General Election June 8th

[bluethrunthru]

We can have a trade agreement with the EU that isn't single market membership. Plenty of other countries trade with the EU without being single market members.

yeah sur e- what I was interested in is did the poster - and you also - think we should have left unconditionally straight after?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Speaking for only myself, I would have preferred us to enact Article 50 and negotiate this independent countries relationship with a trading bloc as early as possible so that both sides understood the future relationship going forward as we could be looking at a deal being achieved as early as Summer 2018, rather than the now anticipated 2019. The terms of Article 50 was written to be unrealistic for any nation to leave the EU so as to create a mentality that leaving was not in any member states best option to leave; 2 years is pathetic in negotiating a trade deal with a bloc the size of the EU and A50 was created to provide an unrealistic method for any member wishing to leave. Canada took several years for example to agree upon a trade deal and it's this period of uncertainty that the EU intended to use to bind members into remaining.

They purposefully made it awkward and destabalising in an effort to force people to remain in it. A50 was not intended to make the transition of a former member retain a partnership with the EU, it was meant to dissuade it from ever happening in the first place, but these are the rules the EU set out and we have to follow them. The longer it takes the worse it affects the civilians, on both sides of the debate. Nobody in the EU ever expected anyone to enact A50 precisely because they made it to be so. They need it to be awkward so as to prevent other members leaving. So much for the "voluntary association" aspect of being an EU member.

so unlike now when we have launched A50 and are looking to negotiate our exit then we should have instead started to speak to other nations about trade straight away in breach of the membership rules ? Wouldn't that just antagonise the remaining 27 and worsen our position?

 

[CityStu]

yeah sur e- what I was interested in is did the poster - and you also - think we should have left unconditionally straight after?

I don't think it was possible to enact article 50 immediately given the utter lack of preparation Cameron's government did in the event of a leave vote. Had he done that, I'd have been behind triggering A50 earlier than we did.

I'm a realist and think we have things to sort out with the EU before we even think about trade. Stuff like the rights of nationals in the other 'nation', our responsibilities towards EU pensions, our share of EU assets, how we work together on security, etc. It makes sense to make these agreements whilst we are still a member so there is no limbo period for these crucial issues.

Trade, I see, as far less crucial, in that we can trade with the EU on WTO terms outside the EU. Yes, it'll cost a bit more but that's reciprocal and there is no limbo period as such. I'm obviously hopeful that we can agree on a trade deal that's preferential to WTO for both parties within our 2 year negotiating period, but if not then no biggie.

 

[Metal Biker]

so unlike now when we have launched A50 and are looking to negotiate our exit then we should have instead started to speak to other nations about trade straight away in breach of the membership rules ? Wouldn't that just antagonise the remaining 27 and worsen our position?

We've left, we should no longer tied to 'their' membership rules, or at least we shouldn't be, EU rules and all (remind me again about how 'free' member states were to leave, as was often stated?). We're free to negotiate with other trading blocs, nations etc yet we're still being told by the elitist organisation we voted to leave to abide by their rules before being 'allowed' to determine our own future to the benefit of our citizens.

"But we have commitments to honour!"

Such as? We paid into the system, obeyed their rules, both civil and trade. If you cancel a contract with Sky or a phone company do you expect them to continually to say "hey you owe us for the next ten years of payment we expected from you!"? No. If the EU refuses to co-operate with their largest trading partner to come to a civil conclusion then that's their beef. We've got 150+ nations to negotiate with, of course with the EU's permission. But then that's what this snap election has been called for hasn't it; do we follow this method of thinking or do we prefer the softly softly approach to leaving favoured by the pro-EU mentality. There was no 'hard' or 'soft' option on the ballot paper and we were all aware of it. There was just leaving or remaining a member and the leave vote, in spite of whatever you deem to be potential 'hardships', was the more popular choice. On June 8th we as a nation will determine that we either give our fullbacking to those hardships or if we have lessened our resolve on leaving and are now looking for 'damage limitations' as to how we leave.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I don't think it was possible to enact article 50 immediately given the utter lack of preparation Cameron's government did in the event of a leave vote. Had he done that, I'd have been behind triggering A50 earlier than we did.

I'm a realist and think we have things to sort out with the EU before we even think about trade. Stuff like the rights of nationals in the other 'nation', our responsibilities towards EU pensions, our share of EU assets, how we work together on security, etc. It makes sense to make these agreements whilst we are still a member so there is no limbo period for these crucial issues.

Trade, I see, as far less crucial, in that we can trade with the EU on WTO terms outside the EU. Yes, it'll cost a bit more but that's reciprocal and there is no limbo period as such. I'm obviously hopeful that we can agree on a trade deal that's preferential to WTO for both parties within our 2 year negotiating period, but if not then no biggie.

well thats one place we disagree as I think it was as much the Leave campaigns place to have some idea of what we should do in the event of their winning - the absolute vacuum they filled with their backstabbing of each other was criminal - I'd have been happier if Dave had accepted that there were two possible results and told the Leave campaign at the outset that they needed to draw up plans. Of course he felt that to even contemplate such a thing never mind do it publicly was a no-no

 

[bluethrunthru]

We've left, we should no longer tied to 'their' membership rules, or at least we shouldn't be, EU rules and all (remind me again about how 'free' member states were to leave, as was often stated?). We're free to negotiate with other trading blocs, nations etc yet we're still being told by the elitist organisation we voted to leave to abide by their rules before being 'allowed' to determine our own future to the benefit of our citizens.

"But we have commitments to honour!"

Such as? We paid into the system, obeyed their rules, both civil and trade. If you cancel a contract with Sky or a phone company do you expect them to continually to say "hey you owe us for the next ten years of payment we expected from you!"? No. If the EU refuses to co-operate with their largest trading partner to come to a civil conclusion then that's their beef. We've got 150+ nations to negotiate with, of course with the EU's permission. But then that's what this snap election has been called for hasn't it; do we follow this method of thinking or do we prefer the softly softly approach to leaving favoured by the pro-EU mentality. There was no 'hard' or 'soft' option on the ballot paper and we were all aware of it. There was just leaving or remaining a member and the leave vote, in spite of whatever you deem to be potential 'hardships', was the more popular choice. On June 8th we as a nation will determine that we either give our fullbacking to those hardships or if we have lessened our resolve on leaving and are now looking for 'damage limitations' as to how we leave.

You see in my personal view we just do not have the clout out there in the big bad world to think like that. I think its not going to come out well for the UK anyway but to just walk away straight after would have had everybody gunning for us

 

[Metal Biker]

well thats one place we disagree as I think it was as much the Leave campaigns place to have some idea of what we should do in the event of their winning - the absolute vacuum they filled with their backstabbing of each other was criminal - I'd have been happier if Dave had accepted that there were two possible results and told the Leave campaign at the outset that they needed to draw up plans. Of course he felt that to even contemplate such a thing never mind do it publicly was a no-no

We didn't vote for the Leave campaign to win. We voted on a decision.
Most ignored the Leave message as it didn't reflect the opinions on why leave voters waned to leave. Constantly hanging on the performance of the disastrous leave campaign as to denigrate the leave result is disingenous to everyone who voted leave for reasons that neither campaign were bothered to address. TL:DR people didn't vote leave becuase they were suckered in by a bus.

 

[Metal Biker]

You see in my personal view we just do not have the clout out there in the big bad world to think like that. I think its not going to come out well for the UK anyway but to just walk away straight after would have had everybody gunning for us

Well I and many of those who voted leave think we do have the clout or believed the EU was not heading in a direction that was beneficial to us. Nobody on the remain side gave a conclusive argument about where the EU was heading in the next ten years, just what a 'disaster' it would be if we left now.But that's for another thread; i've already given my reasons and explanations to support the vote I gave and I still do not regret it. This debate is about the snap General Election and whether it should have been called or if the reasons to do so signify a majority public approval of the decision made by the referendum take last June, and I see it like this:-

*We've voted to leave the EU*
"It was only advisory! You don't have a legal mandate to do this!"

Fine, we'll get Supreme Court approval that Parliament has to have the final say.
*Supreme Court agrees Parliament must be allowed to have the final say on invoking Article 50 and start the process to leave the EU. Parliament agrees to enacting Article 50 via vote, A50 become Royal Assent*

"You don't have the support of the whole nation!"
Fine, we'll hold a snap election so you can vote for the MP's that publically support or reject invoking Article 50 and leaving the EU

...."it's still not a mandate!"

What else do you lot want!?

 

[bluethrunthru]

We didn't vote for the Leave campaign to win. We voted on a decision.
Most ignored the Leave message as it didn't reflect the opinions on why leave voters waned to leave. Constantly hanging on the performance of the disastrous leave campaign as to denigrate the leave result is disingenous to everyone who voted leave for reasons that neither campaign were bothered to address. TL:DR people didn't vote leave becuase they were suckered in by a bus.

I absolutely agree that it was an in/out binary decision and unfortunately the political elite as it were all put their own spin on why Leave got the most votes ( a win in most peoples parlance) and that is mostly misguided because like just about all politicians they are just too far removed from "real people" to really know what was behind the decision and in many cases that "elite" don't want to know.

 

[Len Rum]

We can have a trade agreement with the EU that isn't single market membership. Plenty of other countries trade with the EU without being single market members.

Those other countries that trade with the EU without being members of the EU have limited agreements on goods and services- they are not fully comprehensive agreements. Even these limited agreements require MRA's to avoid trading on WTO terms.
If you want a comprehensive deal with the EU then for them agreement on non trade issues like immigration and ECJ rulings become important conditions ,( we might not like that, but it is a fact).So to get a full ( or fullish) trade deal you may not have to be a member of the EU but you will certainly have to agree to concessions on immigration, ECJ and maybe cough up a fair wedge for the privilege of getting access to the large EU market.