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

p1212

Ronaldo_Mconaldo wrote: »

Could you imagine another referendum on the terms of Brexit? There's thousands of laws and rules and regulations to untangle when we're actually leaving the EU, they're looking to hire hundred of people to crack on with negotiations. So what's going to happen with this new refendum? Is it going to be multiple choice for each rule? Maybe we could have a vote on every rule every day over the next three years that it might take.

We voted 'leave', we changed Prime Minister with 6 weeks of it happening, do people really still think that that the Queen is going to float down and wave a magic wand and say it was all just a bad dream? It's happening.

Teresa May could come back at the start of September and trigger Article 50 and then there may not even be a general election until 2020 by which time Owen Smith won't have any Brexit left to stop, in the highly unlikely even Labour win that election and in the unlikely even thatOwen Smith is their leader at the time.

Good times.

I agree with you we should leave, but I don't think it will ever happen.

Don't forget May was a remainer and she was the person favoured by the majority of remainers, that's why she got PMs chair without any democratic vote. These same people in the background can do the same any time, if May misbehaves they will just make someone else PM.

That's why May will need MPs approval to trigger 50, she cannot trigger it alone against their own party.

Most MPs - including May - want to remain and they will always say, don't trigger it now, we are not ready, they will always find something. This plan is not good enough, we need X and Y, let's work on it for a bit more.

Or this brexit minister brigade is not up to the task, cannot deliver results, lets replace them, so we need a bit more time again.

There is not going to be any single point when majority of remainer MPs will say I am ready to vote yes now, so it won't ever happen. If May pushes it hard, she won't be prime minister for too long.

Fast forward 18 months, it is 2018 already, they will say how could May trigger article 50, when someone else will need to deal with it? Let's wait general elections then, when everyone will campaign with the second referendum and the winner will make it happen.

And a lot of other things can happen in the meantime, but one thing is for sure, they won't give up their will to the average joe.

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

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.

I don't want a referendum to ask whether we should stay or go - that's done and dusted. That doesn't need a Brexit Tsar or teams of negotiators. We give notice and leave.

However, I would like the negotiating team to be informed as to what the will of the people is as far as a post-Brexit relationship looks like.

It's very unclear what the will of the people is so I don't see how the government are able to perceive it. If we're not careful the will of the people will be interpreted as the best approach to secure a Tory GE victory in 2020.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't want a referendum to ask whether we should stay or go - that's done and dusted. That doesn't need a Brexit Tsar or teams of negotiators. We give notice and leave.

However, I would like the negotiating team to be informed as to what the will of the people is as far as a post-Brexit relationship looks like.

It's very unclear what the will of the people is so I don't see how the government are able to perceive it. If we're not careful the will of the people will be interpreted as the best approach to secure a Tory GE victory in 2020.

The government can perceive it however they want as long as they carry out the instruction to leave the EU. Referenda don't deal with the detail, they outline a headline requirement.
If you don't trust the government to make decisions then what exactly is their purpose?

mayonnaise

stockton wrote: »

Parliament asked the question of the electorate not the other way around. It does not help to use emotive words like "mob rule". If the vote had been to remain would you describe it as an example of mob rule? Nobody mentioned mob rule until after the result. Funny that!

Sure, you can check my posting history.
I always thought a referendum was a bad idea. Nothing to do with sour grapes.
Here's a post of mine from way before it was even sure there would be a referendum:

the public doesn't have to necessary knowledge to make an informed decision. Democracy should not be a popularity contest.
If you want the UK out of EU, then you can vote for a party that wants the UK out of the EU.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=65148517&postcount=39

Malthusian

The fact that one political party made a manifesto promise to hold an EU referendum and the other one (by omission) made a manifesto promise that they wouldn't, and we voted for the former, rather undermines your stance that the public should only be allowed to express their will through parliamentary democracy and not via referenda.

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

The government can perceive it however they want as long as they carry out the instruction to leave the EU. Referenda don't deal with the detail, they outline a headline requirement.
If you don't trust the government to make decisions then what exactly is their purpose?

So in that case, I ask again:
A Norway type deal of single market access, free movement, conforming to certain EU legislation and monetary contributions, is fine, because our democratically elected government decide it is?

p1212

mwpt wrote: »

So in that case, I ask again:
A Norway type deal of single market access, free movement, conforming to certain EU legislation and monetary contributions, is fine, because our democratically elected government decide it is?

A lot of MP's will say I am not voting for this, cause we actually have this one, with the added benefit of being part of the EU lawmaking.

As the EU cannot compromise on free movement and free trade (otherwise everyone would leave the EU) it is not possible to come up with a deal.

Now that's the other reason why brexit won't happen.

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

So in that case, I ask again:
A Norway type deal of single market access, free movement, conforming to certain EU legislation and monetary contributions, is fine, because our democratically elected government decide it is?

If that's what they decide is the best option then yes.
They of course need to consider whether that would result in mass demonstrations, a resurgence of UKIP and see them kicked out of power at the next GE.

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

The government can perceive it however they want as long as they carry out the instruction to leave the EU. Referenda don't deal with the detail, they outline a headline requirement.
If you don't trust the government to make decisions then what exactly is their purpose?

Well I hope they perceive it as being as close to the status quo as it's possible to be whilst not being an EU member. I assume you hope their perception is somewhat different? What's the harm in taking the time to find out where a consensus may lie?

It doesn't actually need a referendum if anyone's worried it'll turn into an in/out question. Maybe the government could start a consultation process - they consult quite happily on a range of much less significant issues.

It was important enough to have a referendum so it's important enough to find out what the will of the people actually is. Even more so since there's no effective opposition holding the government to account.

Thrugelmir

mwpt wrote: »

A Norway type deal of single market access, free movement, conforming to certain EU legislation and monetary contributions, is fine, because our democratically elected government decide it is?

Norway and the UK are so very different in many respects. Far too simplistic.