If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Tory majority looking to being slashed to just 8.


OMG, the Brexiteer reaction. Vote Leave, win, get Jeremy Corbyn.

Ahahahahahahaha haaa haa ahahahah!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Phillips’s Lincolnshire seat voted heavily to Leave, so a pro-Brexit candidate will almost certainly win the seat.


I suspect a UKIP ticket of Nuttal / Evans would slash Labours vote.


Remember in Barnsley for example, with no local campaigning, no leaflet, UKIP still got 10,000 votes at the GE!!!

jimjames

ruggedtoast wrote: »

As a Remainer I accept that we will be leaving the European Union but that doesn't mean Leave, who have a very narrow majority, get to dictate every single term of that process.

That is a very good point that seems to be ignored by those on the Leave side. Yes there was a small majority to leave the EU but that still means all voters have the right to influence how that leaving takes place as there are so many variations that still fit the result of the referendum.

Tammykitty wrote: »

A vote for regaining sovereignty, was not a vote for parliamentary sovereignty, it was a vote for national sovereignty.

The referendum vote was nothing to do with process purely the outcome. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is not new and it's appalling in my view the way some of the papers have portrayed it and in particular the personal attacks on the judges and plaintiffs. I feel very sad being part of a country with such a vocal minority calling for action against the judges especially by politicians who should respect the legal process.

Tammykitty wrote: »

I accept the judgment of the court (although hope it gets overturned on appeal to speed the process up)

The best way to speed it up would be to accept the verdict and get on with it. The delay will be down to a new hearing and then waiting for the verdict which could be early next year. If the government got on with preparing the legislation now then the original timetable might still be possible. Wait till after January to begin and it seems very unlikely.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

May should, because it'll knock years of the negotiation process, and that's what we're going to get, anyway. She's going to be playing hard-ball with negotiators that can outclass her at every step and are holding all the cards.

I'll be surprised if the UK gets any say beyond which of 2/3 options the EU gives us we want to take.

You're just guessing like the rest of us.

What's wrong with both sides declaring their positions when A50 is called, and then pausing to have a debate in parliament?

We can't define Brexit because we don't know the differing views of the 27 EU states yet.

Masomnia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

As a Remainer I accept that we will be leaving the European Union but that doesn't mean Leave, who have a very narrow majority, get to dictate every single term of that process.

Herzlos wrote: »

I think it was done to ensure the process was followed legally, and the decision was made in a considered way.

No-one actually wants May to just trigger A50 and perform a mike drop, surely?

I can see it looking like an attempt to prevent Brexit, by those that value Brexit above the details and just want out with no regards to the consequences. But for everyone else, we want Brexit to be done properly.

To be fair, I'd be over the moon if parliament rejected Brexit, I think it's the stupidest thing we've tried to do in decades, but if it's going ahead, I want it to be done in a rational manner by someone other than May, Johnson and Davis, who haven't shown any competency or plan between them yet.

I appreciate the above, but you're not going to get details of the negotiations, or the government's negotiating position. On that basis I'm not really sure what it will achieve.

Parliament would inevitably get a vote later on the process, because The European Communities Act will have to be repealed, so there's nothing really to gain by having the vote now - it will just slow things down.

ruggedtoast

Conrad wrote: »

And what would Remain campaign on this time, given project fear is wholly discredited?


Leave have;


+ a positive global trading vision


+ saving a net £28 million per day



+ winning back full sovereignty


+ Taking our own seat at the global tables - agenda setting - often handing down rules to the EU

+ the persuasive argument the EU will not deliberately hamper its own trade and thus harm its own citizens


+ The FACT the US, Japan and others trade huge volumes of services and goods in Europe, with NO trade deal, let alone the one we would get


+ The FACT Canada will get free trade deal with no loss of sovereignty, AND note we are already fully aligned, so it would not take anything like 7 years, and in the meantime trade carries on as is


+The FACT dozens of foreign companies have chosen to invest in the UK post the referendum


+ Managed immigration


What will Remain campaign on next time?

The FACT is that the UK is not a particularly large or influential country on its own, it's a moderate regional power and a limited international one. It won't have much influence over anything on its own and is better off collaborating with its peers. *

*Agreement with this statement depends on the level to which you think it's still the 1930s.

beecher2

Many of you may already have seen this, but it is quite a good piece on the mechanics of leaving.
http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/leaving-the-eu-what-comes-next/

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The FACT is that the UK is not a particularly large or influential country on its own, it's a moderate regional power and a limited international one. It won't have much influence over anything on its own and is better off collaborating with its peers. *

*Agreement with this statement depends on the level to which you think it's still the 1930s.

The UK currently has zero influence so having 'not much' will be an improvement.

I see no reason why we want power or influence : we want trade and a good quality of life for our citizens and not be become a neo colonial power again.

Conrad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The FACT is that the UK is not a particularly large or influential country on its own, it's a moderate regional power and a limited international one. It won't have much influence over anything on its own and is better off collaborating with its peers. *

*Agreement with this statement depends on the level to which you think it's still the 1930s.

By extension the people of S Korea or Canada feel very unhappy with their level of influence do they? Do you have evidence for this?


Anyway, why will we stop collaborating as implied by you? Canada, Australia and Japan all sit on global panels on everything from climate change to Fishing quotas, the WTO to the UN.

ruggedtoast

Conrad wrote: »

By extension the people of S Korea or Canada feel very unhappy with their level of influence do they? Do you have evidence for this?


Anyway, why will we stop collaborating as implied by you? Canada, Australia and Japan all sit on global panels on everything from climate change to Fishing quotas, the WTO to the UN.

Oh yes. Canada and South Korea. Well you are obviously an expert on these subjects (alongside everything else) so you know that Canada is part of NAFTA and does have to pool sovereignty over a number of econimic issues with the United States and Mexico. Canadians also have visa free travel to the USA (free movement, gasp).

Canadians do have to have a job offer to receive a visa to work in the US but these are not limited in any way.

Canada also settles around 250,000 immigrants a year. It's hardly pulled the drawbridge up or withdrawn from its region as you imagine for the UK.

South Korea you clearly know nothing about. Spend 5 minutes talking to a Korean man about how they think Korea has been treated by the rest of the world, and its current status.

Evidence. Spending 1/5 of each year in a North America and having lived in the Far East for 3 years.

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

What's wrong with both sides declaring their positions when A50 is called, and then pausing to have a debate in parliament?

Sides are becoming less relevant. It's the smallest of deals for the government to explain in 10 - 15 bullet points what they hope to achieve.

They can be debated and then they can vote to trigger article 50. It's nothing but a courtesy and being respectful of parliament. It also gives away nothing of our negotiating position.

If the debate was purely about whether to trigger article 50 I'd see that as the government acting in bad faith.