Question for Leave Voters Only

[lljkk]

(I know what Remainers will say :) ).

When do you want Article 50 to be invoked? What is latest acceptable date?
If any, what conditions must be met?

Well said ommm & flavia (as always).

Ommmm - thank you for your well thought out argument. Yes I suppose I am the metroplitan elite, well educated, have travelled widely, studied in Eastern Europe and so am not challenged economically or culturally by difference.

I really don't believe the majority of leavers have been cursing the EU for 10,20, 40 years. What they have increasingly been challenged by is globalisation and governments since 1979 that have failed to support them. The world is scary at the moment how easy is it to watch the news and import a spread of Islamic fundamentalism, not scared, trautimised young men scarred by violence and violent internet porn. The leaver vote, the scary prospect of a Trump presidency all play into the same narrative of 'them' (EU) and 'us' (GB).

Article 50 triggered early in Jan 2017, I hope.

Today I read a suggestion that Britain could stay in the single movement and have a 7-10 year "emergency brake" on immigration, after which it would presumably revert back to how it is now. What would be the point of that? That's not leaving the EU, in any meaningful sense.

I don't want to stay in the single market or have a watered-down "Brexit lite" with far too many conditions attached. For real control over our finances, businesses, immigration, laws, jobs, farming, trade etc. I'd rather leave the SM altogether if that's what it takes to escape the EU. Yes, there could be tariffs but these are so much lower these days and Britain does have leverage of its own. The vote was to Leave the EU fully, not to maintain an almost identical connection with it.

I find it particularly annoying when people insist "If you want to be in the SM you have to accept Freedom of Movement". This may turn out not to be the case, it depends how the negotiations go over the next 2 years. Why give up before you even start? Britain's starting point should be far more hardball than that. We're under zero obligation to be politely British to the point of saying yes to anything Brussels requires without question.

Also the constant refrain of "but what does Brexit look like?" No-one could promise that we'll have a (Country Name) model, because of course it does, once again, depend on the forthcoming negotiations. Neither campaign was a political party, so they weren't in a position to take forward any specific plan or fulfil a manifesto. Individual voters, again, cannot specify what it "looks like" because we're not in political positions of power to deliver on that. Politicians cannot yet say "it looks like X" because it depends how the negotiations go. Nor can the Remainers state what the EU will, or would have, looked like in 5, 10, 50 years time.

What it should certainly look like, and be, is leaving the European Union. Not leaving just a little bit of it, and being bribed into re-joining fully a few years down the line.

I would like to see A50 triggered early next year if not before. Serious negotiations can't start until it's triggered so let's get on with it. The idea that a brake is applied for seven years in return for guaranteeing permanent residency is a bit ludicrous really. We should guarantee residency to those already here and move on. I agree with A4 on the small if we have some tariffs meh it's better than being hog tied to Europe. I'd like to see us forming closer trading bonds with the old commonwealth partners and generally being more globally aware rather than eurocentic. The quicker we are out of the EU the quicker we can sort out university, scientific research funding etc. We won't be net contributors to the EU anymore so that money can be redistributed by us not spent on EU bureaucrats and their pet projects.

Completely agree A4 and So. I can see no reason to be in the single market. we can play hard ball, I'm also sick to death of this continuous ' If you want to be in the SM' comments. If we play hard ball they may well come to us with some better deals, especially with regard to pass porting for the financial sector. I would willingly pay small tariffs on goods if we could get that. Then we are free to do deals where ever we want and take control of our own immigration.

A4, corcory, soover you've all said you want to leave the EU good and proper but no one has ever offered you that and all the noises now are about a very watered down version of Brexit.

Don't you see that, because Brexit lite is almost certainly what will happen, none of us will get anything like what what we voted for?

That's fine with me I never voted to be in the EU so half out is better than full in for me.

The problem is that there isn't an overwhelming mandate for completely leaving the EU. Whatever fanciful rubbish A4 and her compatriots won't to propose it isn't going to happen.

Funny as fuck tbh.

The problem is that no one really knows what the mandate is. I suspect that Cameron's, and before him Major's, eurosceptics who 'banged on about Europe' are hard Leavers, but BoJo isn't and nor will others be.

The hard leavers can bang on all they like, they have the slimmest majority on this possible, A4 and cronies with their 70s outlook and out is out rhetoric certainly won't get what they want.

I really can't see how it can all be so wonderful if we have a 'hard leave' situation. I am old enough to remember how things were before. Once the countries of the Empire decided that they wanted their independence, we ceased to be able to manage on our own.

At the moment with the Labour party in disarray the hard leave can have a field day. The PLP really needs to get its act together, and then the reality of a slender majority will kick in for TM.

Ooh Smallfox you've not thrown that insult at me before in fact no one has '70's outlook'

Article 50 was created to give the negotiating advantage to the EU, and not the country planning to leave, to deter member states from exiting the union.

it was part of the Lisbon treaty (blame a certain G Brown for signing up for this) and I suspect the powers that be thought no-one would have the temerity to question the saviour that is the EU (and there are still some who believe it to be the benevolent body that makes them happy to be 'European' !)
The clock is ticking however because on 01/04/2017 (april fools day no less) there is a change that will make using Article 50 to exit harder)

soover, its not an insult, the constant refrains of "we can build up trade with commonwealth partners" is a rather 1970s outlook

I can think of a lot of things that we were thinking in the 70s and it wasn't anything to do with trade Smallfox! It had more to do with the labour government, strikes and more strikes, power cuts, bin bags piled up covering whole squares in London and enforced power cuts! I can assure you my outlook in the 70s had absolutely nothing to do with the commonwealth.

The power cuts of the seventies were due to the 1st miners strike, which happened under the Heath Government.

Some of the people itching for trade deals with the Commonwealth will almost certainly find that the terms aren't what they would have been if we still had an Empire. You can easily imagine educated Indian Middle classes, with good IT skills wanting a much bigger slice of the pie, if not the whole pie, than the few crumbs they were offered when they were part of the Empire.

But the outlook that we will "build up trade with our commonwealth partners" was the point that was made about not joining the EU, and in the 75 referendum.

7 Feb 2017 - no conditions - we just need to get on with it

Once the Government have devised a Brexit plan and a detailed negotiation strategy, then may be the time to invoke article 50

Once the Government have devised a Brexit plan and a detailed negotiation strategy, then may be the time to invoke article 50

Out of curiosity, how long would you give them?

Re the discussion of what the "mandate" is for. There isn't one. The referendum was legislated to be advisory, not mandatory, and it was worded in such a way as to leave wide open the question of what type of brexit people were voting for.