The Brexit Arms goes forth! All welcome. Leavers, Remainers, Couldn't give a Tossers, & openly gay athletes.

[surferjet]

Welcome

but you want to debate it after a50 is invoked, not before mango

Why?

Bear - Corbyn saying TM must guarantee that we stay in the single market. That just isn't realistic - she can't guarantee anything. If the EU negotiators know what our red lines are then that is as much as we will ever get and we will probably be offered much less. TM might say - we want to stay in the single market but not have freedom of movement for EU residents and we don't want to pay any subs. - we ain't going to get that but it might be a first step. What I hope we will get is a free trade agreement and no free movement. But you really can't show that as your hand otherwise you won't get it.
I just don't understand why so many remainers don't understand this.

If the EU negotiators know what our red lines are then that is as much as we will ever get and we will probably be offered much less"

They already know what our position is going to be because Nissan know.

"I just don't understand why so many remainers don't understand this."

I don't understand why leave voters keep portraying it like you have here. Its not the same for example we already know the red lines that the EU have, is that effecting our negotating position.

Secondly, the nissan thing makes a mockery of all of this "cards to the chest" stuff.

corcory, we absolutely do get this.

The whole point is we can't aim to have our cake and eat it.

the whole 'showing our hand' is bollocks. we could pick a priority and stick with it.

If we made it abundantly clear we will absolutely not be moved on FOM then our negiotiating position is stronger not weaker.

The problem is, we don't want the repercussions of that which means we'll comprise in the end, much to the disgust of many in this thread.

Its already been shown with Nissan that we will ultimately compromise on FOM.

but you want to debate it after a50 is invoked, not before mango

No, I've never said that.

I think they should immediately vote to Brexit (in line with the recent ruling), that way everybody is clear that Brexit is happening without question.

After that, debate away - debate when to trigger A50, debate hard/soft Brexit, debate anything that at all.

I think it would be helpful to both remainers and leavers for it to go before parliament.

Why? Because its a statement of confidence in democratic institutions in this country that they can do what voters want, even if its not what MPs themselves think.

Its potentially an opportunity to restore a bit of faith in our system.

The trouble is in the way the whole thing is being framed by May and the press. May herself is effectively saying that parliament can not be trusted only she can. This undermines parliament further, and reinforces the idea that it is hell bent on destroying Brexit.

I don't believe it is. I do believe that it recognises the dangers of doing so.

Is it so difficult to accept that MPs who wanted to Remain still might have the best interests of the country at heart for the outcome of Brexit and want it to be the best possible Brexit. Afterall, May herself was a Remainer, so if you trust her you should trust all the other remainers. What makes her so special and different?

Just because she's PM?
As voted for by a lot of Tory Remain MPs.

May's insistent on this not showing your hand thing is nonsense. Again its all about giving her the power rather than parliament. That's two counts where she is trying to be the guardian of power.

Parliament exists in the first place because the King originally had the power and power in the hands of one person was deemed to be a 'bad thing' in the UK.

This is why Magna Carta happened which I've heard quite a lot of lately.

This eventually evolved into the system of parliament we have now, where power is spread out and there are checks on it, to prevent it being abused.

It would also help Remainers a lot to understand and have faith in the Brexit we end up with. It would remove a lot of their fear and would make them feel better about not too much power being in the hands of one.

Brexit requires all voices to be heard and have a stake in. That's leave and remain. That's not just May's vision in her head.

People are not going to feel like its their future if May decides it all. It has to be a shared thing. Not a vision set down by either Leave or Remain alone.

But in partnership.

mango do you really think parliament is that stupid?

immediately vote to give the government permission to invoke a50, listen to them pretend they'll discuss it, then stand back and watch them do exactly as they please ASAP without any discussions.

I'm continually astounded at the naivety of some people.

What would the motion be- we believe Brexit means Brexit?

That's what I mean bear, it isn't going to be the case that parliament will accept a platitude that they will get consultation, it will be made to be part of the bill.

Am confused as to what you mean Bear.

The recent ruling simply confirmed that democracy in Britain is bigger than one person - TM cannot just decide to do something, parliament must vote to do it.

This means that the result of the referendum is nothing more than a representation of the views of the electorate - to put those views into practice, parliament must agree that it will happen.

This can be acknowledged very simply by a vote on whether the result of the referendum will be upheld: yes/no

Parliament then debate the ins and outs of what Brexit they want & agree on.

Why is that naïve?

Because, the vote isn't whether or not to uphold the result of the referendum, it is to give permission the government to invoke a50- they are not the same thing.

as soon as parliament votes to invoke a50, the government can do it anytime they please- can you really not see that mango?

This can be acknowledged very simply by a vote on whether the result of the referendum will be upheld: yes/no

My (non-expert) understanding is that such a vote wouldn't be binding though. It would have to be passed into law to be binding.

So still I asked a question earlier:

What would be the most important thing for Brexiters to get from leaving?

Is there anything that you'd be happy to exchange for say control of freedom of movement?

No takers I see to rational questions (not surprisingly).

I'm intrigued about those brexiteers, who today told me it was all about immigration, will feel when we have to accept more immigrants from e.g. India/Parkistan/China in order to achieve any trade desls with them??

So we might end up with MORE immigration than now especially from the Indian sub-continent/Middle East/China/Africa and less from the EU. How will Brexiteers feel about this?

I'll just leave this here. Night all.

Well India have already said that they would like the restrictions on the movement of their citizens into the UK to be reduced as part of a trade deal.

Funny that.

More immigration isn't necessarily a bad thing, although I would personally like a levelling off at least of the population.

My sense of disquiet with immigration certainly isn't 'I don't like eastern Europeans' or 'I am racist' or 'I am a little englander' or any of the usual accusations levelled at those who voted leave.

Let's imagine we have another referendum and this one says 'should we allow immigrants into the United Kingdom; yes or no.' I don't doubt there would be a small minority of people who would vote yes, but I doubt very much the majority would be anything like as close as the EU one. 70/30 at a generous guess, perhaps.

A referendum about FOM though, or perhaps 'should the UK allow uncontrolled immigration' would probably yield similar results to the June referendum.

It's that word 'uncontrolled' people are uncomfortable with. I'm not going to bother citing and linking articles: you can easily find them yourselves. Expressing a concern with a surge in the population is not racist.

On another thread, someone disagreed vocally with me because I expressed disapproval at the words from the woman on Question Time who was angry that EU funding was cut. Yet the answer of Remainers, when it's pointed out that the surge in the population has impacted most on the poor in this country, is always that "we need to invest more in funding." Yet we don't, apparently, have this money available - we need it from the EU for scientific research. Either we have the money, in which case leaving the EU will not be quite so awful as people claim money-wise, or we don't, in which case we really can't keep adding people into already crowded hospitals and schools.

Back to immigration. Let's say after we have exited the EU, we have exactly the same numbers of immigrants every year. Some will think we will be disgusted with that - we voted Leave, right, so we must hate foreigners. Well, no. Huge difference between accepting thousands of people who's skills we need and who will benefit us than accepting thousands who we DON'T need but have to accept.

It isn't immigration I have an issue with. Not at all, not even remotely. It's uncontrolled immigration. And to be totally honest, the louder people shout 'racist', the more frustrated and angry people become and if you take a look around you in a global sense, the world is saying 'enough.'

Freedom of movement is different to immigration.

My mum and other elderly relatives are going to be frothing at the mouth at more immigration from India. They are racist and for them this referendum was about nothing other than immigration, if they think that all they've done is replace white European Christian immigration with India Muslim/Hindi immigration they will be outraged because they see one group as even worse than the other. I hope we do get more Indian immigration, just because it'll serve my family right.

I have no problem with immigration either.

The problem is that the EU will not allow any flexibility - you must have complete freedom of movement, no question.

To answer Vulpe's question:
What would be the most important thing for Brexiters to get from leaving?

For me, the most important thing is extricating ourselves from the EU.
It had become too big, too unwieldy & is well on the road to implosion (in my opinion).
I wanted to jump before the shit happened.

Many, many member countries are struggling massively with an upsurge in their far right and I can see it only getting worse (much, much more than Britain even though people would have us believe that Britain is a seething hotbed of racists and small minded xenophobes).

I would reiterate what has been said above by leavers about immigration. I would go further as I have on many threads and explain that I actually find the FOM situation within the EU quite racist in itself in that it tends to promote the immigration of white Christians and precludes people of other faiths and colours from other parts of the world.
I want to see us accept people from every corner of the world if they meet the skills and other needs we have.

On the comment about what do leavers want most from leaving. I think us being independent of the EU is a great feeling. I really don't like being beholdent to the EU especially France and Germany. Much as I like visiting Europe I do feel we have different views and standards. You just need to look at France and the burka and burkini situation to realise that.
As mango has said I really want us to remove ourselves from the hard right that is becoming more and more prevalent in the EU.

A law in the EU that I don't like and I want to end is the one that allows the transport of live animals for slaughter from country to country.