such a biased, loaded question.

Well done on completely missing the point.

Shakethedisease

Conrad wrote: »

And likewise, if the German's, French and others want to carry on selling 2 million cars and far more besides, we won't let them have the nice bits, we too would have to retaliate if they decide to play hard ball. I'm sure the Aussies, Californians and others would queue to sell us wine if French wine goes up in price due to protectionism.

It's just simply naive to suppose anything substantial is going to get in the way of trade which would lead to higher unemployment. You Bremains really are fantasists if you truly think free movement will trump trading.

Yes, 'German cars' were mentioned in the article too.

You’ll recall a lot of talk of apoplectic German car manufacturers – the rational case for a punitive approach barely makes an appearance. It bears repeating: in the next couple of years, it seems likely there will be courses of action available to EU states that will be against their own immediate and narrow self-interest as well as Britain’s. It will appear superficially vindictive and foolish to take them.

But the easier our path out of Europe is to navigate, the smaller the disincentives to others who may think of following us. And so those punitive actions may sometimes be wise to take all the same. It may be worth cutting off your nose to spite your face if the infection is in danger of spreading to your eyes and ears. None of this is pleasant, but none of it is surprising, either: any right we had to expect special treatment expired, obviously, when we voted to give it up.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/29/voted-out-eu-brexit-hurt-german-vice-chancellor-britain


California and Australia are thousands of miles away. The EU is only 22. Surely leavers must just be a little worried by now that nothing is going to happen for a very long time. And even if it does, it will mean little change ? Or will only stir up another UKIP revival. There's not exactly been a wealth of information coming from the Govt in recent weeks.

I understand that it's recess time, but it's very obvious now that the EU aren't prepared to negotiate anything at all until Article 50 is triggered. And many other countries like Canada aren't willing to negotiate with the UK until they know where the UK stands in terms of EU trade. So nothing much is going to get done anywhere and with anyone until Article 50 is invoked.