If we vote for Brexit what happens

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

just 14m+ less than voted to leave.

Yes indeed. But still they come......

mrginge

setmefree2 wrote: »

For me - my MP has a mandate to vote Remain. He was Remain at last years election and that's what I voted for. Also the area I live voted remain in the ref.

My guess - the Tories will have their leadership election, MPs will vote to Remain and an election will be triggered.

I think you are probably right with that guess.

The even bigger risk in this is that the leavers are soooo pee'd off at their MPs failing to carry out their wishes that a GE becomes a festival of UKIP and we end up with a complete mess.

If only governments of the last twenty years had listened the electorate instead of lecturing, patronising and lying to them...

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

Yes indeed. But still they come......

Apparently it's the leavers that are educationally subnormal.

And yet here you are, choosing to believe an on-line petition that can be manipulated by a twelve year old and has no credibility.

Shakethedisease

Seriously ? :eek:

Faisal Islam ‏@faisalislam 1h1 hour ago Conservative Leave MP, Boris backer: "there is no plan. Leave campaign don't have a post Brexit plan, Number 10 should have had one"

mwpt

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Seriously ? :eek:

Seriously what? You really expect a prime minister who always planned to resign if the result was leave to spend his time formulating a plan that he would have no part of? That should have and probably has been done by some of the senior leave campaigners. My guess is they'll be pushing for a Norwegian type deal where we remain almost as we are now but pacify the leave voters who were concerned about "control".

But then again, I was wrong about the result of the referendum. Maybe they really are going to go "full Nigel".

Yolina

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Seriously ? :eek:

You seem surprised? It's fairly obvious that no-one has a plan, otherwise Article 50 would have been invoked sharpish. As is it they're all stalling while trying to vaguely come up with something.

kabayiri

You need to understand the prevailing counterparty view to enter into negotiations constructively IMO.

Earlier on the radio they had a French commentator and a German politician. They were asked their thoughts directly.

The French lady was moderately aggressive : reap what you sow style.

The German guy was more conciliatory. He wanted the negotiations to have a good start and if that meant delaying a few months, then so be it.

It's easy to imagine the EU as an amorphous block with one viewpoint, but it clearly isn't.

There is a potential for different winners and losers out of this. Some politicians will feel the need to play to the gallery back home to secure their own future.

michaels

Now we have voted to leave I think we should immediately open up immigration to any countries where our minimum wage would not be a draw (subject to immigrants would not qualify for any state services for 5 years), for example Canada, Japan, The Netherlands, and suggest that they reciprocate if they want to.

We could also institute something similar for anyone who wanted to work in the NHS as a doctor or nurse wherever they came from subect to qualifications including english, perhaps limiting rights to bring in family members for the first 5 years.

Then after 5 years people could have the right to naturalize.

Both these rules would also apply to EU nations of course.

WE could set some rules on a by country basis for annual net migration if figures looked too large.

mwpt

michaels wrote: »

Now we have voted to leave I think we should immediately open up immigration to any countries where our minimum wage would not be a draw (subject to immigrants would not qualify for any state services for 5 years), for example Canada, Japan, The Netherlands, and suggest that they reciprocate if they want to.

We could also institute something similar for anyone who wanted to work in the NHS as a doctor or nurse wherever they came from subect to qualifications including english, perhaps limiting rights to bring in family members for the first 5 years.

Then after 5 years people could have the right to naturalize.

Both these rules would also apply to EU nations of course.

WE could set some rules on a by country basis for annual net migration if figures looked too large.

It isn't a terrible idea. Another idea is that instead of just benefiting already rich countries we extend this to slightly poorer countries who meet certain criteria. We could offer a small subsidy to these countries to help them build out their infrastructure so that over time they join us as one of the rich countries. I could see all sides profiting from such a deal in the longer term.

michaels

mwpt wrote: »

It isn't a terrible idea. Another idea is that instead of just benefiting already rich countries we extend this to slightly poorer countries who meet certain criteria. We could offer a small subsidy to these countries to help them build out their infrastructure so that over time they join us as one of the rich countries. I could see all sides profiting from such a deal in the longer term.

But you would limit yourself to white, christian countries on a certain continent and would also attract large numbers of low income workers who would distort our labour market and would be much mroe likely to lead to assymetric immiration/emmigration patterns due to the large disparity in incomes....

My idea would probably leave overall migrant numbers only a little down on now but would mean that we got exactly the immigrants we need to maintain social cohesion and provide most benefit to the uk.