[Closed] There must be a general election

we do, its just the remain voters don't seem to want to acknowledge it lol

Democracy is also having the right to continue to fight and campaign for what you believe in...

Maybe we need a think tank of 10 - 12 adults( Not BJ). Drawn from a cross section of governemnt and intellectual instituations. People who are not liars, carreers led polititions or self promoting guffers .

I would be looking at representatives from the Bank of England, Office of Fiscal studies, University lecturers , captains of industry, DOTAI ,
HMRC, law society. The people who sit in the background without making waves or have hidden agendas who didnt go to school or play croquet with DC and his cronies.

They are out there, not on STW. Feircly intelligent and alot of the time do not come out of the woodwork. Ok, so I would cross Sir Phillip Green of the list but I would have more faith in the dragons den panel then BJ and Gove at the negotiating table.

Give this team a team of helpers, a timeline, a nice mission statement because everyone loves a mission statement and let them get on with it.

Give this team a team of helpers, a timeline, a nice mission statement because everyone loves a mission statement and let them get on with it.

OK for starters...
The UK's current cost is 8.5 Billion/Year
In order to be considered acceptible it must not cost teh UK more than this figure and in many ways this should be seen as a maximum cost and should come with significant ups for the UK

Trade - The current rules work well that as a starting point/best hope need to determine what is acceptible to concede on (factor in the above). We are a country that imports more than it exports so in some ways we could play hard ball and talk about reciprocol tariffs to the UK but import fee's and a weaker pound would lead to a rise in the costs to UK citizens and business and drive up inflation - though we are not immune to poor aim with guns and the toe region.

Free Movement of people
An area fraught with problems for the UK side. Needs to balance the (irrational) fear of immigration with the need & benifit. Also consider that the EU will tie this to free trade as they have done elsewhere. There is a lot of political capital tied up in this one which makes it very hard for the UK to negotiate without upsetting those that demanded Brexit and the Reamains working out the UK has given up a lot for a worser overall deal.

Timetable
The UK has said yes, parliament & the lords come next but attempts to stall will be seen as "game playing" by the EU.

Any other key points?

Lastly the worst possible thing any UK politician could do on the topic is preface the negotiations with a table thumping, nationalistic battle call that the UK woun't be bullied and won't be pushed around and here are our demands that we want met or we are out.

Remember the 2 ways out of Article 50 are
UK & EU pass the "Divorce" Bill
[u][b]OR[/b][/u]
They don't and we go to World Trade Organisation rules 2 years and 1 day after it's triggered.

Oh and in the mean time we need to sort out a few other deals with key trading partners around the world.

The simple fact is that the only sane non-suicidal response to the referendum result is for both major parties to ignore it, or rather, explicitly reject it. There would be a summer of riots and lots of politicians would have to sacrifice their careers, but we'd get over that in a year or two which is more than could be said for the alternatives!

@Mike we're likely to be under WTO rules for years. You cannot start working in new trade deals until the negotiations under article 50 are concluded and you've leave.

As part of article 50 you cab sketch out the basis of how new deals are to be negotiated but not make them.

Article 50 is purely and simply about the past and how you're going to part-not what you're going to do going forward.

We have 12 civil servants who are qualified to negotiate trade deals. 12. I'm guessing the US, Germany and China are top of the list for us but are we for them?

Also given trade deals have always taken 5-10 years to conclude (and God knows why VL seemed to think we could accelerate this process and get better bargains at the same time) it could be 12+ years until we have anything formal in place with the EU (2 years of A50 negotiations + 10 years trade deal negotiations).

And no, the deals we negotiate won't be as good as what we have now. Who needs a deal with China for example more-us or them?

The simple fact is that the only sane non-suicidal response to the referendum result is for both major parties to ignore it, or rather, explicitly reject it.

@dannybgoode
Cheers for the clarification

Sounds about as promising as - well I can't really think of anything

and for a recent example...
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malcolm-turnbull-has-called-for-a-double-dissolution-election-for-july-2-2016-5
The AUstralian government just deliberatly pushed a bill through to be voted down in order to dissolve both houses and go to the polls to sort out the lack of majority. With the majority of MP's not supporting the referendum result it would be the only decent thing to do.

Again VL had to say getting out would lead to better trade deals etc and that we'd have these in weeks (again not specifically stated but this is how the general populous interpreted the message).

Again it's something that VL will now be looking at to see how they can get anywhere close to the never nevarna they sold.

This isn't sour grapes etc this is cold fact. Trade deals take years, we're going to need 120+ of them and we're going to pushed hard by those we're looking to trade with.

This whole 'well now we're out of the EU we can trade with who we want how we want' again is technically true but ignores the logistics of actually getting a deal done in the first place.

Add to the fact no one is going time be rushing to do a deal with us until they understand what our trading relationship with Europe will be and what comes out of A50.

We are essentially hamstrung at the moment and that's the simple truth.

Again people were told this is how it would be but who needs experts?..

I'm guessing the US, Germany and China are top of the list for us but are we for them?

I think you'll be surprised, Germany for example exports a huge amount to us....far more than we do to them....think they're going to want to shoot themselves in the foot and lose out on all that money?, this works both ways, I wish more of the doom mongers could see that.

China for example could be negotiated with to allow virtually duty/tax free deals on imports to the UK, basically look at how they currently import to the EU and then undercut that deal so ours is more favorable....that's how business works.

Countries were trading with each other long before the EU, same will happen now, it's always about money and economies and seeing as we're one of the larger I don't foresee any problems negotiating trade deals.

Re. the speed of these deals, I can go along with Brexiteer politicians telling us it will be a faster process outside of the EU.....it's basic stuff, who will negotiate faster, an organisation trying to please 20-odd countries and their individual vested interests or a single country one on one with a potential trading partner?

The cries of doom are hilarious btw, carry on.

mikewsmith - Member
and for a recent example...
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malcolm-turnbull-has-called-for-a-double-dissolution-election-for-july-2-2016-5
The AUstralian government just deliberatly pushed a bill through to be voted down in order to dissolve both houses and go to the polls to sort out the lack of majority. With the majority of MP's not supporting the referendum result it would be the only decent thing to do.

To be fair, that's close to backfiring quite badly.

Give it a year and ScoMo will be PM at this rate

I think you'll be surprised, Germany for example exports a huge amount to us....far more than we do to them....think they're going to want to shoot themselves in the foot and lose out on all that money, this works both ways, I wish more of the doom mongers could see that.

To be fair, that's close to backfiring quite badly.

Give it a year and ScoMo will be PM at this rate

@deviant-it's not the terms of the deals it's the length of time they take to conclude.

A trade deal is much more than just tariffs-it's hundreds of pages of detail; compliance with local regulation etc.

If trade deals are so simple why do they take so long?

This isn't doom mongering - it's fact. We will not have any full formal agreements in place for years. When we get them they might be favorable but there's no guarantees. Yes we still be trading in the meantime but under WTO base rules.

And @deviant- VL have told us a lot of things that they have already distanced themselves from.

I hope you're right, I really do but no one in VL was or is an international trade negotiator and it's easy to make the process sound simple.

But even if you halved the time it currently takes to say 5 years that's still a long time to be under WTO rules and how many can you negotiate concurrently? 3 max? Even doing 10 at a time would still take 60 years best case.

A general election makes sense but the conservatives are in dissarray andLabour is imploding:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36632956 ]Half shadow cabinet to resign[/url]

That's assuming foot shooting isn't just and English and Welsh trait.

The only certainty is that no-one's done this before and therefore there's no precedent. Everything in front of us is grey (and I don't just mean the outlook) - for sure there are articles and agreements but if both sides are willing to negotiate then there's no reason why the early discussions can't be around which of these are flexible.

As for CMD's 'cowardice' - I don't see he had the option; how can he sensibly negotiate a deal that he doesn't believe in. As it is he's handed VL a ticking bomb to defuse but with an 'indefinite' timescale. If he'd been vindictive he could have started the timer on Friday for them.

No, then he would have gone down in history as the **** who actually pulled the trigger rather than merely being the **** who loaded the gun.

^this. He has pulled a political masterstroke out of the pool of fire and shit he created for himself. I hate the man but after this have a grudging admiration for what he's managed to engineer out of the situation.

Never has Catch 22 been so eloquently demonstrated than by the choice the next PM has to make.

Indeed such is the skill of the man he will not be remembered as the PM who ****ed a dead pig...

Plan C could always be DC puts Article 50 to the vote in the commons, they vote it down, no confidence in the governemnt, trigger an election and let somebody stand on a No EU/Pro EU basis.

Surely this is what Cameron should be doing- rather than using metaphors which imply to me that the captain is deserting the sinking ship, he should be preparing to sacrifice himself in the service of his country by doing the above, especially since he was the captain who set this particular course in the interest of being re-elected.

God knows, history would surely look more favourably on him, with this referendum appearing as a minor blip in twenty or so years time. The City, I'm sure would be more than happy to provide Cameron with whatever sort of a post-political career he might desire should we remain.

Ironically, I suspect that the referendum outcome will now trigger the sort of changes in the EU that Cameron was hopeful of negotiating for ourselves.

Realistically it would probably go better if the rebellion was against somebody else to make it look a lot less like a done deal probably with Cameron getting stuck in the gents while he should be voting

Thing is in the cold light of day who's going to want to be the pm who has to:

Decide whether to trigger A50
If triggered on what grounds to negotiate
Handle the Scottish issue
What to do about the Irish border issues
Sort out what's going to happen with the border at Calais
Calm the Markets
Run the country in the meantime

Good questions, but for sure it should be someone from the side who persuaded the electorate that these issues were worth addressing.

I assume they have a plan for them, don't they?

@mike German imports are dominated by cars. Yes we could easily handle buying less new cars from Germany and Fance. Japanese make fine cars and have a bigblead in Hybrid Technology.

Personally I am fine with trading under WTO rules and an immediate Article 50

As for the Article 50 process it wouod be no surprise if the cards where stacked towards the EU. One important place where they have the weaker hand is timing, its up to us to decide.

Where this is hugely beneficial is we could tactically trigger article 50 at the moment when the Greek / eurozone debt crises reaches the end game. I doubt we would do that as could well be terminal for the whole EU, but its an option albeit a nuclear one

Once again guys, the Leave Campaign was a campaign not a Government. There is a decent chance the negotiations and exit implementation will be carried out in part by the next Government, our medium term future will be determined by who we elect in 2020 and 2025

he should be preparing to sacrifice himself in the service of his country by doing the above, especially since he was the captain who set this particular course in the interest of being re-elected.

He will put his party interests first as that is why we had this vote in the first place

he is also making sure he passes on the poison chalice and the tough decision to Bo jo as a parting milestone for his kneck

Jambalaya, what is your solution to the Irish problem? You do realise that you ripped up the good Friday agreement, don't you?

jambalaya - Member
Once again guys, the Leave Campaign was a campaign not a Government

These are just ideas we have no intention or power or idea how to follow through with

Despite it all being called bs throughout the campaign you defended it to the hilt and are now doing the same as anyone else who spouted it.

Going back to the general election question, on the Andrew marr show just now a poll said 29% of labour voters from last election will not vote labour in the future. For me this is very worrying, seems like a far right Tory govt. is inevitable, I'm not sure if Many regions will get through this

I keep hearing about the Germans wanting to export to us in the UK. Now I get that article 50 is new ground but how exactly is Germany in the EU going to negotiate a trade deal with us if (though this maybe more "leave-fact") one of the things with our being in the EU is we weren't free to negotiate or own?

As far as I'm aware this is one of the few things genuinely true in the leave campaign (even if they believed the other stuff must of what was presented as fact by both sides was conjecture at best)

They don't need a trade agreement we just do it on the WTO terms.

Here is the lib dem moment

A GE is called and they stand up and say....we will not leave Europe. Fallon has already said as much. Could this be a Phoenix moment for the Pheonis party

I was thinking the same teamhurtmore.

*for the last time it's Farron... 🙂

Yes, ive already realised I might end up voting libdem this time. Not that it's likely to do any good in the safest Tory seat in the country.

@mike German imports are dominated by cars. Yes we could easily handle buying less new cars from Germany and Fance. Japanese make fine cars and have a bigblead in Hybrid Technology.

Great - we get to pay more for cars that aren't as good. Ditto pretty much anything else.

Personally I am fine with trading under WTO rules and an immediate Article 50

Great - everything imported will cost more, all our exports will cost more. Sounds brilliant.

As for the Article 50 process it wouod be no surprise if the cards where stacked towards the EU. One important place where they have the weaker hand is timing, its up to us to decide.

The cards are so stacked towards the EU it doesn't matter that we have one Joker. We can have lots of in-principle support for whatever unrealistic deal we think we'll get when we enact A50, only for it to be reneged upon once the clock is ticking. At best, we have a pair of twos.

Where this is hugely beneficial is we could tactically trigger article 50 at the moment when the Greek / eurozone debt crises reaches the end game. I doubt we would do that as could well be terminal for the whole EU, but its an option albeit a nuclear one

As primary school teachers often say (and that seems to be a tier above the level of intellect we appear to be dealing with here): It's your own time you're wasting. We play the card, they take 18 months to getting round to dealing with it because they're trying to fix a bigger mess, we have six months to negotiate.

Don't forget that the longer we drag this on for, the more businesses will have given up hope of the UK obtaining something beneficial, and they, their money, and their jobs will be off.

Yes, ive already realised I might end up voting libdem this time. Not that it's likely to do any good in the safest Tory seat in the country.

That is probably one of the reasons why they've remained so quiet throughout this whole affair: I can see people wanting a government that is as divorced from the referendum as possible.

Lib dems v whatever party farage renames ukip as? 😕 You can see labour and the tories getting serverly punished, some crazy kind of rainbow coalition is probably likely, eh?

Which comes back to the question, can they get this through parliament?

Yes, ive already realised I might end up voting libdem this time. Not that it's likely to do any good in the safest Tory seat in the country.

Breaking news-Sturgeon saying that Holyrood has power of veto over the UK leaving. Not sure why or how but given she's been chatting to her mates in Brussels maybe there's a rabbit in a hat somewhere.

A genius idea if she can pull it off. Westminster doesn't have to make a difficult call and can blame the nasty scots, she doesn't have to call a risky referendum-win win

Only if Brexit is put to vote in the House of Commons I think? Otherwise can't see how she can?

how can they not put it through the parliaments when it was a question of parliamentary sovereignty?

Something to do with requiring Holyrood as well as Westminster to ratify the decision.

I don't know what powers are devolved though and whether she's right. I can see some in Westminster backing the idea though. She won't give a shit about winding up the English voters - quite the contrary

ferrals - Member
Only if Brexit is put to vote in the House of Commons I think? Otherwise can't see how she can?

It wouldn't be that somebody has drawn up some very bad legislation? this is going to get messy