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

System

Are people misreading this? It has nothing to do with remain or changing the result. It's about what does leave mean.

westernpromise

I thought from the outset that there should have been two referendums. The first would have said something like "Should the UK leave the EU unless we can significantly vary the terms of our membership by date X?". If that's a Yes, Cameron then goes to Brussels and says Right, I'm going to have to bl00dy implement this unless something changes, so pony up.

The second then says "It's past Date X, you've now seen what the terms of exit will be - so should we stay or go?"

I happen to think that Leave would have won either way. But what we have learnt, instructively, is that quite a large chunk of the elite feels that referendums and the plebs should be ignored if they fail to rubber-stamp the establishment opinion. Indeed, they have been at pains to express their contempt and to justify why the result should be ignored. I have even read in the Guardian that it was an "advisory" referendum, and thus needn't be implemented, for example. Presumably this means that if Remain had won, that would have been advisory too, and we could have left anyway?

The risk for Remoaners in all this is that, as time goes by and nothing bad happens - or, worse, bad stuff happens in the EU but not to us - attitudes harden, and the decision to Leave starts to look wiser by the day. For my money that is roughly where we're heading. Just as Black Wednesday 1992 turned out to be White Wednesday, 23/6/16 may look like the day we unhandcuffed ourselves from the rails of a sinking ship.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

Why are the government best placed to determine what, other than an EU exit, represents a reasonable outcome of any negotiations? Are they psychic?

They are not psychic, but they are elected to carry out the will of the people. The will of the people is to leave the EU.
It was not leave the EU as long as we like the look of the resulting deal.

Eric_the_half_a_bee

"We will vote in Parliament to block any attempt to invoke Article 50 until Theresa May commits to a second referendum or a general election on whatever EU exit deal emerges at the end of the process."

Smith is an idiot. What does he propose if the British people say "no" to the EU exit deal that "emerges at the end of the process" ? Ask the EU to return to the current arrangements? We will have triggered Article 50 by then, and that does not provide for a U turn. What makes him think the EU will offer the current arrangements as an option, as opposed to a full scale re-application as a new member, with all that entails (mandatory membership of the Euro, etc).

CLAPTON

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

Smith is an idiot. What does he propose if the British people say "no" to the EU exit deal that "emerges at the end of the process" ? Ask the EU to return to the current arrangements? We will have triggered Article 50 by then, and that does not provide for a U turn. What makes him think the EU will offer the current arrangements as an option, as opposed to a full scale re-application as a new member, with all that entails (mandatory membership of the Euro, etc).

for the true EU acolytes, no price is too much to remain in the EU

mrginge

westernpromise wrote: »

I thought from the outset that there should have been two referendums. The first would have said something like "Should the UK leave the EU unless we can significantly vary the terms of our membership by date X?". If that's a Yes, Cameron then goes to Brussels and says Right, I'm going to have to bl00dy implement this unless something changes, so pony up.

Didn't DC try doing something like that at the beginning of the year?

Didn't the EU tell him (as you would expect) to jog on?

The second then says "It's past Date X, you've now seen what the terms of exit will be - so should we stay or go?"

So that is a one-shot negotiation then. No chance to go back and ask for more?
Why would the EU waste their time seriously negotiating with a country that 'might' do something....
Wouldn't they obviously give very little in order to make sure that the UK electorate rejected it?

Isn't that exactly what the EU did and what they expected to happen?
Unfortunately they underestimated....

p1212

Jason74 wrote: »

I would generally agree with you, but I think this is a bit of a special case. The leave camp put forward a vision of what was possible that the remain camp said was impossible. Now the exact nature of this meant different things to different people, but I think it's reasonable to say that a significant number of leave voters "bought" a position that was that full single market access could be maintained while placing controls on immigration.

If that can be achieved, then there is imho no grounds for a second referendum. The public will have got what they voted for, and everyone will need to move on. But if that outcome can't be achieved, then I think it's perfectly appropriate to go back to the country and ask them which of the available options they want to move forward with. Indeed, to not do that would imho effectively be to pull the wool over the eyes of voters.

We don't really need a complex vision about brexit. Even if we won't have free trade then what? Some businesses will go bust and others will grow. Anyone cares?

Brexit is only risk for the asset rich, who already has a lot of assets valuable only in a world where we have huge immigration, where they can manufacture cheaper in the EU, where they can sell their 1 bed flat for a million to chinese etc... They are scared now as they don't want to lose their wealth. The average person can just work for the other company which has just been established.

Recession is always rich people's problems the average guy with a house and a holiday home, with a partner both having a job has nothing to lose. At the last recession in 2008 unemployment went up from 5% to 8%. Then what? 95% vs 92% in employment is nothing, still 9 out of 10 people had work. Most families were unaffected and it is extremely unlikely both earners got into this 3%. Average families have lost nothing, actually they've gained, as asset prices did fall and they had the chance of buying them.

All the scaremongering and fears were about the wealthy ones losing money.
Recession is always just the problem of the wealthy ones.

The same is happening now, it is not a fight against the EU, it is a fight between classes and against camerons government which supported the upper class.

westernpromise

mrginge wrote: »

Didn't DC try doing something like that at the beginning of the year?

Didn't the EU tell him (as you would expect) to jog on?



So that is a one-shot negotiation then. No chance to go back and ask for more?
Why would the EU waste their time seriously negotiating with a country that 'might' do something....
Wouldn't they obviously give very little in order to make sure that the UK electorate rejected it?

Isn't that exactly what the EU did and what they expected to happen?
Unfortunately they underestimated....

No - if you have no alternative course of action to accepting whatever is offered to you, the other party has no need to give you anything at all. Cameron had no mandate to Leave previously so he was just ignored, because the Brussels elite expected a Remain vote anyway. Seeing no adverse consequences to giving him nothing, that's what he got.

The advantage of the above approach would have been that he did have such a mandate. If Brussels did tell him to jog on, or issued the kind of insults, scoldings and threats that we actually have seen, and still offered nothing, then he reminds them that we have voted to Leave unless we rethink. None of the vitriol from the EU since Brexit is because the EU thinks Britain will lose out. It's because they think they will. That focuses their minds wonderfully on their own interests.

AnotherJoe

westernpromise wrote: »

I thought from the outset that there should have been two referendums. The first would have said something like "Should the UK leave the EU unless we can significantly vary the terms of our membership by date X?". If that's a Yes, Cameron then goes to Brussels and says Right, I'm going to have to bl00dy implement this unless something changes, so pony up.

The second then says "It's past Date X, you've now seen what the terms of exit will be - so should we stay or go?"

The third says well we've now got these arrangements, what do you say. The answers "No"

So the fourth says "well we got a bit more movement on X" so what about now?

etc.

This is after all whats happened so far with other European votes, keep having them until the answer is the one the Eurocrats want, and if you cant get that, have a different agreement (change the name for example, call it Lisbon instead of Schengen or whatever) to which a vote isn't necessary, and implement that.

This I think is what "Brexit means Brexit" actually means, it means no more bl**dy votes, get on with it and hope the politicians come up with the best deal they can get and we'll take the consequences.

And if we find we dont like them, that can be settled in the normal way through a general election.

mayonnaise

Eric_the_half_a_bee wrote: »

We will have triggered Article 50 by then, and that does not provide for a U turn. What makes him think the EU will offer the current arrangements as an option, as opposed to a full scale re-application as a new member, with all that entails (mandatory membership of the Euro, etc).

Incorrect.

There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-how-does-article-50-work-2016-7