If we cancel article 50 and stay in Europe then what?

[Cantdoright1]

Surely if the public vote for something and it doesn't happen because parliament don't agree with it so won't let it happen, then we no longer live in a democracy. No point voting ever again as parliament can do what they like with the result. I don't understand why people want is to stay in Europe just because the process of leaving has been so badly handled by those in power. Or do people just accept that when the going gets tough we give up on democracy?

What happens when remainers vote for something they care about but it never happens because the government don't want it to? If we remain were all shafted on any future votes.

I don't know how people can be so fixated on remaining that they are willing to ignore the impacts of remaining on democracy, and the far reaching consequences - much bigger ones than leaving or staying in the EU. There is much more to this now than remain or leave, so much more is at stake.

{The UK voted to stop Freedom of Movement within the EU we voted to put the whole world on an even playing field not just white Europeans }

While this might sound a good plan, the reality is that you are now exposing the UK workers to the unpleasant side of the 'real' world, where workers are exploited. Yes the EU is in a bit of a 'bubble' and part of it's remit is to ensure that EU citizens have the best life experience and possibilities that they can. With the UK dropping out of this UK workers will be 'competing' with labourers in Bangladesh, India, China whose labour protection laws are close to zero.
Like the concept of 'zero tariffs' there is a massive downside especially if you consider the cost of living in the UK. If you are happy with working for £50 a week and can survive on that then dropping out is fine. The world is very big and has many unpleasant practices going on.

InfiniteSheldon, but the main thing with FOM is that it is reciprocal! A bonus, or not, of being part of the club. We will still need immigrants, but we will lose our right to move freely. It's not a racist policy - it's based on geography.

{ the UK wants to STOP Freedom of movement}
SOME leave voters did so to 'remove' workers from the EU and stop them taking 'UK' jobs.
Thus well qualified EU citizens have been made to feel uncomfortable living in the UK because SOME wanted rid of the (often) seasonal workers that do some of the hard shit work that SOME Brits don't want to do.

The UK voted to stop Freedom of Movement within the EU we voted to put the whole world on an even playing field not just white Europeans

Indeed so, so that we can treat EU citizens like we treated those of the Windrush generation - people whose parents were invited to come here because they were sorely needed to rebuild the country after the war.

SOME leave voters did so to 'remove' workers from the EU and stop them taking 'UK' jobs.
Thus well qualified EU citizens have been made to feel uncomfortable living in the UK because SOME wanted rid of the (often) seasonal workers that do some of the hard shit work that SOME Brits don't want to do.

I agree with you. That’s why some EU concessions on the issue would IMO have saved the UK and the EU from the greater pain of an out vote.

TBH concessions could have been reversed in time anyway. Things change.

A fair playing field for all, all races, all colours not an EU dictate for the privileged white Europeans.

The EU is based on the 4 indivisible freedoms, which includes Freedom of movement. The EU will not any of break these, and if you do not understand that you should educate yourself,

{A fair playing field for all, all races, all colours not an EU dictate for the privileged white Europeans.}
You possibly haven't noticed that all Europeans are NOT white.
Many from Africa are French, or at least hold French citizenship.
The world is not a true 'level playing field' and never will be, you can only rely on human kindness which does actually work pretty well in many places.

{I agree with you. That’s why some EU concessions on the issue would IMO have saved the UK and the EU from the greater pain of an out vote.}

Why should the EU do anything to help some argumentative twats in Westminster get over an internal squabble? There are far more important things to do.

That’s why some EU concessions on the issue would IMO have saved the UK and the EU from the greater pain of an out vote.

Why should the EU offer extra concessions on immigration when the UK didn't bother to implement the rules already in place? It's freedom of labour - they could have thrown out people who didn't find a job or were not self supporting after 3 months, but didn't bother.

The EU is based on the 4 indivisible freedoms, which includes Freedom of movement. The EU will not any of break these, and if you do not understand that you should educate yourself,

Bollocks. For a brief account read this article. And there have been numerous concessions to individual member states on the other freedoms. The EU is a political and economic organisation, not a fundamentalist religion.

Why should the EU do anything to help some argumentative twats in Westminster get over an internal squabble? There are far more important things to do.

There we do differ. If the EU wasn’t interested in its relations with its member states it would be a doubtful thing to belong to. But the happy fact is that it is interested in those relationships. It just played this one wrong, or at least less than helpfully to both itself and the UK, IMO.

Kissing I said nothing about the other freedoms so not sure what point you think you are making

Why should the EU offer extra concessions on immigration when the UK didn't bother to implement the rules already in place? It's freedom of labour - they could have thrown out people who didn't find a job or were not self supporting after 3 months, but didn't bother.

That was a point of some (misguided) concern. But the bigger point was the (equally misguided) sentiment of “they’re taking our jobs”. There’s no room for putting a brake on productive EU immigrants in EU rules.

Cameron had already negotiated and agreed with the EU rules that would apply to EU citizens to prevent the ‘abuse’ of benefits...in essence, the U.K. has a system of benefits that are for some aspects (some only) more generous than other countries. You can forget social housing paying 1200£/m for single mums in Italy...or jobseeker allowance if you don’t tick a long list or criteria.
(In comparison in the rest of Europe you get a very decent provision of kindergartens and school at zero cost for best quality)
The U.K. government (not the EU) had decided that these benefits would be payable to Eu citizens too, but left many loopholes in that and as a consequence there were articles about workers from east Europe going back “home” and still claiming benefits, or ‘stealing’ places in the waiting list for social housing etc. I’m not saying this is true or not. The point I want to make is that in my opinion the government simply didn’t have the guts to do what would have been right (tweak the benefit system to make it fairer, invest more instead of tightening the belt over and over for years) and did what all incompetent governments do: blame the others. They had already agreed rules for instance to cut benefits to EU members, but they never implemented them. It has nothing to do with the Eu, it’s national policy

1isthisLsclerc you know what’s funny? Yesterday I was keeping company to my 7yo DS (in the bathroom, as you do) and he was asking about Brexit and i explained that people are not finding an agreement on how to do it and many are still not convinced it’s the right thing to do. And as you’d expect from a 7yo he said: well then, why don’t we try? We mak one year brexit and one year no Brexit? Or one month yes and one no? And then you decide?
:-)

I post this every time someone says Cameron wasn't offered enough concessions by the EU because that's just total bollocks. He was pleased with the concessions he gained on immigration. The only issue was that he was granted them for 7 years rather than the 13 years requested.

The DM chose not to put a positive spin on it and those ignorant people who prefer to accept DM headlines as gospel rather than read the facts for themselves allowed themselves to be misinformed and misled.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/eu-deal-what-david-cameron-asked-for-and-what-he-actually-got/amp/

The result of the referendum was to leave the EU. There was no description of what that would look like.

The government said "we will implement what you decide".

Significantly, the Leave campaign said we would not leave suddenly, without a deal.

So to me, it would have been undemocratic not to have triggered Art 50 and explored the options to leave.

But it would also be undemocratic to leave without a deal.

If the deal on offer is not considered to be good for the country then you either rethink and renegotiate, or you revoke and say to the country, we did implement what you decided (triggered Art 50) but the damage to the country of continuing would be too great, and we cannot leave without a deal.

Personally I'm over democracy. Benign dictatorship (isn't that kind of what they have in Singapore?) is the way to go.

The Northern Irish didnt vote to be pawns in a fucking scary game with their borders

They didn't vote that overwhelmingly when you compare the result there with Scotland, and Gibraltar. But as mentioned above, no deal wasn't on the table.

Brexit positives (if we have a deal) are: we can take VAT off sanitary protection without having to persuade 27 other countries.

We can do something about the ludicrous money laundering legislation which just inconveniences everyone and never stopped a terrorist ever.

Other than that, I am struggling. But I have come up with two more reasons to leave the EU than most Brexiteers have.

I honestly think that the U.K. will become even worse than it already is at providing banks and money boxes to dirty money. And I think that’s the plan, too.

I’m bored of the “we were fed a pack of lies and didn’t know what the hell we were voting for” narrative. I voted to leave and I would still like to leave. I didn’t vote to leave because of immigration nor because I saw a big red bus. I want to leave because of my views regarding the EU being a flawed and undemocratic organisation (I support the fundemental principles of the EU but believe it’s powers are currently being abused). Brexit in its self has only reaffirmed my existing views.

(Seriously, the housing development market in London is the epitome of money laundering. In the big scale it’s the Qatar royal family investing gazillions in the prime real estate. In the medium scale it’s oligarchs from Russia and various _stans buying prime real estate. In the small scale it’s rich Chinese that buy 4 flats in Nine elms or Centre Point every time they visit). It’s not “normal” people and it definitely it’s not Europeans. Albeit all of these things are built with the help of thousands and thousands of east European builders....

{There we do differ. If the EU wasn’t interested in its relations with its member states it would be a doubtful thing to belong to. But the happy fact is that it is interested in those relationships. It just played this one wrong, or at least less than helpfully to both itself and the UK, IMO.}
The EP was well aware of what Cameron had negotiated and reading the UK press they can then see how it is 'spun' by the MSM, as happens in all countries no doubt.
Of necessity they have to take a longer, wider view and not react on the spur of the moment. If Cameron was so weak that he can't hold his own against the ERG or whichever were 'against' him, it is a problem for the sovereign country to sort out.
The EU is run by rules, and you can't dip in and out to suit. It would be great if the EU would help Greek citizens more, and many others with other problems, but they are sovereign and the EU can't dictate domestic policy to this level. The UK is only 1 out of 28 countries and is plenty big and ugly enough to sort itself out.

nos123 could you please expand and explain a bit more of your point of view? What are the flaws you see?

Dippy

Indeed. But that’s not really the point. Concessions on freedom of movement were never on the agenda meaningfully at all - until after the referendum. Yet they have been extended to single market members - after a referendum on the subject.

The EU knew it held the opportunity to say that the UK could have a form of opt-out, derogation, re-evaluation, whatever, on freedom of workers’ movement, but it chose not to. Both it and the UK knew there was to be a referendum. They must both have seen the risk.

My point is simply that we (pro-EU people) could have won the vote with some help from the Commission. That’s all.

I accept that ‘special cases’ are difficult for the EU, but they’ve happened before and will do again. The whole Euro launch was a ‘special case’ for some countries because of their economic figures. If the political will is there it can happen.

{I want to leave because of my views regarding the EU being a flawed and undemocratic organisation }
Therte are many flaws in the EU, but undemocratic is not one of them, as the mechanism to get change is pretty similar to the UK.