If we vote for Brexit what happens

TrickyTree83

noddynoo wrote: »

But both sides did say this
It was perfectly clear that a 'soft Brexit' was more or less what Cameron was trying but failed to negotiate.
After that it was all or nothing and the politicians did all make that clear even if there lies and some of their methods were dodgy.
I personally agree with free movement and trade but find the political union a bit sinister and I think it has to become ever more united to work
The current system is unfair and unbalance
But that wasn;t on the ballot

The only thing that was on the ballot was to leave or remain in the EU. I wanted to leave because the EEA/EFTA + Political Union = EU. I wanted out of the political union so we can do things like trade with whom we want.

That's not an illogical position to take.

Conrad

MIFID 2 Rules; The London Metals Exchange (amongst other serious global players) was resigned to moving to HK, NY or Singapore. This was due to the EU's new MIFID 2 Rules which make doing such business all but impossible. Another reason we're getting out in the nick of time. London is a global hub.

CKhalvashi

Conrad wrote: »

Another blow for Remoaners, this is turning into a tsunami, lol!!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-world-bank-rating-brexit-british-business-economy-a7384151.html

Despite efforts at economic reform, its position actually dropped one place since last year


France was rated 29th in the world for "ease of doing business", behind less economically developed countries such as Georgia, Latvia and Macedonia.

The same Georgia and Latvia that have averaged double digit growth over the last 20 years?

I know you didn't write the article, but comparing counties purely based on the economic output isn't the best thing to do.

Georgia has 6 flat rate taxes, the UK (and probably France and a lot of the EU) have a lot more, most of which are progressive, which will have made doing business a lot easier, but also will have been attractive for investment.

There's much more potential for investment in less economically developed economies anyway, which is why the 10% growth in those 2 examples vs a lot less in others.

Conrad

Tricky, in posts prior to the vote I was sort of ok with a Norway style deal, but the more I look into it and read up on the view from Norway, the more I think that option is some sort of ante-room and not very satisfactory. It also leaves the door wide open for some future Clegg / Blair types to drag us back fully in.


I concluded a clean brake and a new vision for Britain was in order and I am certain we will make a damned good fist of it. Whatever Brussels technobeasts spout, real accountable politicians with real citizens enjoying real UK sales are just not going to hamper it. Not a simplistic view I think, just practical reality. The 'stop loss' Brussels need for deterrence will always play second fiddle to real jobs and incomes.

setmefree2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The only thing that was on the ballot was to leave or remain in the EU. I wanted to leave because the EEA/EFTA + Political Union = EU. I wanted out of the political union so we can do things like trade with whom we want.

That's not an illogical position to take.

Maybe you did (just like Daniel Hannan) however you must agree that the majority of people voted to take back control of immigration - which means we must leave the single market. If we want to control immigration - we have to leave the single market.

setmefree2

Conrad wrote: »

Tricky, in posts prior to the vote I was sort of ok with a Norway style deal,

It's not an option - people voted to control immigration - which means we have to leave the single market.

Conrad

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-dismissed-northern-ireland-article-50-case-eu-withdrawal-not-heard-latest-a7384386.html

Northern Ireland’s High Court has rejected the first legal challenge to Theresa May’s power to push ahead with Brexit.

Those behind the case argued the Prime Minister does not alone have the right to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, launching Brexit talks and a two-year countdown to Britain leaving the EU.

But after several days of hearings, the court in Belfast threw out the case brought by a cross-community group of politicians and human rights campaigners.

TrickyTree83

setmefree2 wrote: »

You must agree that the majority of people however voted to take back control of immigration - which means we must leave the single market. If we want to control immigration - we have to leave the single market.

I don't know, did they?

It seems unfair to say that my reasons to vote to leave the EU count for less because of some arbitrary interpretation.

I understand this isn't helpful to the conversation going on within these forums between remain and leave, but it is the reality.

mayonnaise

setmefree2 wrote: »

you must agree that the majority of people voted to take back control of immigration

No, we must not.
But we can assume remain voters were ok with free movement.
Add to that the leave voters like Tricky who wanted out the political union but are ok with free movement, or leave voters like Clapton who voted leave simply out of deep felt concern for the average African farmer.
That's a majority for free movement then.

BobQ

setmefree2 wrote: »

All politicians on both sides of the debate said we were leaving the single market.

All?

Daniel Hannon did not, so your statement is false.