General elections cover a wide range of issues.The Voting Public is being asked to vote which party they trust to deliver on the biggest talking point in British poltics to date; the Brexit negotiations.
If the Conservatives win, regardless of a narrow margin or a majority, it means the voting public has chosen them to deliver on the terms of their Brexit negotiation terms, i.e. a "hard" brexit. If Labour wins it means the majority of the public backs their "softer" Brexit approach. It absolutely means that the winning party will be given a public mandate tp proceed as they have suggested publicly.
This is not the time to start addressing the same tired old mantras of NHS, benefits, social inequality BS that has become the mainstay of Labour as of late. The NHS issues, migration, economic and social inequality are, unfortunately, playing second fiddle to a much more important and relevant debate as per the reason why this snap election was called in the first place.
.
"The Government has set out it's proposals as to how the UK should exit the European Union.
Do you agree with the the Government's proposals?
Tick one of the boxes to indicate your preference.
I agree with the Government's proposals as to how the UK should exit the EU [ ]
I disagree with the Government's proposals as to how the UK should exit the EU [ ]"
Simples.
In not so many words, that's what most people feel this is.General elections cover a wide range of issues.
If you are asking people to vote on one issue you should hold a referendum on that issue.
In not so many words, that's what most people feel this is.
Which political party do you want to see take the country forward in Brexit negotiations. That is unquestionably the most important aspect of our nations future at present. It's a shame to say it but the NHS is taking a back seat for the time being and Labour's insistance at playing their trick card of the state of the NHS is beginning to frustrate many disastisfied Labour voters like myself who did vote to leave the EU and are seemingly being ignored by our own party.
Leaving the EU is a BIG deal to us, yet our party is concentrating on everything besides the main issue; our direction on leaving the EU. To me I see it as the Conservatives asking the British public "Look, you've all complained about the EU discussions and how you all feel that many of you who did vote to remain are being ignored, so fine, have your say. Do you want the Conservatives to continue with the negotations, knowing full well what we aim to achieve, a 'hard' brexit' or would you rather prefer someone else to lead these negotiations?"
Everyone else - "We want independendence, the Tories are being opportunisitic, they aren't addressing the NHS crisis, what about Trident? There are MANY issues to be addressed in this general election!" Erm, no, although many issues do need addressing, it's plainly obvious to everyone what the main issue the Conservatives are addressing by calling this snap election: - do we trust THEM to lead the Brexit negotiations, or someone else. If anything, this is opportunism by Labour to claim people have had enough of 'Tory' rule.
"We are following the instruction given to us by the recent referendum held by the British Public to leave the EU"what negotiations have the Tories done so far? What have they said they have progressed on? What are their true aims?
They won't say - and probably for good reason - but what the Tories are actually saying is trust us we will do what is best and what we secure will be the best we can get you will have to stick with that. Others are saying trust us we will see what we can get and put it back to Parliament to decide whether its acceptable or trust us we will get the best we can then maybe put it back before you for acceptance before we ratify.
Nothing has been done as yet other than both sides running around the ring looking menacing at each other
"We are following the instruction given to us by the recent referendum held by the British Public to leave the EU"
everyone else -"But what does that MEAN exactly....?"
Erm, to leave the European Union... That was what was on the ballot paper. All this talk of how we leave, to what extent do we leave, what does leaving mean? These are questions, no barriers, that the pro EU remainers have conjugated to make the discussion much more complicated than it was intended to be to complicate matters more than they needed to in order to delay or even derail the process of leaving.
We're leaving the golf club. "Ah but what does that MEAN? Do we still get use of the country club parking space? Can we bring the wife and kids every third weekend? Do we still have access to the bar?" No we're just no longer members of the golf club. Simple as.
That kind of shit has been frsutrating people for months, so this is the elected governments position; do you trust in us, or do you want someone else to lead the negotations, inkeeping with the national attitude towards what they want Brexit to mean.
so - and this is a serious question - you would have favoured the morning after the result dropping the A50 bomb and us having left by the end of that month? That presumably would mean no trade agreements WTO etc??
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.so - and this is a serious question - you would have favoured the morning after the result dropping the A50 bomb and us having left by the end of that month? That presumably would mean no trade agreements WTO etc??
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.
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.
yeah sur e- what I was interested in is did the poster - and you also - think we should have left unconditionally straight after?
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.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?
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.
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.
We didn't vote for the Leave campaign to win. We voted on a decision.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
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:-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
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.
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.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.