If we vote for Brexit what happens

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

I don't think it's an entirely unfair point, although I accept they will moan about anything and everything. They quite reasonably want to focus on the elections without having to try and campaign on EU membership at the same time. It isn't like the timing of the elections is a surprise, or that it is difficult to have the referendum a little later; the only downside is Cameron is worried about having an extended period of civil war within his own party. I struggle to feel too sorry for him as it is his own actions that created this situation.

Membership of the EU is an issue that is reserved for the UK, it has nothing to do with the Scottish Government elections any more than it has to do with a Parish Council by election.

The British Government should call the election when they are ready to call it. It has nothing more to do with an election in Scotland than it does with an election in Shoreditch.

RJP33

CLAPTON wrote: »

so a total refusal to address economic issues

Such as what? Why we pay billions every year to be part of a common market?

Or why the UK can't sign its own free trade deals?

Or on migration why we would treat EU migrants different to non-EU migrants, who we actually have more in common with?

N1AK

kabayiri wrote: »

Won't there be enough resources campaigning for IN or OUT beyond SNP resources though?

I'm not comfortable with making IN/OUT a divisive issue between Scots and English and Welsh and Northern Irish. It's an issue you vote on for the longer term, potentially beyond current political parties.

Can we get UKIP and its members to commit to not campaigning on the issue and would that be appropriate? Either UK political parties and their members should be able to campaign or not, and restricting their ability to do so when there is no need to (apart from blatant party politics) shouldn't be just dismissed off hand.

Isn't it more divisive for a government elected by the English to ignore the requests of the representatives of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish?

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Membership of the EU is an issue that is reserved for the UK, it has nothing to do with the Scottish Government elections any more than it has to do with a Parish Council by election.

The British Government should call the election when they are ready to call it. It has nothing more to do with an election in Scotland than it does with an election in Shoreditch.

Firstly it is a referendum not an election. Secondly the issue, which you seem to have entirely missed, is exactly that the two have nothing to do with each other! English MPs and active political party members will be free to focus on campaigning about the referendum, while those in the devolved parliaments will be forced to choose between campaigning for local elections and on the referendum (or split there efforts and do neither as well as they could).

Crashy_Time

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Don`t you think there are already tons of people up and down the country already into NE on their 2007/8 mortgage? The UK isn`t London, most of the UK doesn`t give a monkeys about London, and a few Arabs buying developments there won`t save the UK property market. People won`t throw in the towel at 30-40k losses though, on their main house anyway, they will pay the mortgage until they lose their jobs (see Aberdeen) but BTL is another matter, I can see the appetite for that drying up over the next few years, and a lot of it hitting the market.

And lo and behold, most of this mornings press/media agrees with me.....:rotfl:

CLAPTON

at the last general election I had to vote both in the national elections and in the local election

I remember feeling how unfair it was because in some constituencies people only had to vote in the GE.

Whilst the young can easily cope, I felt it was particularly unfair for the old and the vulnerable.

it seems to me the only fair thing to do, is to hold a referendum to decide whether or not we can reasonably cope with two ballot papers or not.
If one or more of the 4 nations decided that is was too onerous, then there could be a second referendum in that nation to decide which of the two votes they should forego.

angrypirate

CLAPTON wrote: »

at the last general election I had to vote both in the national elections and in the local election

I remember feeling how unfair it was because in some constituencies people only had to vote in the GE.

Whilst the young can easily cope, I felt it was particularly unfair for the old and the vulnerable.

it seems to me the only fair thing to do, is to hold a referendum to decide whether or not we can reasonably cope with two ballot papers or not.
If one or more of the 4 nations decided that is was too onerous, then there could be a second referendum in that nation to decide which of the two votes they should forego.

Ha ha

Seriously tho, I dont know what the fuss is all about. Cameron has already said that the referendum wont be held within 6 weeks of the other elections (which are in May). So we know that the referendum will not be held with others and that it could be June.

Rinoa

Americans will soon be electing a president, governor, senator, congressman and many local officials, all on the same day.

They don't appear to be overawed by the prospect.

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

Whilst the young can easily cope, I felt it was particularly unfair for the old and the vulnerable.

What you should do Clappers, is decide which way to vote on the first ballot. Then go away, have a nice cuppa and piece of cake, and a good think, and then come back for the second ballot.

It's no rush, and you old'uns have all day to waste.

CLAPTON

purch wrote: »

What you should do Clappers, is decide which way to vote on the first ballot. Then go away, have a nice cuppa and piece of cake, and a good think, and then come back for the second ballot.

It's no rush, and you old'uns have all day to waste.

I'm booked for a 100km cycle ride that day but i will try to vote early and often nevertheless.