If we vote for Brexit what happens

whatmichaelsays

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes but there will be a lot of people asking what's the point of Brexit if everything just stays more or less the same in terms of FOM and paying into the EU etc etc. That's what's coming across at the moment. Brexit means Brexit but a Brexit which is almost the same as just not having the vote in the first place.

( I voted remain ).

That's why the referendum was fundamentally flawed. Without actually having a particular flavour of post-EU Britain on the table, it was too complicated an issue upon which to hold a referendum with a binary question.

Ask 10 leave voters what they voted for, and you'd probably get 10 different answers.

whatmichaelsays

CLAPTON wrote: »

points based system are useless

-decide how many immigrants want in total lets say 20k
-hold contingency number for politicians to play with say 20%
-simple auction of the rest on a money basis
if it turns out that a chip shop in hull bids more than RR for a aero engineer then so beit.

obviously criminal records checks, minimum eduction levels,fluent in English, health checks etc

We also have to seriously ask whether the government is in a position to understand the skills needs and shortages in the country.

The people who are best placed to decide which skills the country needs to import are the people who need to import those skills because they cannot find them in the local labour market. I seriously doubt that Whitehall could get that assessment right.

CLAPTON

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

That's why the referendum was fundamentally flawed. Without actually having a particular flavour of post-EU Britain on the table, it was too complicated an issue upon which to hold a referendum with a binary question.

Ask 10 leave voters what they voted for, and you'd probably get 10 different answers.

every election we have is 'too' complicated to simply vote for a party but we do it year after year

the referendum question was reasonable and the result was leave.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

UKIP are just a pretend stick being used to scare Scots into supporting independence because they'd favour a hard Brexit.

SNP towers still don't think they'd win a second referendum. It's self evident because if they did a referendum would've been announced.

The GE in 2015 was the high water mark. May 2016 was OK but I expected the SNP to secure more seats and I'm pretty sure you did too.

They have to wait for Article 50. This is all on the Scottish thread so am not going to dilute the discussion here by going over it all again.

buglawton

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well Theresa May has rejected the idea of a point based system for EU immigration yesterday.

And is now exploring both permit based and EU 'free movement light' with an emergency brake.

In the meantime, the govt has also rejected the idea of spending £350m a week on the NHS, has rejected the idea of a fuel tax cut, and has been warned by Japan and the US that most of their businesses here require full single market access if they're to stay here and not move to the EU, perhaps not immediately but certainly in the next investment cycle.

Oh.... And David Davies has said we need to keep as much single market access as we can, while Boris has been in Poland extending the welcome mat for future Polish migrants.

And of course the wonderful world of twitter has been pointing out the last Conservative Party manifesto promised both a referendum on EU membership and also a commitment to stay in the single market.

So the Tories have the 'get-out' clause they're looking for if they negotiate a sensible deal to stay in the single market after all.

The Brexiteers don't appear to be getting much of anything they actually thought they were voting for....

So the Tory party is showing all the signs of supreme confidence that it can do what it likes and abide only by the letter, but absolutely not the spirit, of the Referendum result?

Tory leadership overconfidence and complacency, followed by stage 2 it's downfall is then a very real prospect. It wouldn't be an exact repeat of the Cameron history, but it will rhyme.

Commons vote of no confidence upcoming, maybe? Don't be too smug about 'no election before 2020', Teresa!

whatmichaelsays

CLAPTON wrote: »

every election we have is 'too' complicated to simply vote for a party but we do it year after year

the referendum question was reasonable and the result was leave.

A general election typically has a defined outcome. The respective parties publish a manifesto, which outlines their aims and position on key issues.

The referendum had nothing of the sort. All we had was a vague idea of what a Brexit 'could' be, and high profile politicians (on both sides, but particularly Leave) making claims that they had absolutely no right to make.

TrickyTree83

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

A general election typically has a defined outcome. The respective parties publish a manifesto, which outlines their aims and position on key issues.

The referendum had nothing of the sort. All we had was a vague idea of what a Brexit 'could' be, and high profile politicians (on both sides, but particularly Leave) making claims that they had absolutely no right to make.

I feel I need to pull you up on the assertion that only the Leave option was a vague idea.

You're fully aware I'm sure that remaining in the European Union also came with vagaries, and that the destination of the European Union over the next 5 years is as difficult to predict as the destination of Brexit.

CLAPTON

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

A general election typically has a defined outcome. The respective parties publish a manifesto, which outlines their aims and position on key issues.

The referendum had nothing of the sort. All we had was a vague idea of what a Brexit 'could' be, and high profile politicians (on both sides, but particularly Leave) making claims that they had absolutely no right to make.

general election do not have defined outcomes : they give a general direction of travel.
manefesto commitments are routine broken and legislation is routinely enacted which wasn't in the manefesto.
many commitments are as vague as promising to hold a referendum on leaving the EU


I even remember clear unambiguous statements that said
-'we have no plans to increase VAT'
-we will reduce immigration to the 10s of thousands

whatmichaelsays

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I feel I need to pull you up on the assertion that only the Leave option was a vague idea.

You're fully aware I'm sure that remaining in the European Union also came with vagaries, and that the destination of the European Union over the next 5 years is as difficult to predict as the destination of Brexit.

Oh absolutely. Neither argument was perfect and there were absolutely uncertainties with remaining, but I would argue that the results were easier to forecast.

However, when you have claims such as the ones that were made by the Leave campaign made people who aren't in a position to enact said claims, then you have a problem in my opinion.

whatmichaelsays

CLAPTON wrote: »

general election do not have defined outcomes : they give a general direction of travel.
manefesto commitments are routine broken and legislation is routinely enacted which wasn't in the manefesto.
many commitments are as vague as promising to hold a referendum on leaving the EU


I even remember clear unambiguous statements that said
-'we have no plans to increase VAT'
-we will reduce immigration to the 10s of thousands

Manifestos at least provide a degree of commitment. They say "judge us on these key policies". Yes, some are broken, but they largely give a sense of what a vote for a particular party will lead to. It's also worth noting that elections aren't binary 'Yes/No' questions. Most people have upwards of 6/7 MP candidates to choose from, all standing for different outcomes.

There was nothing of the sort when it came to the referendum. If one leave voter wants to sever all ties, whilst the other wants to retain free movement, who gets what they want?

I stand by my assertation - EU membership has too many shades of grey to be reduced to a binary question.